Library 2.0 - Questions and Commentary
January 2nd, 2006I don’t talk about “Library 2.0″ here for many reasons. Well, I guess I do write about Library 2.0 issues without actually using the wordage, but I rarely write “Library 2.0″. First, I haven’t seen a clear definition of the term. Michael Stephens has mentioned that he thought Sarah Houghton’s definition was one of the best he’s seen. So, I’ll use that one. Sarah says:
“Library 2.0 simply means making your library’s space (virtual and physical) more interactive, collaborative, and driven by community needs. Examples of where to start include blogs, gaming nights for teens, and collaborative photo sites. The basic drive is to get people back into the library by making the library relevant to what they want and need in their daily lives…to make the library a destination and not an afterthought.”
Sarah has always been one to provide good summaries of library-related terminology. She’s been one of my favorite bloggers for years (and man, can she blog a conference!). I do have a few questions though: How is any of this stuff new? Haven’t the goals of libraries for the past umpteenth years been to be driven by the community? Isn’t that the basic premise of what a public library is? Charles W. Robinson came up with “Give ‘em What they Want” a long time ago, which aims to make libraries relevant to what patrons “want and need in their daily lives.” Also, how is a gaming night different than any other methods used by YA librarians to get teens and pre-teens into the library? Take a look at any book written by Mary K. Chelton or Renee Vaillancourt and you’ll see where I’m coming from.
Don’t get me wrong. We definitely need to continue our interactions with patrons and make all libraries (not just public!) a part of the community. In fact, the library needs to be a driving force in the community (I refer you to anything written by Kathleen de la Pena McCook). But to think that “Library 2.0″ is something different that what librarians have been striving for for decades is, in my opinion, wrong. Yes, we need more interactivity with the library catalog (I’ve spoken many times on the two-way-street approach). Yes, we should use the new web tools available to us to build online communities. Yes, blogs and wikis work well in a library setting. Yes, yes, yes. I’m with you. Let’s give the library back to the community, but let’s not kid oursleves into thinking that this is one of those “ah hah!” moments in the history of librarianship.
I’m really interested in what Walt will have to write about the topic.
Please note that this is not one of my rants like the one I had before the new year (I’ve promised that I will never post anything like that again [I stand by what I wrote and won't retract any of it]), but one of commentary and questions. Remember, I do believe in what is being touted as “Library 2.0″. I just don’t think it’s anything new whose theories haven’t been written about before in many LIS books and articles. Show me what’s so new about it, besides the technology aspect. If it’s just about the technology, then I don’t buy it, because technology is a ubiquitous concept that is changing everything, not just in libraries.
There is one great side-effect of “Library 2.0″ that I must mention. More interesting librarian blogs appearing out of nowhere. Just by running a search on “Library 2.0″ on the many blog engines, I found so many neat blogs that I haven’t read before. So, I have to thank those who are writing about “Library 2.0″ for getting others excited about it. Getting more librarians blogging is always a good thing. Is that a “Library 2.0″ concept?
March 31st, 2007 at 9:03 am
[...] 難道在 Steven M. Cohen 的眼裏 L2 真的沒有任何一項新的東西或優點嗎? 有的，那就是突然間有很多圖資 blog 出現。只要以 “Library 2.0” 搜尋一下，你可以找到許多不錯的 blog。(Library 2.0 – Questions and Commentary) [...]