Perspective
Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0”
Prologue
I was reading stuff about something called “Library 2.0”—but the posts and items didn’t seem to cohere. I thought I could gather some statements, print them out, read them through, provide excerpts and commentary, and maybe make sense of the whole thing. I planned a typical Perspective, probably 3,500 to 7,500 words (5 to 10 pages). Along with a ©4: Locking Down Technology essay (on moves to resurrect the Broadcast Flag and a bill to close the analog hole), it would be one of two major pieces in a varied February 2006 Cites & Insights.
Unfortunately for well-laid plans, the more I read about Library 2.0 the more confused I got—and the more I felt the need for a broad overview not written by an advocate or evangelist. The core essay grew to 14,000 words. Editing cut that to about 13,000 and suggested the need to add more. (Final word count: just over 26,000 words including prologue and epilogue.) The result: This special issue—which I’m releasing as a single HTML file because I don’t want this prologue separated from the main essay.
I don’t claim I’ve provided the broad overview I was looking for. I have not synthesized a single view of either Library 2.0 or “Library 2.0,” possibly because I’m not sure such a view is possible. I do claim that this confusing, ragged, overlong piece does more to clarify the various sets of ideas behind the term than anything I’ve seen—possibly because I’m not an advocate or evangelist for the concepts or the term.
Once it was clear that the essay had become an issue, I sent out two invitations for new comments on Library 2.0—one emailed to a few colleagues whom I thought would have worthwhile things to say, the other an open call in a Walt at random post. Those calls directly resulted in eight new commentaries and indirectly in one or two more. I’ve incorporated portions of the responses, several new to the ongoing discussion (marked as “(new)” in subheadings.
I can’t say that anything about the concepts that make up Library 2.0 or the bandwagon called “Library 2.0” has become clear, but I do believe there’s a difference between the two. One problem with the bandwagon is that there isn’t one set of concepts behind the name. There are several: I think I can count four basic sets, and that may be low. I’m not sure they can be reconciled simply by enumerating them. Another problem is that the bandwagon attracts some who are eager to dismiss today’s libraries and librarians in favor of transformational change, as well as those whose desire is to continue to improve and extend library services.
Most concepts behind Library 2.0 are constructive, building on today’s best and improving for the future. Those concepts and tools should be—and are being—discussed, explored, and implemented as appropriate for various libraries depending on community needs and library resources. If there’s an argument here, it might be over relative priorities and expectations—and possibly what constitutes success, both in new and existing services. That’s the set of concepts, whether gathered under a moniker or not.
Then there’s “Library 2.0,” the movement or bandwagon. Some proclaiming “Library 2.0” as a movement are confrontational, deriding today’s libraries as irrelevant and today’s librarians as rigid and unchanging. Others are not. I find it hard to look at the term and not see confrontation, but that’s me. “Library 2.0” as a manifesto is, I believe, unfortunate. I question whether “Library 2.0” adds value to the sets of concepts and tools—and I wonder whether “Library 2.0” detracts from the concepts and tools by creating divisions where none are necessary.
I’m fascinated by the fact that most early Library 2.0 talk comes from public librarians (setting aside the vendor vector). Some of that discussion has a feel I’ve come to associate with academic librarians or library school faculty—informed by the energy and different environments of public libraries. That’s good and healthy. It’s particularly good to see that the wildly diverse range of public library communities and capabilities is being recognized in the process.
My reaction to some documents may be informed by my lack of an MLS. I have not been to library school. I was never inculcated with the idea that libraries—particularly public libraries—are all about information. I was impressed by Wayne Wiegand’s article in American Libraries 36:1 (January 2005), “Critiquing the curriculum: the entrenched LIS agenda needs to change to reflect the most critical functions of the library.” Which, incidentally, I retrieved and read from…my public library’s website, since that old-fashioned library makes it so easy for me to view Expanded Academic Index ASAP and other databases using my library card number.
I don’t believe public libraries have ever been most people’s primary source of current information, or indeed the first place you’d go looking for information in general. I don’t believe such a role is feasible or sensible (even as libraries do play important roles as providers of specialized and secondary information and as safety nets for those whose other information resources are impoverished). I’ve said so in a couple of books (Being Analog, for example) and several articles and columns. I believe “information” overstates the capabilities of public libraries even as it impoverishes the library’s roles as place, as collection of narratives (stories, if you will), as builder of local history, as the place kids learn to associate reading with fun…and so many other library successes.
If you believe libraries are all about information, I can see why you’d be threatened by the rise of Yahooglesoft (or MSGooya, if you prefer)—but newspapers, television, radio, magazines, the telephone, and other people have always been the way most people fill their everyday information needs. I’m bemused by the apparent need to make libraries the heart of the public’s everyday information usage. I don’t think it can happen and I’m not convinced it should happen. That colors my interpretation of what I’m reading.
I’m definitely a public library patron (and most definitely not a “customer”). I’m back to monthly visits (which puts me in a minority, I realize—I’ll be commenting on Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources in the near future). I use the library building primarily as a source of books and occasionally other media. Now that it’s no longer necessary to set a proxy to use the databases, I may use the library more as an online resource—but certainly not as my everyday source of information. If Mountain View introduces a library toolbar for me to plunk into Firefox, I probably won’t know about it—and if I do, I’m unlikely to use it. But that’s me.
What I sense in some Library 2.0 messages is a view of public libraries and their missions that is quite different from what I would have assumed. Maybe that’s a conversation that needs to be held. Without more explicit views of what people believe a library should be (and can be), it’s hard to put their views of “Library 2.0” in perspective.
I think Meredith Farkas got it right in one of her postings (discussed in Other Voices). If a miracle occurred one night and you woke up to find that your library was exactly what you think it should be—Library 2.0 or otherwise—what would it be like? And, once you say that, is that vision at all plausible in the real world? Those may be conversations that we need to have. If the fledgling bandwagon “Library 2.0” encourages those conversations, it’s a good thing.
This is the first time I’ve written about Library 2.0—but I don’t believe it’s the first time I’ve written about the concepts or the arguments involved. “Library Futures, Media Futures” (C&I 5:13, Mid-Fall 2005) falls into the same discussion space—as, to some extent, does “Predicting the Future of Academic Libraries” (C&I 5:9, July/August 2005). For all I know, there have been other portions of essays that relate to these topics. Certainly, if blogging and wikis are Web 2.0/Library 2.0 tools (as they appear to be), I’ve discussed them at considerable length.
The name is new. Some of the concepts are decades old. Some of the tools and techniques have been around for years (or decades), while some are new. Not all that new, to be sure. For example, I believe that Jenny Levine’s “shifted librarian” themes and Steven M. Cohen’s “library stuff” themes both consist primarily of tools and techniques now being claimed as part of Library 2.0. “Everything old is new again” is one of those phrases that regains relevance every few years, in one sphere or another. Combining old concepts with new tools is automatically new, to be sure; it’s one of the ways civilization progresses.
One reason for this prologue is that I do not want to stomp on people’s dreams and ideals. If this issue of Cites & Insights is read as boiling down to “Walt Crawford thinks Library 2.0 is all a bunch of crap and should be ignored,” then I’ve failed.
Some of the technologies being lumped together as “Web 2.0” (which may also be a lousy term) have significant value in building and improving library services in many libraries. A lot of that is being done. More will be. This is good.
For example, although I’m not a toolbar person, I’m certainly not opposed to libraries producing such toolbars. I’d love to see measures as to how many people (other than other librarians!) download them and what effect they have on use of library services. In general, I’m hoping there will be measurement of these services, particularly in those cases where there’s friction between providing new services and maintaining old ones.
I would love to see many public (and academic) libraries expand their roles as centers for preserving local history and culture, and I believe some of the “Web 2.0” tools could be important to facilitate citizen participation in building and maintaining such living local archives. Wikis, blogs, and other lightweight and sometimes interactive tools aren’t magic bullets, but this seems to be one area where they could be used effectively and economically to improve and possibly refresh an important local library function.
I don’t like zero-sum games, and I don’t think that adding Web 2.0-style services necessarily means reducing successful services. Some libraries and librarians, however, are up against real limits. They don’t all have the time, money, or attention to devote to building their own “Library 2.0” services; cooperative work may help—along with the recognition that not every librarian needs to be equally involved and that this isn’t an all-or-nothing process.
I’ve already expressed my suspicion that most active library users are unlikely to download library search toolbars—but I’d be happy to be proven wrong. I’m inclined to believe that using IM for online reference is a good thing (presumably alongside email, phone, and in-person reference for patrons with different needs and preferences)—but, you know, virtual reference was a Movement not all that long ago. If IM makes more sense for most libraries and their users than VR (which I suspect it does)—then maybe there’s reason to look carefully at a bandwagon before you commit too heavily to it. Time and attention are resources; sometimes they’re the most valuable resources you have.
For some of today’s most innovative libraries (e.g., Ann Arbor District Library by all accounts), it’s pretty clear that there will be measurement—and that the initiatives are true experiments. An experiment includes the possibility of failure: The possibility that building it does not always mean they will come. If you haven’t committed too heavily or dropped traditional alternatives, you either fine-tune the experiment—or you scrap it and try something different.
Some (probably most) of today’s most innovative librarians see these new initiatives within the broader framework of successful existing services, and see the desirability of attracting new users within the framework of retaining the users who love what libraries currently do. I have no argument with these innovators. I wish them nothing but the best, and look forward to reading of their successes. In my opinion, their initiatives will be evolutionary, not revolutionary. I don’t believe most American public libraries either require or would benefit from a revolution.
Initiatives based on newer web technologies should serve a public library’s mission. I don’t believe that mission will or should change all that rapidly. That mission needs to be a living document, and a realistic one. It’s not precisely the same mission for every public library—and it shouldn’t be. The thought of a national public library service or a uniform library service in the U.S. gives me the creeps.
I believe every state library conference should have at least one session related to some of the concepts and tools involved in Library 2.0 (not necessarily using that name). I’d be surprised if they didn’t. I don’t believe every state library association should turn its next conference into a “Library 2.0” gathering. I think that overstates the importance and urgency of either “Library 2.0” or Library 2.0, and presumes that there is a coherent “Library 2.0” to confer about.
Library 2.0 is disruptive.1
Library 2.0 is a path toward improvement of services.17
Library 2.0 means abandoning services that serve small or unimportant groups.14
Library 2.0 means never having stable production-quality systems.2
Library 2.0 is not about replacing 1.0 technology.7
Library 2.0 will replace existing library services.3
Library 2.0 is about adding additional functionality—and that’s threatening to some people.8
Library 2.0 is revolutionary.16
Library 2.0 is about improving services to patrons—not a revolution.36
Library 2.0 is not about technology.4
Library 2.0 is all about technology.53
Library 2.0 is a way of thinking and operating.5
Library 2.0 is a matter of survival.31
Library 2.0 is too much, too soon for many libraries; most would be served better by trying one or two new ideas.47
Library 2.0 discussions must take place in your library!12
Library 2.0 is a new name for ideas librarians have been discussing for quite some time.35
Library 2.0 is so urgent that every state and national library association needs to plan a Library 2.0 conference ASAP!21
Library 2.0 is sloganeering, signifying very little.42
Library 2.0 will offer services people want; current libraries offer services most people don’t want.9
Library 2.0 is the wrong message at the wrong time.52
Library 2.0 means massive change in every library, since all existing libraries are restrictive places with rigid boundaries underpinned by change-avoidance.10a&b
Library 2.0 features may not be feasible or useful for all communities and libraries.24
Library 2.0 is the only way libraries will remain viable.11
Library 2.0 lumps disparate things with a contrived term that detracts from the real ideas.51
Library 2.0 means libraries that fill your emotional needs.13
Library 2.0 encompasses every library that doesn’t want to be a relic.29
Library 2.0 as a doctrine is too universal for the needs of real libraries.39
Library 2.0 means constant change.15
Library 2.0 puts the librarian anywhere a user’s heart takes them.18
Library 2.0 is needed if the library is to continue to matter.30
Library 2.0 is a paradigm shift that changes almost everything in a library.37
Library 2.0 is hype that can interfere with the sound ideals involved.38
Library 2.0 means the user can modify library services.19
Library 2.0 builds OPACS without local databases.20
Library 2.0 is about rock bands in the library and gaming nights as library services.22
Library 2.0 services will primarily serve the minority who are always connected.23
Library 2.0 requires that libraries have more rights with regard to their systems.25
Library 2.0 won’t even require systems knowledge within libraries; you’ll just run a black box.26
Library 2.0 is “L2” when you’re in the In Crowd.6
Library 2.0 doesn’t (or shouldn’t) allow for a concise definition.27
Library 2.0 should reach critical mass within two years.28
Library 2.0 won’t even require hardware, databases, or application servers!32
Library 2.0 will, for the first time, deliver meaningful service to end users.33
Library 2.0 principles sound vaguely familiar—like the things academic librarians have been doing for some time.50
Library 2.0 is too important to leave to librarians and users; vendors must also help to shape it.34
Library 2.0 is WorldCat with an API.40
Library 2.0 is library-centric rather than user-centric.41
Library 2.0 is confrontational: You’re with us or you’re against us.43
Library 2.0 could disenfranchise those who need libraries the most.44
Library 2.0 focuses on the technology end of customer service without any discussion of the other aspects of library work.45
Library 2.0 trivializes exciting and useful work that isn’t “Web 2.0” enough.46
Library 2.0 gives us new tools to carry out the best practices libraries have had for many years.48
Library 2.0 will allow libraries to serve community needs; otherwise, they’re only symbols of wealth and refinement.49
Library 2.0 adds even more layers of obfuscation between librarians and the public.54
Library 2.0 means making your library’s space (virtual and physical) more interactive, collaborative, and driven by community needs.55
Library 2.0 is first and foremost an effort to reach out to those people who, for whatever reason, are not using the services libraries offer.56
Library 2.0 is anything that challenges the traditional approach to conducting library business.57
Library 2.0 is nothing different that what librarians have been striving for for decades.58
Library 2.0 is just a faddish catchphrase.59
Library 2.0 is an attempt to bring libraries’ electronic services up to par with what people expect in a Web 2.0 environment.60
Library 2.0 is a new sense of ownership over library services and a new set of relationships with both vendors and others in the library community.61
Library 2.0 is a more intensive way of sharing all the resources that the library already offers.62
“Library 2.0 is a model for library service that reflects a transition within the library world in the way that services are delivered to library users. This redirection will be especially evident in electronic offerings such as OPAC configuration, online library services, and an increased flow of information from the user back to the library. The concept of Library 2.0 borrows from that of Web 2.0, and follows some of the same philosophies underpinning that concept. Proponents of this concept expect that ultimately the Library 2.0 model for service will replace outdated, one-directional service offerings that have characterized libraries for centuries.[3]” [Wikipedia—or Michael Casey]
“Library 2.0 sees the reality of our current user-base and says, “not good enough, we can reach more people.” It seeks to do this through a three-part approach—reaching out to new users, inviting customer participation, and relying on constant change. Much of this is made possible thanks to new technologies, but the services will only be partially tech-based.” [Michael Casey take 2]
“L2 is, to me, a service philosophy built upon three things; a willingness to change and try new things; a willingness to constantly re-evaluate our service offerings; and finally, a willingness to look outside our own world for solutions, be they technology-driven or not (this is where Web 2.0 fits in).” [Michael Casey take 3]
“Library 2.0 is not about technology[4]. Library 2.0 seeks to harvest good ideas from outside and use them to deliver improved and new services, often times in an effort to reach a new target population. Library 2.0 is, at its core, a way of thinking, a way of operating[5]. It’s a framework for integrating change into all levels of library operations. It’s in our effort to reach this new level of service that we will utilize these new, often times Web 2.0, technologies.” [Casey Bisson]
“The whole 2.0 thing in general seems to be about using the hive mind and the affordances of technology to synthesize newer, better and more useful systems that then become available for everyone.” [Jessamyn West]
“The idea of Library 2.0 represents a significant paradigm shift in the way we view library services. It’s about a seamless user experience, where usability, interoperability, and flexibility of library systems is key. It’s about the library being more present in the community through programming, community building (both online and physical), and outreach via technology (IM, screencasting, blogs, wikis, etc.). It’s about allowing user participation through writing reviews and tagging in the catalog and making their voice heard through blogs and wikis. It’s about making the library more transparent through its Web presence and its physical design. We need to make the library human, ubiquitous, and user-centered. This involves a change in our systems, our Web presence, and our very attitudes. It will take a lot of work for a library to be completely 2.0, but the idea should inform every decision made at the library[37].” [Meredith Farkas]
“Library 2.0 simply means making your library’s space (virtual and physical) more interactive, collaborative, and driven by community needs[55]. Examples of where to start include blogs, gaming nights for teens, and collaborative photo sites. The basic drive is to get people back into the library by making the library relevant to what they want and need in their daily lives...to make the library a destination and not an afterthought.” [Sarah Houghton]
When this essay began, I had 40-odd pieces arranged chronologically; as I went through them marking for citation and commentary, it became clear that chronological order wouldn’t work—and that I’d have to download lots of stuff, if only because key sources such as Tame the web use “Web 2.0” tools that discourage complete printing for radicals who use Firefox. (I guess wanting to contemplate something in print form is awfully old fashioned.)
It finally seemed more sensible to organize by person or source rather than by date. That’s what I’ve done, starting with Wikipedia, continuing to the person identified in that article (by himself!) as the originator of Library 2.0, going on to other people with lots to say on the subject, then moving to less voluminous individual perspectives. I started that process in very late December; more quotes were added through January 6, 2006 (5 p.m. PST).
Unquestionably, the results are ragged. This lack of overall coherence is either because I’m too set in my ways, ignorant of the inevitabilities of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0, and desperate to avoid change to see the clear movement set forth here—or because Library 2.0 is a term that means whatever anyone chooses to claim it means.
I’ve cut out much of my own commentary in these sections in the interests of space and preserving the original voices, but this is my perspective, not “neutral” journalism.
The entry begins with Wikipedia’s definition (above). Michael Casey coined the term, it debuted at Internet Librarian 2005 in Michael Stephens’ speech, and it’s a “direct spin-off of the term Web 2.0.”
I would quote the set of “key principles” as well—but that would be such an extensive quotation that it could fall outside the realm of fair use. I don’t understand the GNU Free Documentation License well enough to determine whether it’s compatible with the Creative Commons BY-NC license that Cites & Insights operates under, and I’m not ready to reprint the necessary GFDL stuff…so I’ll quote key principles as they appear elsewhere. I will note two principles I find especially troubling, at least without loads of commentary I have yet to see: “Beta is forever[2]” and “Library 2.0 is a disruptive idea.[1]”
In the first case, I think there’s an enormous distinction between “Systems should continue to evolve, with new releases whenever there’s tested functionality” and “No system needs to reach production-level quality and stability,” which is my informal definition of “beta.” I don’t believe library patrons should be the testers for library systems and services, and that’s what “beta” means to me.
In the second case, I don’t get why “disruptive” is inherently a good thing or, for that matter, what’s disruptive about Library 2.0. The principle sets up a confrontation: “We’re out to disrupt the library.” If that’s not what’s meant, then explanations are needed.
If you’re wondering who serves as the authority that Michael Casey originated the term “Library 2.0,” you need look no further than the contributor of the article itself: “Mecasey.”
I find the definition bemusing, particularly since I know of only one service offering that has characterized libraries for centuries: Circulating books. That’s certainly one-directional. Most public library patrons wouldn’t consider it outdated. Are they wrong?
“Michael Casey is a self-proclaimed Library Scientist and Information Technology Theorist” according to his About page. The Library crunch blog (www.librarycrunch.com) is explicitly all about Library 2.0.
Casey quotes Casey Bisson’s summary of what Library 2.0 is about (Seven Definitions). He points to Michael Stephens’ list of “fundamental goals” as something everyone should be able to agree on—in a post that includes the following paragraph:
One thing [Laura Savastinuk] mention[s] that goes through my mind a lot is, “what is a library?” I’m not sure we know anymore, and I fear one of the things we’re going to see is increasingly diverse interpretations of what a library really is. There is no way to begin including some of the things that have been discussed as being L2[6] without thinking that libraries may soon begin deviating from each other’s understanding of library.
I’m mystified by this. Savastinuk’s message includes: “Is [a library] a building or an organization or just an idea?”
Also in the series of posts, I see a link to one of the supposed “disruptive” Library 2.0 technologies: RFID. What’s disruptive about RFID? Unless, of course, it’s implemented in borrower cards as well as materials in such a way as to disrupt the library “tradition” of borrower confidentiality.
Casey approves of John Blyberg’s statement:
Library 2.0 is not about replacing 1.0 technology[7]. It’s about adding additional functionality and if that is threatening to some people, then it means it’s good technology[8].
If that’s true, then I really wonder about “disruptive.” Good libraries have been adding functionality for decades, probably ever since there have been good libraries. That’s part of being living organizations.
I’ve only been in the library field for five decades. I don’t know the longer history that well. During those five decades, I can vouch for a continuing record of added functionality and ongoing change in public and academic libraries.
Casey uses business terms for library functions—”customer” and “ROI.” I believe there’s a significant difference between a (business) customer and a (library) user or patron. I’m bothered by the extent to which pure ROI measures make it easy to jettison still-important goods and services because they aren’t as hot as other choices, particularly when those services favor the disadvantaged, who typically aren’t high-profile or high-tech users. Casey is strong on reaching “a new target population” (although I’m unclear as to what that population is). I find myself looking for comments on forsaking or caring about existing populations.
Is Library 2.0 intentionally confrontational? Consider this quote:
The reality is that the number of users who have needs that are not being met outnumbers those whose needs we are meeting. In other words, we are offering services that are not wanted by a majority of our population.[9]
Proof? Are there surveys that show most people don’t want the library services that exist, at a time when (according to most surveys) most people use the library, if not always on a steady basis? What “needs” (that a library can plausibly meet) are not being met?
Given Casey’s statement that “Library 1.0 is whatever point you are at now[10a],” this says it nicely: “I think that what we need to remember is that Library 1.0 is a restrictive place, governed by strict hierarchies, rigid boundaries, and underpinned by change-avoidance[10b].”
Casey recognized library history in the January 3, 2006 “Born in the biblioblogosphere”:
What is Library 2.0? Does it matter that we have a finite definition? Michael Stephens over at Tame the Web has a new post that asks us if Library 2.0 is more than technology. Yes, I think it is. Stephen M. Cohen over on Library Stuff argues that library 2.0 is merely a continuation of the Baltimore County Public Library’s “Give ‘em What they Want” philosophy of service. Perhaps. But let’s look at this quote:
See that your library is interesting to the people of the community, the people who own it, the people who maintain it. Deny your people nothing which the bookshop grants them. Make your library at least as attractive as the most attractive retail store in the community. Open your eyes to the cheapness of books at the present day, and to the unimportance, even to the small library, of the loss of an occasional volume; and open them also to the necessity of getting your constituency in actual contact with the books themselves.
This was written by John Cotton Dana and published in Library Journal’s December 1896 edition. 1896. Was Dana espousing something similar to Library 2.0? Perhaps. Has our battle been going on this long? Absolutely. Will our battle continue for another hundred years? Yep.
I bring this up because I think there’s a misperception that Library 2.0 is trying to be a zero-sum answer to an age-old problem. It is not. Library 2.0 is a service philosophy—a theory, if you will—that attempts to guide libraries in their effort to win new users while, at the same time, acknowledging that our current service offerings are insufficient and inflexible. Built into L2 is the realization that libraries are never really going to be able to reach this level of Platonic ideal that so many of us set as our goal. But also built into L2 is the understanding that we will never stop trying to reach that level of service, and that we will use every tool at our disposal in our attempt. [Next paragraph appears in Seven Definitions as Michael Casey, take 2.]
So yes, perhaps L2 is simply a continuation of the ideas of Dana and BCPL and so many other attempts at greater and greater community reach. But Library 2.0 is not the idea of any one individual. It was born in the biblioblogosphere in the writings of many diverse thinkers, and while one concise definition will never fit L2, there is a certain understanding that Library 2.0 represents, at a bare minimum, a discussion point around which many will offer ideas and discuss solutions…
Why a “battle”? Why is it necessary to denigrate current service offerings in order to suggest new ones? How about saying “We’re doing great for some people. Can we reach others with appropriate library services within our resources?” The answer will frequently be yes, and the tools will frequently (I suspect) be ones borrowed from “Web 2.0.”
In preparing this article, I read through every post on Casey’s log (up to January 6, 2005). I haven’t quoted them all. You can (and should) read them yourself. I see grousing about being too attached to successful services and systems. (How can you be too attached to success?) I see indications that, as far as Casey’s concerned, every existing library is a hidebound hierarchical organization that avoids change.
What I don’t see in Casey’s comments are examples of services demanded by library users (other than technogeeks) that current libraries aren’t capable of performing and aren’t experimenting with, and in some cases implementing. I don’t see recognition of the significance of circulating physical materials. I don’t see explication of the vast potential audiences that libraries aren’t reaching because they’re not 2.0ish. I get the distinct impression that Casey thinks current public libraries are failures. Else why the insistence on disruption rather than improvement?
Here’s a recent statement from Casey, indirectly in Tame the web:
I find it ironic that, as someone who loves technology and is desperate to see it better integrated into library operations, I find myself arguing over and over that Library 2.0 is not strictly a tech-driven philosophy. L2 is first and foremost an effort to reach out to those people who, for whatever reason, are not using the services libraries offer[56]. Many Web 2.0 applications will assist us in this effort, but so will non-tech approaches. Teen concerts and gaming nights are but two small pieces in the L2 arsenal, but if they help us reach those non-users then they need to be included.
I’m constantly reminded that not all libraries have the same technological resources, work within the same political frameworks, or have the same financial abilities. If L2 is to be inclusive then it must offer services to a broad spectrum of libraries. If L2 is to be successful it cannot simply focus on the technology, it must use whatever tools are available to go after new users. [Next paragraph appears in Seven Definitions as Michael Casey, take 3.]
These paragraphs are less confrontational than earlier ones—and the first paragraph shifts Library 2.0 in a very different direction, making it primarily about reaching new users. The second paragraph recognizes the real world—except that it suggests that this inchoate set of ideas is a set of services. As to the definition: I agree that this philosophy makes sense at least as part of a library philosophy, and would comment that many libraries and librarians have been doing that for many years, even if Casey does say we’re all in rigid, hierarchical Library 1.0.
If Casey originated the term Library 2.0, Stephens has done the most among non-vendors to build the bandwagon for “Library 2.0,” using not one but two high-profile blogs and speaking engagements.
November 14, 2005, ALA TechSource:
This is a given in my world: To remain viable[11], interesting, and relevant, libraries should seek methods to get out into the community, engage users with services and conversations, and offer collaborative spaces both online and in beautiful physical buildings.
“[R]emain viable, interesting, and relevant”—Stephens starts from the position that today’s libraries do something right. I find little to disagree with in that paragraph: Those are desirable things to do. Stephens then tells librarians that they should all (apparently) be out there using these “social tools,” a list that seems to keep growing. I’m inclined to agree that most libraries need to have some people who are familiar with social software applications (although not every staff member and certainly not every piece of social software!), so I’m not going to argue this one. “All it will take is time and some patience” only goes so far, however, particularly as social software proliferates. I’m not sure that I see blogs and flick.r as equivalent, or that I see blogs as inherently social or participative in nature. Without comments enabled, blogs are just lightweight publishing tools.
Four days later, Stephens points to the Talus white paper (below) and says firmly that Library 2.0-related discussions “must take place in YOUR library[12].” (Emphases in original.) No matter how small, no matter how poorly supported, every library must be discussing Library 2.0 right now: That’s strong stuff. He offers his own take on the four Library 2.0 “principles” set forth in the white paper and adds three of his own (at the end):
Ø The library is everywhere
Ø The library has no barriers
Ø The library invites participation
Ø The library uses flexible, best-of-breed systems
Ø The library encourages the heart
Ø The library is human
Ø The library recognizes that its users are human too.
Discussing the need for the library to be everywhere, he notes a doctoral student saying how easy it was to use Google from her cell phone to find information. Stephens asked, “Did you even think about the library?” and she said “No.” My immediate question: Why should she? The library has never been the primary source of immediate information for most people, nor can it serve that function. A library that attempts to be all things to all people, to serve all information needs under all circumstances, is a library that will fail: Its people and other resources will be stretched too thin to do anything well.
As to Stephens’ three principles, I won’t comment on the first for the moment, although looking at his commentary, I have to admit I’ve never looked to libraries to “fulfill…my emotional needs[13].” I don’t look to any secular institution to do that. The second is simply wrong. Librarians and library staff are human. Libraries are institutions.
That same post quotes Michael Casey in a manner I find consistent with Casey’s early posts—and inconsistent with my idea of what libraries and librarians should be about:
“We also need to look at all of the services we offer and ask ourselves, ‘Do they still serve our customers?’ and ‘Do they serve a large-enough group that our ROI is positive?’[14] he queries. “Library 2.0 is, perhaps above all else, the idea of constant change[15]. Not only constant library change, but the recognition that our communities are constantly changing and that our services to them must change proportionally.” [Emphasis added.]
The first makes sense despite the unfortunate “customers.” The second is too businesslike and dismissive for my taste, and clears the way for further disadvantaging the already disadvantaged. A good public library is, in my opinion, something more than a simple reflection of current community desires. It should serve the “long now” and strive to serve portions of the public served badly by society as a whole.
Comments clarify Casey’s attitude: “[W]e speak in terms of revolution, in this case a revolution in the way library services are conceived and delivered.[16]” He’s rejecting the notion that an existing library automation vendor can be useful in defining Library 2.0: “I am hesitant to look to those companies that fueled Library 1.0 as the purveyors of ideas that will bring about our understanding of library 2.0.” Does this extend to librarians—that anyone involved in the present is unqualified to contribute to the future? That’s the way revolutions usually work, and it means I have no business even commenting. Stephens says he agrees with Casey’s comment.
Before moving to Stephens’ own blog, it’s worth noting a conversation with Michael Casey posted December 15, 2005, after a number of librarians raised questions about Library 2.0. Casey stresses “bringing in new users” in the context of using limited resources. Stephens generalizes that “our users are the ones using some of the Web tools and sites…” noting Yahoo 360 and MySpace, and talking about gaming sessions at libraries as “a little bit of the future.” Really? What portion of the population uses Yahoo 360? Stephens asks one of those self-answering questions: “Are some librarians roadblocking L2?” Confrontation, pure and simple—and the astonishing notion that “L2” is already so advanced and has such momentum, less than two months after first mention, that “roadblocking” is a possibility.
In this discussion, Casey seems to change gears: “I hope we can see L2 as a path toward change, toward improvement of services[17].” He continues to focus on “the masses that do not yet use our services.” Stephens brings up “the heart” again: “Wherever a library user’s heart takes them is where the librarian should be—in person or online.[18]” This seems to portray “the librarian” as a full-time online psychotherapist. There are many places “a library user’s heart” may take them that librarians don’t belong, at least not in a world with more than one institution and with real limits.
Another conversation was posted January 5, 2006, this one with Michael Golrick. I’ve excerpted some of Golrick’s comments under his own name; here’s a noteworthy comment from Stephens:
L2 certainly is not one size fits all or seeks to only serve users who are plugged in at home, but isn’t it oh-so easy to focus on the coolness factor of tools like flickr and forget that many, many folks have no need for a spiffy tagged photo of a library program? I wonder if some of the solutions I’ve pondered, such as digital creation stations, where the library would provide state of the art PCs to create just about any type of content one’s heart might desire and training sessions for folks on those tools might help the folks that don’t have access at home? Circulating laptops, like Darien Library does in Darien, CT, might be an option as well.
It’s true enough that “many folks have no need for a spiffy tagged photo of a library program.” Otherwise, these suggestions run up against real-world limitations, although they admittedly bring the public into the library: How many libraries can afford enough “state of the art PCs” to serve the extended needs of content creators, or to circulate laptops? Is this a good use of library resources for most libraries? As Golrick says, training is great: No disagreement here.
On his own blog, Stephens quotes Casey’s definition (actually that from Casey Bisson, quoted in Seven Definitions) approvingly, but also says “Absolutely!” to Jessamyn West’s definition (ditto). West’s definition is much less disruptive and revolutionary (and conflicts with Casey’s “not about technology”). But what about “the hive mind”? Here’s the first definition from our friend Wikipedia: “A hive mind (sometimes spelled hivemind) is a form of collective consciousness strongly exhibiting traits of conformity and groupthink.” Surely that can’t be what Stephens is applauding? I would have thought social software and collaborative systems were about differences and clusters of agreement, not about “conformity and groupthink,” and that libraries in particular would avoid groupthink. I set this down to definitional difficulties within Library 2.0 and around its edges.
On December 7, Stephens collected various “Library 2.0 principles.” Some I haven’t already noted:
Ø Browser + Web 2.0 Applications + Connectivity = Full-featured OPAC[20]
Ø Library users should be able to craft and modify library provided services[19]
Ø Harvest and integrate ideas and products from peripheral fields into library service models
Ø The library facilitates the user’s discovery of their many information options and how to choose wisely from among them
Ø The library integrates itself into those places, physical and virtual, where learning takes place.
The first of these is mysterious. Somewhere there must be at least two levels of database/server functionality (bibliographic and location data, and circulation data), and I don’t see how that arises from the equation provided.
On December 22, Stephens responds to the suggestion for a Library 2.0 conference with this: “Every state library association should be planning this type of conference—or say, a NATIONAL LIBRARY ORGANIZATION might plan it for all of us—ASAP![21]”
Other than changing Library 2.0 from a bandwagon to the bandwagon, Stephens gives his list of “Defining moments: Library 2.0 events of 2005.” Blake Carver told Stephens that he’s not a fan of Library 2.0 (Stephens now uses “L2” most of the time), to which Stephens replied “if naming the concepts got people thinking and talking about change in libraries [I’m] all for it.” Librarians have been thinking, talking about and carrying out change for a lot longer than Michael Stephens has been alive, without always feeling the need to wrap a hip term around it. That’s one of the assumptions that bothers me in these discussions: Before Library 2.0, librarians and libraries did not change. Sez who?
Here are the “defining moments[22]”—particularly interesting given Casey’s assertion that “Library 1.0 is whatever point you are at now.”
Ø The Ann Arbor District Library website (which features a blog as the home page).
Ø 2005 as tipping point for IM (pointing to a website with a list of 50 libraries using IM reference—ten of the 50 being public rather than academic). “If your library hasn’t considered it, please do so in 2006! Rock ON!”
Ø The TALIS White Paper (see under Talis)
Ø LibraryCrunch debuts—in other words, a blog is a defining point!
Ø Social Software at Conferences: Internet Librarian 2005, which was “blogged, wiki’d and flickered like crazy.”
Ø Rock the shelves: “Band night” at the library (another Michael Casey “defining point,” apparently).
Ø The gaming symposium.
Ø Flickr libraries.
Ø SJCPL Wiki Subject Guides. SJCPL is Stephens’ library. The subject guides are librarian-created using a wiki, and allow discussion from users (not direct editing of the subject guides). As of December 28, 2005, users have added discussions to two of the 17 guides—which, this early, isn’t bad.
Ø The Conversation Begins—that is, the discussion of which this Perspective is part.
Even though every library today is Library 1.0, the one mentioned first in this list of defining moments (AADL) is trying initiatives and looking at the results. John Blyberg discusses that in a fine post that should be read in context: www.blyberg.net/2005/12/04/lessons-learned-aadlorg-30/
A January 2, 2006 update brings together comments on Stephens’ list of “ten L2 events of 2005” and responses to one of the comments. Some excerpts and notes follow, noting that these aren’t all Michael Stephens’ voice. I moved some of them to other sections as appropriate.
[Steve Lawson of See also]: “I think that “Rock the Shelves” and the Gaming Symposium are fantastic, but I’m not sure how they fit the L2 meme. I have been thinking of L2 as the library version of Web 2.0: lightweight, social computing applications to meet users’ needs when, where, and how they need it.
If we include innovative programs for young people like gaming and music, where do we draw the line? Is a poetry slam L2? Summer reading programs? Is the new coffee cart in my college library L2? I don’t mean that cynically—I’m really curious to hear what Michael and others think, and am willing to change my mind.”
[Michael Stephens’ response:] Thanks for the comment. I totally understand your thinking. It’s confusing attaching a name to this huge thing we are discussing. I’m still trying to make sense of it all. Each time we encounter a good question or another viewpoint, the concept that carries this meme comes clearer to me.
The problem here is that Michael Stephens is doing more than anyone else to insist on a name and to turn it into a movement.
I believe L2 is bigger than technology and bigger than just planning for fabulous library services. The biggest part in my thinking is the personal bit: librarians embracing change to become master of all information tools, digital and otherwise. A deep sea-change for some folks from the “we’ve always done it this way” mode to one of “Bring it on, baby, bring it on...” when encountering the wide ripples of change coming at us daily. This is the heart of L2 for me... Librarian 2.0. if you will. So it’s about tech and it’s about not huffing and puffing when a library wants to implement IM or DDR and it’s about the Coffee Cart if that makes a welcoming space all the more inviting for users and so on.
There’s a huge gap between “we’ve always done it this way” and embracing all change for the sake of change—the “bring it on, baby” attitude. I would suggest that “master of all information tools” is an implausible role for anyone, much less every librarian.
Maybe we should reinvent ourselves and our libraries.
This moves from improvement to revolution—a stance that requires some showing that today’s librarians and libraries are failing, as opposed to being less than they could be.
After several commentaries (which now appear in sections on Michael Casey, Stephen Abram, and John Blyberg), Steve Lawson replied (in part):
I think I’m more or less convinced that a broader definition of Library 2.0 is the proper way to go. I have been lucky, in that during my five years as a professional librarian, I have worked in libraries that embraced change and collaboration. So to that extent, my entire career has been L2. Given these parameters, the director at my library is very L2, and I don’t think she is familiar with the term (yet). In the three years I have been at Colorado College, the library has found a new home for the student writing center, added a multimedia lab, added a coffee cart, and may be the new home for the IT help desk; all these changes with the goal of providing help (or caffeine!) to students when and where they need it,even at the expense of giving up some space (always at a premium, of course)….
Some possible dangers to the more inclusive definition: If L2 just means “responding creatively to change,” some of the energy around the idea might dissipate as people say “we have always done that.” Too wide a definition also lends itself to parody: these new user-empowering bookmarks are L2! Open stacks are L2! Michael’s anti-establishment hair is totally L2! ;)
Michael Casey says every library is Library 1.0. Steve Lawson disagrees. After seeing some of the comments—specifically Blyberg’s “anything else new and exciting that is counterintuitive to the library stereotype”—I’m not sure it’s possible to parody “Library 2.0.” (Another comment from Steve Lawson appears later, a response to my open call.)
I don’t believe Michael Stephens would dismiss today’s libraries as worthless or on the verge of failure, although he never disagrees with those who do. I do believe he overstates the rigidity of current libraries, the extent to which disruption is necessary or desirable, and—by a long shot—the extent to which it would make sense for all library associations to arrange their conferences around “Library 2.0” as the most important game in town in 2006. Stephens wants libraries to improve (or continue to improve) and thinks that social software and other “Web 2.0” concepts and tools can help that improvement. I see nothing wrong with that.
John Blyberg is lead developer at Ann Arbor District Library and runs www.blyberg.net, which I’ll admit is sufficiently code-heavy at times that I only recently added it to Bloglines. Ya gotta love a blogger who starts a blog in August 2005, posts two posts, then isn’t heard from again until October 28, 2005—without apology or comment. My kind of blogger (sincerely)! I requested permission to quote nearly all of some of Blyberg’s posts; he immediately granted it and looked forward to my criticism.
The first Library 2.0 commentary I can find in Blyberg’s log dates from November 8: “Library 2.0 Perils.” He comments on a blog posting about Web 2.0 issues and relates them to Library 2.0—noting that AADL is “working very hard…to bring a number of major Web 2.0 features online.” Maybe his hard work is what brings forth these sensible commentaries, excerpted below (omitting the fourth, since it forms the basis for Blyberg’s November 20 post):
1)…Before we hype features that the technology elite embrace, ask, “[W]ill our patrons feel the same way?” The other consideration you may want to make is, “is it technically feasible to offer these features?” In some libraries, the answer to both these questions might be ‘no.’[24]
2)…[M]uch of the social-oriented software requires a permaconnection. I’m used to being online all the time and when I go to my full-blown-geek conferences, I’d say that about 80-90% of the attendees have laptops. When I went to IL05, I’d reckon that percentage was around 35-30%. Apparently, that was the highest ever at an IL, and IL attracts the ‘techie’ library people. When I look at…graphs…for all four branches in Ann Arbor, I see peaks of 10-15 simultaneous wifi users. While 2.0-type functionality doesn’t necessarily require a permaconnection, I’d venture to guess that these permaconnectees are the minority who will appreciate and use those features[23].
3) It’s one thing to talk about Web 2.0 or Library 2.0, but if you’re only talking about it, that’s not implementing it in any meaningful way. To implement it, you need to fully understand the technologies behind it. Ajax is a great example… I see “Ajax” bandied about like a tambourine at a Phish show, but if you’ve used it, you’ll agree with me that it’s a tricky beast to get working properly... Gmail is the only semi-widescale use of Ajax that I know of, and tightened-down Windows 2003 policies break it.
These excerpts all make sense to me.
Blyberg’s second major commentary on Library 2.0 is on November 20: “ILS Customer Bill-of-Rights.”
There is a lot of talk about what Library 2.0 is, what Web 2.0 means to us, and what technologies can benefit us (RSS, tagging, etc). Fine. ILS vendors are going to see this as a potential gold rush and try to capitalize on it at, what I fear, is our expense. And we may quite possibly be enabling them.
Why do I say this? Well, first, let’s look at what’s at stake here. Essentially it’s our data: our catalogs, our patrons, our website content, our library programming, etc. This is our precious gold. This is the raw material that we will use to shape the future of library services. The traditional business model that ILS vendors have pursued (and forced on us) does not give us the freedom to use our own data in the way that we’re ultimately going to want to use it.
That’s where the problem arises. If we put pressure on ILS vendors to begin providing new Web 2.0 type services, they most certainly will. They’ll charge for it, you’ll pay it and finally have RSS feeds, blogging functionality, whatever. Excuse me, but that’s crap.
Let me use RSS as an example. RSS 1.0 was born December 2000. RSS 2.0 in September 2002. It’s almost 2006 and ILS vendors are just now starting to unveil some RSS feeds. We shouldn’t be treating those announcements like watershed moments. They’re tidbits of “too-little-too-late” packaged in shiny wrappers, served with a helping of “Who’s your Daddy?”
No, that’s not ok. It’s certainly not innovative. We need another model that will allow us to handle progress ourselves because we can not, must not, rely on our vendors. So what should we be asking them for? In the face of Web 2.0 advancements, what is something concrete to demand of vendors that will enable us to implement our own individual visions of Library 2.0 and prepare us for what comes after?
I envision a library Bill-of-Rights with four simple, but fundamental must-have’s from your ILS.[25]
1) Open, read-only, direct access to the database.
When I say “open” I mean, we should be able to run any query at all against our own data, however absurd it may be. “read-only” because I understand the need to protect data integrity, but no harm can come, whatsoever, from getting your own data out…
2) A full-blown, W3C standards-based API to all read-write functions
This is the big one, because all else stems from here. We ought to be able to access every level of functionality inside our automation system using an open standards API…
Given these tools, libraries would be empowered to roll out new services and features in their time-frame, not that of the vendor. Vendors could still (and should still) provide templates for the more popular features such as RSS, but we wouldn’t be reliant on them….
3) The option to run the ILS on hardware of our choosing, on servers that we administer
We should have access to the machines that run our ILS. This does two things.
First, it ensures that we’re not being taken advantage of. If vendors know that we can log in and install better alternatives to the software and hardware they are reselling us (I’m thinking backup software in particular), they might be less apt to screw us with our pants on.
Second, it gives us the flexibility to run software locally doing tasks that we might not otherwise be able to do, such as cron jobs that parse logs, data files, etc….
4) High security standards
I’ve made no secret of the fact that I think library infosec is unacceptable. Vendors need to step up now, review their best practices, and implement some very radical changes to the way they’re handling everything from roll-outs to patches to access protocols….
Looking at this list of four fundamentals, I’m thinking, “this is as basic as it gets.” This is not shoot-for-the-moon stuff. Yet, if conceded these features, we’d be given all the tools we need to permanently change the way we adapt to emerging trends.
I quote that much for two reasons: Because it connects the Library 2.0 discussions so far with the vendor vector to come, and because (as modified in later posts) I believe Blyberg is pretty much on the money.
This Bill of Rights presumes that there will be an ILS or its modular equivalent in the library—that librarians can and should build new functionality on the basis of in-house databases, not by attempting to turn everything into a web service (although much of the functionality may be delivered as web services).
Talis responded to this post. Blyberg’s comment on Talis’ response, which you should read directly at www.blyberg.net/2005/11/24/talis-responds-to-bill-of-rights/, does not back down on the four key rights. I find one of Talis’ (Richard Wallis’) comments particularly interesting:
Personally I am hoping that eventually we will be able to run an ILS appliance (a bit like the Google appliance) where you don’t know, or care, what OS or database is under the hood.[26]
The black box integrated library system? I’m not sure that would be a good thing, even it was feasible.
On December 15, Blyberg posted “Library 2.0: The road ahead”—and again, it’s long and thoughtful enough that you should read it directly. (Substitute “/12/13/library-20-the-road-ahead/” for the string beginning “/11/24” above.) Blyberg admits Library 2.0 may not be the right label but finds it convenient. He does want an ideological framework—and says “a concise definition of ‘Library 2.0’ is not going to happen[27].” I’ve seen enough definitions to suggest an alteration: At this point, a concise definition should not happen.
Discussing impediments, Blyberg focuses on vendors and the lack of coders in most libraries, with secondary mention of old-timers who may find this stuff threatening. He recognizes the need to discuss “in detail, what types of features and services we want to offer under the auspices of L2” and suggests a clearinghouse—and goes on to look for Library 2.0 to reach “a critical mass within the next two years[28].” He calls it an evolution but also a movement; he talks about a new culture, then says “We can be a part of it, or we can be relics.[29]” Is any library that hasn’t adopted “Library 2.0” a relic? Is the “new culture” replacing existing cultures rather than adding to them? I may be the wrong person to answer those questions.
Here’s part of a short post from December 24, 2005: “Ironically, one of the major misunderstandings of Library 2.0 is the perception that it’s Web 2.0 technologies adapted for libraries (most likely due to its nomenclature).” Since Blyberg focuses on so-called Web 2.0 technologies in his December 15 post, and since other commentators have explicitly used Web 2.0 as the basis for Library 2.0, it’s easy to see how this misunderstanding can arise.
The most confrontational statement I’ve seen from John Blyberg came in response to Michael Stephens’ attempt to answer Steve Lawson’s comment (at the end of the Michael Stephens section):
I’d say that it would be hard to argue that anything that challenges the traditional approach to conducting library business is not considered L2[57]. At its heart, L2 is a fundamental and far-reaching shift in business strategy. So yes, coffee carts, gaming, “rocking the shelves,” and anything else new and exciting that is counterintuitive to the library stereotype should be considered Library 2.0.
Library 2.0 is all about challenging traditional library approaches? Even if those library practices are successful? Maybe so, but that increases the confrontation and weakens any philosophical approach—particularly if anything different is “Library 2.0.”
Talis is a UK library automation vendor. In addition to Talis’ own blog, a Talis-sourced article appeared in the October 2005 Ariadne (www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/ miller) and a Talis white paper appeared in November 2005. Talis people have been commenting at length on other blog posts related to Library 2.0.
“Web 2.0: Building the new library,” the Ariadne piece, is an informal exploration of “the recent buzz around the concept around ‘Web 2.0’” in which Paul Miller (“Technology Evangelist” at Talis) “asks what it means for libraries and related organisations.”
Early on, there’s a big bubble chart from Tim O’Reilly, “Web 2.0 Meme Map.” It’s one I could spend lots of time critiquing, particularly since some of it seems to take old concepts and rename them as part of the Hot New Thing. Best example: The so-called Long Tail, a known characteristic of magazine and book publishing and library circulation for decades, but somehow Brand New because a Wired editor gave it a name and proclaimed it to be a brand-new web phenomenon. Others: Blogs are “participation, not publishing,” which I regard as pure nonsense—particularly for blogs with comments disabled, which are nothing but publishing. Users “control your own data”—which will surprise those who look at the privacy policies for new services carefully. At least one seems mysterious: “Data as the ‘Intel Inside.’” I’m not a big O’Reilly reader, so chalk this down to ignorance.
I’m going to pass on this one, partly because RLG has a partnership with Talis, partly because I’m not that familiar with the UK scene, although I know that public libraries seem to be doing poorly there as compared to the U.S. I think you should go read the article. I agree that Web 2.0 is “a convenient label” (and wonder whether it’s anything more than that). I find it interesting that Talis asserts it is “actively involved in understanding and shaping Web 2.0.” (Emphasis added.)
The Ariadne article serves as a prequel to Do libraries matter? The rise of Library 2.0, the November white paper by Paul Miller and Ken Chad (Talis’ executive director). Ignoring for the moment the confrontational title, here’s the executive summary:
The library’s information provider crown is slipping. Justifiably or not, today libraries are increasingly viewed as outdated, with modern, Internet-based services, such as Amazon and Google, looking set to inherit the throne.
Even so, at Talis, we believe that there is plenty of life left in the library yet.
This survival[31] demands change though. Inevitably, as the world advances, the library must also evolve and begin to deliver its services in the ways that its modern users expect.
Library 2.0 is a concept of a very different library service that operates according to the expectations of today’s library users. In this vision, the library makes information available wherever and whenever the user requires it.
At times, realising this vision will be tough. But we believe it will also be exciting and fulfilling. In the end, we hope it will be proof that the library really does continue to matter.[30]
Libraries can’t lose a “throne” they’ve never had, but I’ve already beaten that one to death. As for confrontational, the white paper puts “survival” right in the summary. “Modern users” and “today’s library users” are ill defined but apparently entirely different from those who, you know, use libraries and consider them relevant even as collections of books and other media and associated services.
This isn’t a long paper (seven pages after the summary), nor is it hard to find. My red marks are so extensive that I’m ignoring most of them—but not all. Take this bit: “A person could easily be forgiven for believing that ordering a book from the comfort of their own home, and having it delivered straight to their door within just a few days, is less hassle than a trip to the local library…. With information now so freely available, particularly through the Internet, do libraries really matter?” Maybe leaving your home is a tribulation in the UK, but the idea that waiting several days and paying for a book is “less hassle” than driving to the local library to get books for free strikes me as astonishing…as does citing online book purchasing as an example of “information…so freely available.” Does “free” mean something different in the UK?
Reports of the library’s demise have been greatly exaggerated then. Yet, the staggering success of sites such as Amazon and Google has shown that, to meet the expectations of the modern world, libraries do have to change quite dramatically.
Maybe this paragraph makes logical sense to you. To me, the second sentence is pure non sequitur. The next paragraph discusses the limitations of services available “at a physical building.” Later, we’re told that the Web appears “almost totally free” and does not require “the traditional up-front charge”—unlike, you know, the $5 you pay before they’ll let you in the library. Are ISPs charitable organizations in the UK, providing free connections? Do people log on for free?
We’re told “Google and the Open Access movement are challenging the publishing model for books and journals,” which in the case of Google and books is simply false. We’re told that Kids These Days (my words) demand “they have a right to use, modify, and pass on content with which they come into contact”— through a self-citing footnote to a post that establishes Miller as a “KTD are mutants” believer: “The Digital Natives don’t think like us.”
Later, Miller disputes the idea that OPACs are free to access and use. “This is not really the case, though” because libraries pay for data and systems. This is absurd: Every service that’s free at point of use is paid for by somebody somewhere. Amazon isn’t free: It survives because people buy stuff. Google isn’t free: It survives because people click on ads. Open Access journals are not, in general, done entirely on a charitable basis. OPACs are precisely as free at point of use as the web—except that no subscription is required.
We’re told Amazon and Google establish “a complete transformation of the software market,” a claim that Microsoft and others may find exaggerated. Sure, Microsoft’s looking toward also providing network-based applications—but don’t expect Word and Excel to be “transformed” out of existence any day soon.
This paper continually repeats Amazon and Google, Amazon and Google, Amazon and Google, as though the two were comparable and the only things worth mentioning. (Yahoo! now owns two of the hottest social-software properties. Are they still Web 1.0, as one commentator had it?) Amazon is an online store network with interesting added capabilities. Google is an ad-supported search engine with interesting added capabilities. Neither replaces libraries or intends to.
Now we get the description of “the new application model”—and it’s one in which “there is no need to buy and install hardware, operating systems, databases, and application servers.[32]” You’re going to run your library’s circulation systems, acquisitions systems, and online catalog—separately or as an integrated system—without databases and servers. How? That’s not spelled out, but apparently all you need is a “web browser running on a simple PC connected to the Internet.” Where does the data reside? Not spelled out—but in my heart of hearts, I believe there must be databases, operating systems, and servers somewhere, and that using that nasty old hardware and software somewhere else won’t be any more free than today’s library systems.
After that, there are several paragraphs of Web 2.0 blather—this generation’s version of object-oriented programming, 25 years later. Components can be reused; applications can build on other applications; “mash-ups” can combine different components—and anyone can do it! “A moderately skilled individual can combine (‘mash-up’) these different components to quickly and easily create quite sophisticated applications.” And it’s all free!
“Put simply, libraries must now begin to use these Web 2.0 applications if they are to prove themselves to be just as relevant as other information providers, and start to deliver experiences that meet the modern user’s expectations.” (Emphasis added.) There it is: “Modern users” are those who assume everything’s free and do everything on the web—the “permaconnected,” as John Blyberg puts it.
The last three pages offer Talis’ view of “the principles of Library 2.0” (already quoted earlier). The expansions are interesting and UK-centric. Apparently Talis believes the UK should have a “truly national library offering” instead of the “highly fragmented offering” currently available. In the U.S., I suspect local public libraries (and their communities) value their localization and would oppose being swept into a national library. A demo shows library holdings being “integrated into” Amazon or eBay—but that pervasiveness only works if users decide they should go to Amazon via a library portal or are using a library toolbar. Is Amazon anxious to inform would-be book purchasers that their library has the book they seek?
A bit later, the writers seem to suggest “a single global (and free) library catalogue,” and go on to assert (indirectly) that monopoly is preferable to competition. We’re told none of the existing systems “offer any meaningful service to a population of end users.[33]” That’s quite a statement. Instead, we must have One World Catalogue. Somehow, this aids the “democratisation of information”—again, to my mind, self-contradictory, as monopolies do not generally improve democracy.
The following paragraph says a lot—in that the authors felt it appropriate to include it:
A great many libraries today may be regarded as serving an ageing and diminishing segment of society. They are faded, shabby; a home for musty books. Although certainly not justified, in a world of Google and Amazon, libraries may be perceived to be irrelevant.
Google and Amazon, arbiters of relevance. Libraries as homes for “musty books.” Sad.
As I read the white paper, it appears to call for truly open library systems and APIs. Which makes the interchange with John Blyberg a bit ironic: When push comes to shove, the people at Talis are not willing to agree libraries should have open read-only access to the library’s own database, for example.
These two papers struck me as odd, albeit clear in asserting that “Library 2.0” is basically Web 2.0 with a different first word. Lengthy comments on other Library 2.0 postings suggest that Talis is taking a proprietary interest in “Library 2.0,” urging people to respond to their ideas rather than adding Talis’ contributions to a broader librarian-centered discussion.
I’ve already discussed Michael Stephens’ response to the white paper, an uncritical bit of cheerleading and bandwagon building. Comments attached to that post are more critical. Laura Savastinuk says, “A company dedicated to making money from libraries should be viewed with some caution when they begin touting an idea, which at its core is one of openness and defined by free services, as their own brainstorm… Ultimately, Library 2.0 should be defined and shaped by librarians and library users.” (I’m relieved I’m not the only one who felt that Talis seemed to be suggesting “Library 2.0” was its own brainstorm.)
Then there’s Paul Miller’s marathon single-paragraph 700-word comment, defending Talis, establishing that he’s one of the New Guard (“There are an awful lot of our colleagues who are firmly rooted in the world of Library 1.0, and who do not even realise that something better is possible”), and taking issue with the idea that librarians and library users should shape Library 2.0! “Of course library staff and library users should be involved in shaping the future of the library and the services it provides. But so should those companies that truly care about the library.[34]”
Miller also claims the white paper “was not an attempt to capture, subvert and dominate the current Library 2.0 meme. Rather, it was a contribution to an ongoing debate.” Two things wrong with that: First, there hadn’t been any apparent “debate” as of November 21, as opposed to assertions and bandwagon-building. Second, Miller’s stream of comments seem intent on focusing attention back to the white paper…which, notably, never mentions any other progenitors of Library 2.0 notions, any more than did the Ariadne article. That article’s footnotes aren’t quite Harnadian in the extent of their self-citation, but ten of 13 library-related footnotes are Talis sources, and none of the other early Library 2.0 people is mentioned. One does not optimally contribute to an ongoing discussion by citing only yourself.
“To quote Laura again, ‘A company dedicated to making money from libraries.’ I would rather describe us as ‘A company dedicated to providing the tools that enable libraries to do what they do.’” It reminds me of Microsoft’s “Your potential. Our passion” ads: Making money is just one of those side effects.
There’s this from Marc Webb: “I’m fascinated by this discussion of Library 2.0. What fascinates is the idea that anything presented in it is novel in the slightest. These ideas are the core of what librarians have been discussing for quite some time.[35]” To the extent that Library 2.0 is not just Web 2.0 with different wording, this is an awfully good point.
Talis people see it differently. Here’s a December 6, 2005 Paul Miller post on panlibus, a Talis staff blog: “The library 2.0 debate—a call to arms.” A call to arms? (And it’s still “debate,” not “discussion.”)
The Library 2.0 term is proving a valuable focus for discussion around the next generation services from which current and potential library users might benefit, the services that libraries might offer, and the new ways in which library system vendors such as Talis could and should engage with a range of current and future stakeholders in helping to make more of this real….
Library 2.0 is not a Talis-only thing. To work, it never could be.
We didn’t invent the term, Michael Casey did. He doesn’t work for us yet.
We do, however, recognise its value in providing a convenient hook upon which to hang a range of related debates, and with which to drive forward the fundamental changes that we believe are required in library systems and the ways in which online library services are made available. Our white p