Followup Perspective
Beyond ‘Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0”’
Here’s the one-paragraph version of a not very long essay: I’m impressed by the shift in posts related to “Library 2.0” since January 6 (and claim a little credit for part of that shift). I’m convinced almost everyone involved is moving away from confrontation and bandwagons toward a series of overlapping conversations and applications. This is all to the good. If I don’t provide a lot of ongoing coverage of these conversations and applications (and I don’t expect to do so), it’s not because I don’t think they’re worthwhile or important—it’s because I don’t think I would add enough value to those conversations and applications to justify the effort or displacement of other themes. Doesn’t mean I don’t care; does mean that other venues (Meredith Farkas’ Library Success wiki, the growing network of blogs from those deeply involved in these conversations and applications, columns and articles in the formal professional literature, ones I don’t know about yet) better serve this situation.
Two particularly interesting posts appeared between January 6 and January 8 that didn’t make it into the special C&I: One posted four hours after my self-imposed deadline, one posted two days later. Meredith Farkas posted “Label 2.0” at Information wants to be free (meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/) a little after my deadline. Farkas doesn’t care for the label (or for “Web 2.0,” for that matter), as opposed to the ideas: “Library 2.0 is just a bunch of very good ideas that have been squished into a box with a trendy label slapped on it.” She’s excited about the ideas—and wonders about approaches to carrying them out. She’s looking for ways to sell new technologies, ways smaller and less well-funded libraries can take advantage of them, shared success stories. She’s looking for concrete instances of the new ideas at work.
And she’s acted on it. Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki (www.libsuccess.org) exists and can serve as a central point for success stories (and interesting failures). I’ve bookmarked it. If you’re working on instances of these good ideas, measuring the results, or otherwise contributing, I encourage you to add to the Library Success wiki.
There’s more to the post—and the series of comments that runs much longer than the post itself. Definitely worth reading.
Stephen M. Cohen posted “L2 ain’t nothing without W2” at Library stuff on January 8—partly because of his surprise at being labeled a “major Library 2.0 proponent” in a Web 2.0 environment. He’s not, as was clear in the special issue: While the concepts are worthwhile, they’re not new. “Let’s just continue to do what we’ve been doing, which is getting our patrons excited about new technologies that help them collaborate, inspire and learn.”
There’s a third post—“What is new about Library 2.0” (Jenny Levine at ALA TechSource blog)—that came out very shortly after C&I 6.2 was published. I’m not going to comment on the post (with its rare triple-emphases, all-caps boldface italic type, and its combative tone regarding “L2 opponents”). Go read the original and the comments if you’re so inclined.
One more January 9 post that may not reflect any awareness of C&I 6.2 is particularly worth reading: “11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters” by John Blyberg at blyberg.net (www.blyberg.net). I disagree with Blyberg on some of the need for massive change—but I’m not the right one to argue those points. He makes a clear, well-stated case. He is talking revolution and asserts that it’s a mandatory revolution. Given the shift in discussion, I believe this post may be as close to a “Library 2.0 manifesto” as we’re likely to see. Read it and draw your own conclusions.
Quite a few posts appeared beginning January 9, many referring to C&I 6.2 even if the bloggers hadn’t read it fully yet. Some continued threads discussed in the special issue; some were from blogs I hadn’t encountered before.
January 9: TangognaT still doesn’t find the whole thing very meaningful and suspects that the “latest development in social software is probably not of much interest to the average public library patron.” TangognaT wants a public library that’s convenient and open on summer weekends. Endless hybrids had “Why Library 2.0 is dangerous”—the terminology, not the concepts—with a jab at “evangelical buzzwords.” The post ends, “My prediction (and hope): the services represented by Library 2.0 will simply, one day, be called the library.” A Norwegian blogger at Librarian 1.5 (lib1point5.wordpress.com) offered a trio of posts, one noting the situation in Norway, one disappointed that C&I 6.2 failed to “sum things up” (which, as I commented, was because I found that impossible to do), and one offering the blogger’s own brief version of what it all means. The posts are all worth reading.
January 10: VALISblog noted the special issue and discussed Levine’s post. Infomancy is looking at this from a school library perspective in an ongoing series of posts that you should pay attention to if you’re a school librarian or care about them. (The URL’s a little unusual: schoolof.info/infomancy/) LibrarianInBlack suggested that her (Sarah Houghton’s) definition is lacking and sees virtue in concentrating on improving services for users. dave’s blog took the interesting tack of claiming that it’s others who are drawing a line in the sand—librarians who say “I would really rather not learn anything new, but would still like to be a librarian.” I’d agree that anyone saying that, or automatically assuming that new tools can’t be useful in libraries, has chosen an unfortunate and (with rare exceptions) untenable position. Travis Ennis commented on C&I 6:2 in the context of being more interested in the new tools and attitudes than in names. See also… (Steve Lawson) posted “A library 2.0 hangover,” a first-rate post covering a lot of ground in a few well-chosen words. Information wants to be free (Meredith Farkas) continued to shine with “Let’s make libraries better, ok?”—and John Blyberg labeled C&I 6.2 “an audit of the current state of L2.” That’s not a bad label. And, to my surprise and pleasure, one of my RLG colleagues who’s on the team that does hangingtogether.org posted a brief and very complimentary pointer to the special issue.
January 11: A lull, at least in the posts I chose to print—primary two from Travis Ennis (libfoo. blogspot.com), a library school student who is thinking a lot about this stuff and concludes that the term Library 2.0 needs to go away because it gets in the way of the many different areas of interest and work that can improve libraries. One key here: “different areas of interest and work” (emphasis added): It’s not all one thing. Another interesting discussion was beginning, certainly related to some of the possibilities lumped together in that term: North Carolina State University released a new online catalog interface, which drew (and continues to draw) considerable attention and comment. It deserves attention and discussion.
Stephen Abram’s December 2005 “InfoTech” in Information Outlook and similar essay in the December 2005 SirsiDynix OneSource are also worth pointing out—but I’m not going to comment on them.
What I’m seeing—in these posts and quite a few others that I didn’t save or mention—is an increasing emphasis on how, what, and why, with much less interest in movements, bandwagons, terminology, or revolutions. Librarians want to see how these tools can be applied, want to apply them, want to share knowledge—and, I hope, want to see whether the tools are actually having the desired effect. There are exceptions, people who want to see the bandwagon continue, who disparage any questioning of terminology or the novelty of the concepts, but those exceptions are relatively rare.
I believe at least four different but overlapping conversations need to take place, along with clusters of real-world experiments, applications, measures of success, and (once in a while) admissions of failures (or “experiments that terminate” if you prefer):
Ø How best to take advantage of new tools and techniques sometimes called “Web 2.0” in order to offer new services and improve existing services within libraries—not because librarians and library vendors don’t produce useful tools, but because so much can be leveraged from work already being done elsewhere.
Ø How (and when) to provide plumbing in library systems such that users can build their own tools based on library information…without abandoning library precepts such as privacy and confidentiality, and without ignoring those who aren’t planning to do their own programming.
Ø What changes should and can be made in integrated library systems (or modular replacements for integrated library systems) so that libraries can extend those systems into broader areas and integrate library information into a broader web infosphere—and whether (and where) it’s feasible to replace heavy-duty integrated systems with something more agile and contemporary.
Ø How to reach new audiences or old audiences in new ways—and some clarification as to what roles a particular public (or academic, or school, or special) can and should play in the lives of its users and non-users.
I believe it’s important to note that these are not all one conversation, although they all overlap. I believe it’s critical to remember that each public library, each academic library, each school library, each special library is a distinct entity (or set of entities) serving a distinct set of populations. I believe most public libraries do matter and will continue to matter—that today’s resources and services will serve libraries and communities well in the future, which is no reason to stop looking for new and better ways to serve.
What I don’t believe: That I can add much value to most of the conversations that need to take place and that are taking place—or that I’m a good judge of the new tools and techniques, for that matter. Not because they don’t matter to me; not because I won’t be reading about them; not because I don’t have opinions. Because there are so many other people out there who are closer to the action and in a better position to comment.
There’s also the matter of space, time and energy. Bad enough that I managed to break one of the “modest expectations” in C&I 6.1 just three weeks after stating it (“No fewer than 12 and no more than 30 pages per issue”). Copyright issues aren’t going away; library access to scholarship continues to be an intricate story with considerable copyright overlap; there are lots of things to say about net media where I do feel I add value; and there are many other issues I’d like to discuss.
Contribute to the Library Success wiki. Build other wikis if that’s not enough. Read the relevant blogs (by now, you should have a good idea what they are) and pay attention to new voices that emerge. Look at the new applications. See how they could apply to your library. Most of the people involved in these areas are only too eager to share their knowledge; take advantage of that. If C&I 6.2 served as an audit or baseline, I’m happy. If it played a role in shifting the focus from a bandwagon or movement to a whole bunch of overlapping initiatives—I’m happier.
Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large, Volume 6, Number 3, Whole Issue 73, ISSN 1534-0937, a journal of libraries, policy, technology and media, is written and produced by Walt Crawford, a senior analyst at RLG.
Cites & Insights is sponsored by YBP Library Services, http://www.ybp.com.
Hosting provided by Boise State University Libraries.
Opinions herein may not represent those of RLG, YBP Library Services, or Boise State University Libraries.
Comments should be sent to waltcrawford@gmail.com. Comments specifically intended for publication should go to citesandinsights@gmail.com. Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large is copyright © 2006 by Walt Crawford: Some rights reserved.
All original material in this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0 or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
URL: citesandinsights.info/civ6i3.pdf