It’s a bird. It’s a plane. No! It’s Library 2.0!
What is Library 2.0? Is it all about technology? It is new? Is it just old? If Library 2.0 were an animal, what would it be?
Does any of it really matter?
Why do people like to squish things into these neat little boxes as if the world was meant to be that way? Web 2.0. Library 2.0. I don’t like labels and I don’t like boxes. I was never a fan of the DSM IV when I was a therapist. A bunch of men a long time ago created these categories of mental illness because it was convenient for them to have a common vocabulary and I’m stuck slapping these arbitrary labels on poor innocent children because medicaid requires it. Now, if people have certain symptoms, they are bi-polar and if they have other symptoms they have borderline personality disorder. Does it mean anything? Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder not so long ago according to the good old DSM and many of the diagnoses pathologized pretty average (often female) behavior. The problem is, these labels are biased, they are often stigmatizing, and they assume that there are specific treatments that work for everyone with a particular diagnosis. I’m sorry to break it to people who cling to their mental health diagnoses, but the label “bi-polar” really means about as much as the label “library 2.0”.
What I’ve thought a lot about while writing my book is that most things in the real world just don’t fit into neat little packages. Not should they. In my book proposal, I created these very distinct chapters for different social software applications. Unfortunately, there is so much overlap and dependence that I’ve had to do a lot of rethinking about how the book is structured. Obviously, for the book I have to have distinct chapters, but why exactly do we need to fit all these very good ideas into a box called Library 2.0? Was does it accomplish?
Library 2.0 and Web 2.0 don’t exist. Web 2.0 is hype. 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. I do believe that this is an exciting time to be a librarian and to be involved in technology. I am excited that people are talking more about the importance of being responsive to patrons’ needs, even if the idea isn’t new (why quibble over such things?). We don’t all live in Ann Arbor or Chicagoland or Seattle. These ideas might be revolutionary in some libraries. There really are libraries (plenty) that don’t base technology implementation and service provision on the needs of their patrons. There are plenty of libraries that never do surveys and that never ask their patrons what they think or if they’re happy. Some people have been teaching the same things in their information literacy classes for years, in spite of the fact that students aren’t using the same tools to do their research anymore. Some libraries still only have books in English, in spite of the fact that their population has become much more diverse.
But I think we’re spending way too much time defining something that has existed in one form or another for quite a long time and will exist when the meme has ended.
So enough talk about what is or isn’t “L2”. “Reaching out to new users, inviting customer participation, and relying on constant change” sounds great. Now how do we do it? As someone who has been a professional librarian for 5 months, I surely don’t know. How do we form better partnerships with IT? How do we figure out what our patrons want (beyond the vocal minority or majority)? How do we figure out what the people in our communities who don’t come to the library want and how do we get them there (and by that, I don’t just mean the tech-savvy folks)? How do we evaluate all of these new social technologies to determine which is best for our patrons’ needs? How do we sell our less L2-happy colleagues on new technologies and ideas? How do we sell new technologies to our patrons? How does the new-ish librarian in rural Vermont whose colleagues are happy with the status quo create change? Instead of working on a definitition of something that doesn’t need defining, why don’t you work towards making 2.0 a reality. Why don’t you share your success stories with other libraries. Tell us about something terrific that happened at your library and tell us how we can make it happen at ours. I know a lot of you have done cool things at your library. I don’t just want to see the finished product; I’d like to hear how you did it and how you dealt with the barriers you’ve encountered. Because most libraries don’t even have blogs and most librarians don’t know what social software is. You can’t be so pie-in-the-sky or people outside of the our little bloggy microcosm just won’t listen. Those of us in library 0.9 or lower really need something more concrete so that we can replicate your successes.
If you have done something cool at your library or if you have some great ideas or advice to offer, please do consider writing about it in Library Success: A Best Practices Wiki or submitting a proposal for HigherEd BlogCon. We need to collect good ideas. If collaboration and idea-sharing isn’t part of this whole 2.0 thing, I don’t know what is. My hope for HigherEd BlogCon is that it will be all about people telling us how they did great things and how we can make those same things happen at our libraries. We need more practical nuts-and-bolts blog posts. It’s easy to talk about a philosophy, but hard to show how regular front-line librarians can make it happen. That’s my challenge to you. You librarians who have done really great things at your libraries or have successfully faced challenges, tell us how you did it. Because I know most librarians sure aren’t going anywhere near your 2.0 ideas without some concrete examples and advice.
Update: Literally moments after posting this, I saw that Laura Crosset of lis.dom (one of my very favorite blogs) just posted exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Definitely check out Laura’s very simple, but very brilliant, idea for reaching teens at her library. Simple, concrete, and something most librarians could replicate. I love it!
Meredith, you do me too much honor! Thank you. And I, too, hope that we see more how to posts (and Library Success Wiki stories). Philosophy about social software is lovely, but it’s not much help to those of us dealing with libraries where just adding new or updated content to the web site is a big deal.
Pingback: Data Obsessed
Eh, I think sometimes labels help clarify matters.
Yes, but when it becomes more about saying “this good thing is library 2.0 and this thing isn’t” it becomes more about navel-gazing than about moving forward. Why create a label that excludes a lot of positive things people are doing in libraries? When I hear people arguing whether or not gaming in libraries is 2.0, I wonder why we are wasting our time. Stop defining and start helping people to replicate your successes (or start improving your own library).
Meredith,
I think what you are asking a duck to “moo” here. If I read you correctly, you are saying that the phrases w2 and l2 do not mean anything and that this frustrates you. I wonder if you would be willing to consider the issue in a different frame.
I think you assume that language’s purpose is to convey meaning. For instance, with the question “what is library 2.0,” you assume there is or should be a “what” that would correspond directly to L2 and that these two things would be equal.
Here’s my thought. Like a lot of tropes, library 2.0 is an attempt to coordinate individuals cognitively (at minimum) and ideologically (at max) in the vicinity of social software. In other words we should liken “library 2.0” to “read my lips” or “I have a dream.”
I think you would agree with me up to this point since I describe what might be called “hype.” Where we might disagree is that we should stop discussing what is or isn’t library 2.0. And here’s why:
When dealing with hype like library 2.0, the question we should ask is not “what is [blank]” but “_who_ is [blank]”. For example, the word “sustainability” cannot be tied directly to a particular meaning — if you ask different people, you will see different (and extended) definitions. If you ask the question “who is sustainability” and explore the people who use the term, I think the answer becomes more clear. “Sustainability” is a compromise among environmentalists, social justice advocates and economists to organize themselves around ideas that include the environment in the decision making process. When you think about the term this way, the meaning of the word doesn’t really matter that much. But that institutions are coming to a rough agreement on environmental issues matters a whole lot. In fact, it is essential to the survival of environment movements in general.
So, how about the question “who is library 2.0?” I do not have an answer for this, but if you look around at who is arguing about the correct or incorrect meaning of the word, you may get a fairly clear answer on this. The people who are doing all the arguing are the ones who feel they have alot at stake in the term — that’s because their survival will be dependent on the strength of the relationships because the term came into being. This may not all be marketing hype either. In fact the term may simply be a compromise occuring between early and late adopters of social technology.
Ryan, it doesn’t frustrate me that Library 2.0 doesn’t mean anything; it frustrates me that people are arguing over what is or isn’t 2.0 instead of trying to make things better in libraries. It’s about focusing on the wrong things. Calling something Library 2.0, if anything, will make people (outside of the blogosphere) less likely to adopt social software. We need to be more concrete and it feels like we’re moving in the opposite direction. Library 2.0 seems a lot more pie-in-the-sky than teaching a group of librarians what a blog is, why it’s a good thing for libraries, and how they can start one.
Meredith says, “Yes, but when it becomes more about saying ‘this good thing is library 2.0 and this thing isn’t’ it becomes more about navel-gazing than about moving forward.”
Well, guilty as charged! I have come to the same realization after spending a lot of time thinking and commenting about this L2 thing this week: if there is value in “Library 2.0,” it will come from using L2 concepts to solve problems, and not from just cataloging what is and what isn’t L2. So, for example, if we agree that IM reference is Library 2.0 (and I understand that we may not all agree on that!), then the important thing is understanding that using free software that your patrons are already using may be a more effective strategy than buying/building something brand new that people won’t use–that seems reasonably generalizable to me, and a useful rule of thumb for future, unforeseen situations.
I don’t, by the way, think Web 2.0 is just hype. I think it refers to what people now expect to see when they use a web application, and what developers need to take into account when they create such applications. Doesn’t mean it can’t seem a little absurd when everything with big fonts is being called “Web 2.0,” but I do think there is a “there” there.
Hello. I am bi-polar, or so I have been labeled. I am now wondering what the heck I am doing, taking medicine to change Me. Even though I can be a little crazy at times, I am me, the one God created. Is it right to take meds to change the basic inner me. I don’t know. I’m just feed up with it I guess. Thanks for your thoughts. Appreciate them.
Wait. I’m confused. I thought L2 was about more than technology. All of these comments are likening the concept to tech. Hmmmm. Seems like a fallback to me.
Regarding labels, I’ve found that some labels help. When I was diagnosed with anxiety/panic disorder, it made me feel better knowing that it was “in the book” and that others were going/went through the same issues as me. Try telling someone in AA that being labeled an alcoholic didn’t help in their recovery and friendships with other AA members.
I guess the question is, is it the label or the community that helps and could a supportive community exist without the label? Maybe not. I don’t know. I just had so many clients who were misdiagnosed by a psychiatrist who spent 15 minutes talking to them and diagnosed clients for whom the recommended treatments didn’t work. I’m not saying mental illness doesn’t exist, but that the labels don’t fit for everyone. If medication or therapy or a supportive community helps someone to function in their daily life, that’s great.
I just don’t like labels. Obviously they need to exist in many situations, but I don’t know that they need to in this library 2.0 situation.
I attempted a meager start here:
http://tametheweb.com/2005/11/5_suggestions_for_upgrading_to.html
5 Suggestions for getting on the road. There are so many more. Laura’s post was perfect as well!
They are great tips, Michael. 🙂 Good point!
Meredith,
I’m so happy your post was at 9 p.m. Friday–because I stopped collecting stuff for my essay on Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0” (a distinction that may correctly cause you to believe I share some of your feelings here) at 5 p.m.
Not that your discussion wouldn’t have added to the whole–it would–but I already had 26,000 words and I think I would have had to add at least a thousand more between your post and the comments! As it stands, yours is a good continuation of the discussion.
The issue is out, all 32 pages of it. You already play a significant role in it, particularly because I was so taken by your “what if a miracle happened” discussion.
Excellent article Walt, and about what I was trying to say when I asked Meredith to ask the question “_who_ is library 2.0?”
The “bipolar” example is also interesting because the disease went through a number of names before it got to “bipolar.” Add the phrase “Information Technology” to this game as well (isn’t a book an information technology as well?)
As people begin to weigh into the blog/wiki/folksonomy world, there will be fights over what to call it. That’s because when you control the language of a discussion, you control the discussion itself.
Pingback: blyberg.net » 11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters
Meredith, my only disappointment with your post is the end of the second paragraph. I really thought it should have read like this:
“What is Library 2.0? Is it all about technology? It is new? Is it just old? If Library 2.0 were an animal, what would it be? Would it make a sound if it fell in the forest and there was no one there to hear it? What is the sound of one Librarian 2.0 clapping?”
Otherwise, nice job. Let’s keep moving forward on the nuts and bolts part….
Pingback: Infomancy » SL2.0: Synthesis 2.0
Pingback: Library Views 圖書館觀點 :: Library with Web 2.0 :: January :: 2006
Pingback: Life as I Know It » Blog Archive » More Thoughts on Blogging
Pingback: Library 2.0 | Sara's Shelf