So, reading all the different articles about Library 2.0, with the idea that I would be crafting some sort of response to it here, totally made me feel like I was back in grad school. And because I was always good at being a student, that made me oh so happy. I suspect this means I should consider another degree. Or, more realistically perhaps, try to get into that library management class the next time it comes around.
Reading all that also made my head swim a little. There's so many opinions out there, about what 2.0 means, if it's necessary, if it's really all that different from what libraries have always done, whether it should be embraced or scorned. I suspect that most people fall, like me, somewhere in that shady grey middle. I do feel that, philosophically at least, Library 2.0 isn't really revolutionary. Libraries, and especially public libraries, have always espoused equality and the centrality of the user and have adapted and evolved to fit the needs of their communities. I've never really seen us as gatekeepers or viewed library service as a one-way process. Maybe it's just me though. Or at least related to when I came of age and the life philosophies I bring to the table.
And if Library 2.0 isn't a revolution, per se, I do think that I'm okay with deeming it an evolution of practices. Which means it's more than just a collection of tools that some may be tempted to reduce it to. The question to ask is how do you incorporate the technologies that characterize our time in order to offer the best library services to your users? And to do that, you have to first and foremost know who your users are and then take a look at the questions that naturally follow: what are their needs, which of those needs should the library be filling and how is the best way to go about that and the like.
In doing that, it's entirely possible that you'll realize that they don't need library blogs or rss feeds. This article was a good anecdotal representation of that. Another: when I told a friend of mine that I was participating in this project, she commented something along the lines of "Argh! I'm so tired of hearing about Library 2.0!" I was a little taken aback, but she went on to explain that her system had just unveiled a new website, full of widgets and wonders. Turns out the only ones who noticed were other libraries, who oohed and ahhed and maybe even included their url on a presentation slide. But from the community she works in? Deafening silence.
Which makes me wonder, just how do you measure the success of these things. Is there a rubric? Everyone knows that a bureaucracy loves a statistic, so which ones to use? Hits? Comments? Links? Subscriptions? And what's the magic number? How few makes for "wasting time/money/effort"? And if people keep not coming, do you keep throwing it out there? I don't have any answers. Thoughts and opinions, yes, but answers no. But then, I don't think anyone else really does either. The Annoyed Librarian can pooh-pooh it all they want (and really, what doesn't the Annoyed Librarian pooh-pooh?), but I don't think perpetual beta is a bad thing.
Of course, implicit in that is the idea of change. And there's so many places to go with that one. But if I got into it now, we'd be here all night and nobody wants that.
