A bit of perspective: Library 2.0 vs. "Library 2.0"

I am not taking this question lightly. I have read Meredith Farkas' Social Software in Libraries for a course I just took by that same name, an excellent course at SJSU SLIS, from Professor Debbie Faires, whose hard work and enthusiasm have even impressed Meredith Farkas, who will teach the same course next semester at SJSU SLIS. Through this course and my work on the Technology Petting Zoo and the whole 23 Things program, I have played the role of an early adapter (well, actually more like a harried early-middle adapter) and a cheerleader for "Library 2.0." I have been impressed by people's enthusiasm in embracing the possibilities, but I have also been impressed by very thoughtful concerns about not forgetting what libraries already do well, and not neglecting those who are not using all of these new tools. I cringe every time I hear the word "customer" in connection with libraries. What are we selling them, exactly? Aren't we a free public service? I do like the ability of using these services to reach more people for less money, since libraries will never have the level of funding that we who work for them would like. That is why my Wordpress blog for the social software course at SLIS is called econolibrarian .

Walt Crawford has summed up some of the leading figures on the issue by discussing some of the blog posts from the leading library social software bloggers and I have quoted the last two pages of his article, below. I find that he provides some wisdom about adopting these new technologies and about changes that have already been made and things the library already does well. The post below is available as a pdf file and as a cached html file. It comes from a printed journal called Cites and Insights, which is also the name of Walt Crawford's blog, which is a good library and technology blog subscription to receive in one's RSS reader. This article occupied pages 1-32 of the Midwinter Edition of 2006 (Cites and Insights: Crawford at large, 6:2, 1-32).

"
The title of this PERSPECTIVE and issue makes a distinction I regard as useful but that isn’t integrated into the ongoing discussion:

Library 2.0

Library 2.0 encompasses a range of new and not-so-
new software methodologies (social software, interactivity, APIs, modular software…) that can and will be useful for many libraries in providing new services and making existing services available in new and interesting ways. Library 2.0 also encompasses a set of concepts
about library service, most of them not particularly new. Those methodologies, applications and concepts will continue change within libraries.
Some changes will improve a library’s standing in the community. Some may bring in new audiences. Some may make libraries even more important as centers of the culture and history of their cities and academic institutions, involved in recording and creating that culture and history. Some will go unused and if tracked properly may be abandoned. Some of those
changes may be viewed as disruptive. Some just won’t be feasible for some libraries.
With luck, skill, and patience, those new services and ongoing changes will continue to make libraries more interesting, more relevant, and better supported.
I’m all in favor of that Library 2.0.

“Library 2.0”

“Library 2.0” is hype, a bandwagon, a confrontation, a negative assertion about existing libraries, their viability, their relevance, and their lack of changes, and—astonishingly—an apparent claim that two months of discussion by a two or three dozen bloggers makes a
Movement that is so important that every library, no matter how small, must be discussing it right now, and that every library association should be focusing its next conference on the Movement. I’m skeptical about “Library 2.0”—and I think it’s a disservice to the ideas in Library 2.0. I don’t believe that it adds value to the concepts and tools.
As a blogger, I’m impressed. Without the mutual reinforcement and bandwagon-building of the biblioblogosphere, there’s no way a small group of people at a November 2005 conference could be making this much noise this quickly. Noise does not a movement make, however, and certainly doesn’t justify a call for everyone to abandon everything else
to focus on Library 2.0 or “Library 2.0.” (Should every vendor be preparing position papers? Certainly not in January 2006; some of them must have better things to do—such as, for example, enabling open read-only access for knowledgeable librarians.)
We don’t need a name or a bandwagon to discuss, demonstrate and build real-world uses of the new tools, techniques, and philosophies. Most of the philosophies aren’t new. The claim that they are is part of a generational disconnect or deliberate confrontation with older librarians. Similarly, the assertion that libraries haven’t changed for a very long time is an outright dismissal of the hard work that generations of librarians have carried out and continued to carry
out. I find it unfortunate at best, offensive at worst.
Some uses of “Library 2.0” are offensive. Some are confrontational. Sorry, guys, but “the old guard” isn’t going away any time soon—and those old patrons who mostly want buildings full of books aren’t going away any time soon either. They are, not incidentally, the people who vote for library bonds and tax overrides—and there’s reason to believe that a substantial portion of the public wants libraries full of books even if they don’t themselves use those libraries very often. Some of those patrons will love some of the new services that come under the Library 2.0 rubric, as long as they don’t detract from the successful old services and collections. Some simply won’t use them; that’s OK, as long as the new services don’t displace or weaken successful existing services.
Maybe there’s a need for more conversations about what libraries can and should do and be. If you accept that it’s not possible to be the primary current information source for the whole community and that you can’t do everything for everybody, you can start to focus on where new resources should be used, within the context of today’s community, tomorrow’s needs, and those not well served by other community services. I don’t believe those conversations are specific
to Library 2.0 or “Library 2.0.”

Take a deep breath

My own suggestions for librarians and other library people reading this and thinking about Library 2.0:
Relax. Take a deep breath. If you’re an ALA Midwinter person, enjoy San Antonio. As you’re touring exhibits and participating in discussion and interest groups, pay attention to
new service possibilities that rely on “Web 2.0” tools—and think about how such tools might be used to create your own new services.
When you get back and have a few minutes free, take a look at Ann Arbor District Library, St. Joseph County Public Library, Metropolitan Library System (Illinois), Kansas City Public Library, and some of the many other innovative public and academic libraries. See if what they’re doing makes sense in your environment—or if they bring other possibilities to mind.
You’ll hear about these and other ideas at your state conference and during ALA Annual; I can pretty well bet on that.
Some of the tools and concepts can be used with little or no monetary investment and expertise. Some of them won’t work out for you; some will.
If you’re not already doing so, read some of the blogs and articles by librarians who are doing these things—some mentioned here, some not.
Don’t worry about doing it all—you can’t.
Do keep an open mind to ideas and tools that started outside the library field—if you haven’t
already been doing so. Consider the benefits of change, but don’t assume
that all change is inherently good.
Do all this, and you’ll probably build better libraries and enjoy your work more in the process.
Finally, don’t worry too much about “Library 2.0”: it’s just a name.

The name does matter

I’m biased. I care about semantics, and would think that every librarian should have a respect for language. I believe names do matter. I’m a touch over thirty. I’ve been involved in change throughout my five-decade career, and I resent being told that no change has occurred. I’m not a revolutionary and I believe that “evolution” has worked remarkably well.
For me, “Library 2.0” is a rallying cry that carries too much baggage. I don’t believe the term adds value to the concepts and tools—and I believe it’s possible that “Library 2.0” gets in the way of Library 2.0. You may disagree."