Thing #15 - Opposing Viewpoints 2.0

Wow! If I got anything from Thing #15, it was the distinct feeling that one is expected to CHOOSE. There was very little middle ground in the opinions that I read. I seem to remember an old Library Journal cover that faced off Gamers vs. Boomers. That, to me, sums up what this is all about.

I gleaned:

PRO 2.0 - Rick Anderson, Director of Resource Acquisition, University of Nevada, Reno Libraries [Article Away from the “icebergs”] "As a Web 2.0 reality continues to emerge and develop, our patrons will expect access to everything – digital collections of journals, books, blogs, podcasts, etc. You think they can’t have everything? Think again. This may be our great opportunity."

Problem: Library Patrons CAN'T have everything, in fact, they can't even have 1/2 of it thanks to CIPA and with the dreaded DOPA looming on the horizon. This is the biggest iceberg I see. To me, it defeats libraries' purpose of supporting intellectual freedom and undermines the principal of free access to information. Worse, it erodes our individual rights and responsibilities by not letting us as parents decide what is appropriate for our own children to access. The good news is the blogs I have been exposed to through the 23 Things have shown me that I'm not alone in my view.

PRO 2.0 - Michael Stephens Librarian, Blogger [Article Into a new world of librarianship]

This just made me cry for what isn't.

PRO 2.0 - Chip Nilges, OCLC Vice President, New Services [Article To more powerful ways to cooperate]

I am happy to see the public no authentication necessary access to WorldCat. And they allow user contribution. I couldn't find a book through their public site http://www.worldcat.org/ that had a review, though. I'd like to see one or more.

Is this 2.0? - George Bishop, Information Center Director, Ovid-Elsie Schools [Article A rural school district shows how one new service in 1992 put in motion a steady wave of library support]

I think this is carefully planned and thought out 2.0. A small library concentrated not just on maintaining, but on expanding. And they didn't begin by building a bigger building. In fact, they expanded digitally and through inclusion of other libraries' resources. The bigger building came later, after the library was already relevant. I would love to know how their checkout of the digital video and still cameras is working for them. That is a simple and not too expensive resource that could add quite a bit of value. Perhaps we could reach out and contact them.

Is this 2.0? - John Blyberg (B.A. English, University of Maine, 1998) is currently the Head of Technology and Digital Initiatives at Darien Library in Connecticut.In March 2006, John was named a Mover & Shaker by Library Journal. [Blog entry http://www.blyberg.net/2008/01/17/library-20-debased/]

"What I mean is that we cannot expect to retrofit our libraries with tomorrow’s technology. The true pursuit of Library 2.0 involves a thorough recalibration of process, policy, physical spaces, staffing, and technology so that any hand-offs in the patron’s library experience are truly seamless."

I'm not sure. It sounds like a nicely worded postponement to me.

Anti 2.0 - Annoyed Librarian [Blog entry http://annoyedlibrarian.blogspot.com/2007/08/librarians-anti-20-manifesto.html]

This blogger, who remains known only as Annoyed Librarian, takes apart the "'Librarian's 2.0 Manifesto' published in the August issue of American Libraries" piece by piece.

Cute tactic that I can appreciate. Didn't change my view, but I could see how the Anti 2.0's feel.

[tag retracted] Walt at Random[Blog entry http://walt.lishost.org/2008/01/the-new-bandwagon-is-the-anti-bandwagon/]

"Fact is, I don’t believe most librarians think public libraries or most academic libraries are on the brink of disaster and need wholesale rethinking, as opposed to continual improvement. (I’m one of those who believes most public and academic libraries are fundamentally healthy and have strong community support–that they should build from strength, usually an iterative process.)"

I think maybe Walt needs to recount his statistics. He didn't cite them, but I suspect that before assuming libraries are healthy and have strong community support, I would like to see studies and numbers to back up that assertion.

Overall, though, I like the Library 2.0 concept. I do however, see its weakness in that I am weary of hearing why it can't be done where we or others are. It only takes a grassroots change to get going. For example, my daughter's school in our small town started a reading/community involvement program (not 2.0 related) that was quite successful and got noticed by a large corporation. The company will now be helping fund the program in schools in many states across the U.S. It all started with one small school in one small town. Wouldn't we love to be the library that gets a similar ball rolling with a new incorporation of a small (or even large :)) 2.0 idea turned into reality?

If I could pick a 2.0 concept that I would like to see implemented to improve service to our patrons, at this moment, it would be the dream of having a staff member who would ideally have an Information Science degree and, maybe experience, but it could be a graduate just starting out, that would be okay, too. The person would have knowledge of web architecture and be able to host a dynamic website. This person's responsibility as a staff member would be to design, build, and maintain a system for our patrons to interact with the library on the web, and through other technologies as they become available and can be implemented. Also, opportunities for more staff involvement and contact with the public through these technologies would be integrated. That's my vision of how to move forward carefully and with our patrons and staff in mind, but move forward nonetheless.