Thing 2: Web 2.0 and Library 2.0

I'll get this out of the way first: I am not a fan of the "Library 2.0" designation. Terminology is very important, and I think that this particular terminology is not only derivative and unimaginative, but damaging. It sends a pretty poor message--that libraries are only now evolving to a point where we can say we're at the second level. As an avid gamer all my life, I can say that for public libraries in America to take 100+ years to reach the second level would really be pitiful, were it not so grossly inaccurate.

I'm not a big fan of buzzwords, and this is one if there ever was one. Businesses have been talking about "customer-centered" strategies for decades and "Library 2.0" incorporates application of those "give 'em what they want" principles to libraries. Libraries have been and will continue to be hubs of communities. Libraries are about sharing and working together to make the most out of limited resources. These are just not new concepts. They're really no big deal and if they were revolutionary ideas, then they were revolutionary ideas 20, 30, 50 years ago. What is new are the ways that we are now able to approach such concepts using new technologies that are creating tremendous opportunities. Web 2.0 sets the stage for "Library 2.0."

To further illustrate, let me state, for instance, that you can't have a library consortium without some kind of transport and communication method between libraries. It is simply not possible. Maybe that system is a horse-drawn cart and a telegraph, but it has to be there. And the tools that we have now have (arguably, I guess) are vast improvements on the horse-drawn cart and telegraph. It's great to have patron reviews of library materials, but would those reviews be as useful stuck in a file folder at the reference desk as they would be mounted on a website for 24-7, keyword-searchable patron access? I don't think so. So the technology that enables implementation has become entangled with the philosophy and becomes the visible, tangible, physical symbol for the philosophy, and is what everyone gets so excited about. The danger for the library world--and this has always been a harmful tendency of said library world--is focusing far too much on the current technology and stifling innovation. The thought seems to be, sometimes, "We've got this technology--now how can we use it?" rather than, "What are our patrons' needs and how can we best meet them?" It's a key searching for a lock, or in the simplest terms: a solution searching for a problem.

I do really like one point raised in Tim O'Reilly's article. One of the reasons for the success of Amazon.com, he says, is that they added tremendous value to standard information gleaned from Bowker's ISBN registry, and as a result have a proprietary asset that no one else has yet matched. Libraries must constantly consider not only how the products and services they provide meet the needs of their patrons, but also how the technology they employ adds value. I would argue that libraries are not in competition with Google, but rather that a trained librarian can add tremendous value to a Google search. I would also argue that services such as ChiliFresh that enable readers to post their own reviews of materials (which Amazon has ben able to do for ten years--way to catch up ILS vendors!!) are steps toward providing added value to catalog records, which themselves already add value to library collections. I do have some problems with the way information is submitted, vetted, and displayed using these add-on programs, but I believe that vendors will ameliorate some of these problems over a short period of time. However, libraries (customers themselves!) must demand these modifications from vendors.

I certainly have more thoughts on this topic, but they'll have to wait for another day.