Thing 15

To become more familiar with Web 2.0, I read about Web 2.0 in Wikipedia and then I read about Library 2.0 and the future of libraries.

Most of the Wikipedia article was too technical for me to understand. What I got is that Web 2.0 is open communication with decentralized authority and uses social networking tools.

Walt Crawford's Library 2.0 and "Library 2.0" was much easier for me to understand (and I read all 32 pages!) than the Wikipedia entry. Crawford includes posts from several sources and adds his comments. Some points, in no particular order:

• There is little agreement on what "Library 2.0" actually means. Some think it means whatever one wants it to mean.
• "Library 2.0" is just a meaningless buzz word or faddish catchphrase and librarians have been keeping up with changing resources for years.
• Libraries should be cognizant that there is a difference between business customers and library patrons. Traditional library goods and services don't need to be discontinued and be replaced by high-tech resources. Not everyone has high-speed Internet service.
• Librarians don't need to jump on the "Library 2.0" bandwagon and change library services just for the sake of change. Traditional library services and resources are still needed.
• Permitting library users to create content could cause potential intellectual property, libel, and veracity problems.
• Librarians need to maximize resources to fill needs of all library users and "avoid the wild pendulum swings of short-sighted boosterism for change and equally myopic phobia of such change" [Eli Edwards at Confessions of a mad librarian].
• All-technology-all-the-time is not necessarily good for every community. Some libraries don't even have a Web site, let alone an ILS. Some patrons don't have computers at home. Why should the "haves" get superior library service while the "have-nots" cannot make use of lots of new technology?
• Many or most libraries may not be ready for total "Library 2.0" and may be doing well to offer even one or two of the Things. Real-world issues such as reduced budgets and staffing shortages also come into play here.
• Crawford writes: "Focusing on what the users want is fine, as long as those wants make sense within a library context. I think it's reasonable to inquire as to whether every New Thing makes sense." I completely agree with him.
• More from Crawford: ". . .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." I completely agree with this statement also.

What I think:

• Change can be good, but not just for the sake of change.
• Technology is great but traditional library goods and services should not be abandoned.
• Librarians should take into consideration their users' needs and abilities. For example, a good portion of the customers at my library have difficulty finding fiction shelved alphabetically by author! So how can they be expected to adopt Web 2.0 or Library 2.0 tools?