blyberg.net » 11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters

11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters

I’ve had my head buried in an Exchange server migration this past week, so when I surfaced Friday and caught up on the glut of unread posts in my aggregator, I was intrigued by the volume of Library 2.0 chatter. I was also struck by what appears to be a well-mannered backlash against Library 2.0–the label and the the concept.

If you’ve been reading my blog, you’ll know I believe L2 is a vital and very real movement. You’ll also know that I think it is an ever-changing amalgam of ideas, dreams, and visions. It’s also very much only an abstraction to some at this point. Stephen Cohen supposes that Library 2.0 doesn’t exist, Meredith Farkas agrees, Jessamyn suggests that it’s not that big a deal. Laura Crossett seems skeptical and asks if it’s just a club for rich libraries.

I want to share why I believe the L2 movement exists, why it is very unique and why it’s not something that’s already been done. I’ll start by re-quoting Sarah Houghton’s (LiB) definition of L2, which has been used as the de facto standard since Michael Stephens simply said he liked it.

“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.”

I like Sarah’s definition a lot because it does a good job of drawing L2 out of the purely ideological realm, but it’s a definition that exists in a contextual vacuum. For the purpose of this post, let’s keep in mind that the most important part of her definition is “making the library relevant”.

L2 is partially a response to a Post-Google world

Google’s impact on the way we do business has already created profound changes in usage patterns at our libraries. As Google continues to pursue their digitization strategy, libraries will feel increasing pressure to provide services that both compliment and diverge from Google. The frantic search to find our niche is only beginning. Google’s rise to an information uber-gateway is a very real delineation: we’re already using terms like pre-Google and post-Google. While post-Google doesn’t mean L2, the need to find purpose or relevancy (as Sarah suggests) in a time when it’s impossible to compete with Google is a driving force behind L2. It’s clearly something that hasn’t happened before.

L2 requires internal reorganization

Library 2.0 presents us with a series of requirements that necessitate some measure of restructuring within our organizations. Whether it’s shifting money around a budget for a coder instead of another reference librarian, or reevaluating the mission of a particular department, some things have to change in order to accommodate the types of changes we’re talking about. That’s not to say that previous paradigm shifts haven’t brought organizational change. The type of change L2 requires involves shifting focus from departments who previously bore the brunt of the public face of librarianship. For example, your IT departments (if you had one) were traditionally support mechanisms that kept the cogs turning behind the scenes. Increasingly, they are becoming an important part of the decision-making process and have more influence over how the public perceives your organization. As such, the type of people you hire into those position changes because the requirements are very different. L2 is going to require a great deal of inter-departmental integration. In order to be adept at navigating L2 waters, the old fiefdoms need to disappear. L2 requires drastic and sweeping changes to our internal cultures and will require some form of institutional enlightenment.

L2 requires a fundamental change in a library’s mission

It behooves us to look at our mission through an L2 lens. Are things out of focus? Does your organization’s mission allow L2 to happen or is it too narrow, too restricting? It’s possible to “Give them what they want” with ‘L1′, but then, how many is “they”? Is “they” the dwindling elderly population, the soon-to-retire baby-boomers? We can still provide the same level of service to that segment while drastically changing the role libraries play in the lives of our younger constituents. It’s obvious that the Millenials have very little interest in the “traditional” library. There are many reasons for that. Lee Rainie has some great insights on the subject. A fundamental change in what we think our purpose is is necessary to engage our future tax-payers.

L2 requires a fundamental change in how we handle “authority”

Many of the changes Web 2.0 has ushered in, borne on the winds of Google results, cuts to the heart of a cantankerous authority issue that needs to be resolved. L2 raises serious questions over what is authoritative and what is non-authoritative. If we are going to play host to non-authoritative content (which it is when it comes from our patrons), then how do we designate that? L2 ushers in an era where this becomes something libraries need to do. There is a lot of fantastic non-authoritative data–we just need to get off our high horses and decide to make it available. The matter of how to mark it as non-authoritative is still pending, of course.

L2 requires technological agility

While there are a lot of non-technical components to L2, the fact of the matter is that technology is L2’s impetus. I think this is where a lot of confusion comes in to play. L2 is not about technology, but technology is an important component of it. Hard budgetary decisions are going to have to be made: buy X books or do Y with technology Z? Remember, L2 is about being relevant. If your constituents, by and large, do not have PCs at home, then maybe a major goal should be to provide access at your facilities. Also, it’s not terribly costly to integrate social software in ways that Jenny Levine, Jessamyn West and Sarah Houghton have been suggesting for a long time now. It just takes energy, enthusiasm and a will to do it.

L2 challenges library orthodoxy on almost every level

Look at who the opponents of L2 ideas are. This is where we need to be pragmatic and let go of our emotional attachments to bygone notions of what “library” is. The level of self-questioning we’re seeing now is unprecedented and is representative of L2. In and of itself, questioning your library’s pedigree doesn’t not mean you’re “Library 2.0″, but a lot of what comprises L2 requires that you do so. Many of the problems we face are self-imposed–L2 assumes that we have solved them or are working hard to do so.

L2 requires a radical change in the way ILSs and vendors work

Little has changed in the way vendors and libraries work together and the ILS software we use reflects that. Discussions like the one I’ve been having with Talis’s Richard Walis highlight the fact that a lot of change is long overdue in both the vendor-library relationship and in the ILSs themselves. ILSs have not functionally changed much at all since their inception. We’ve reached a level of critical mass now, however, that will require vendors to open up their black boxes and let us in. This is not some small increment of change, but a complete overhaul in the relationship we have to this software and its vendors.

L2 both enables and requires libraries to work together

With the exception of inter-library-loan programs, very little inter-library cooperation has existed. L2 is going to require that libraries pool their resources in order to achieve their goals. This is not a new concept, but I think it’ll probably be vital to the enrichment of our systems and programs. Take for example the type of development collaboration that is starting to take place between developers at different organizations. We’re going to have to find a way to harness the “peer-to-peer” abstraction in ways that can benefit all of us. Individually, we can’t compete with giants like Google (nor would we want to). But collectively, we have the resources and societal placement to provide vital services that extend beyond our local communities. We have the opportunity to make a global impact.

L2 is actually happening

I differ with those that believe L2 is all theory and no action. I’m seeing a number of libraries taking the initiative right now. There are not just gaming conferences, there are actual gaming programs. Individuals are not just talking about their plans to use IM for virtual reference–they’re doing it now. Coffee shops are opening up in libraries, policies are being rewritten, facilities are being built to reflect some of these changes. I don’t buy that L2 is a passing fancy. In fact, L2 is partially an articulation of the action that is already happening.

L2 is revolutionary

More than anything else, the ideas that comprise L2 stand to bring revolutionary change to libraries, not simply adaptation to changing demands. Not even the initial introduction of ILSs compares to the conceptual, programmatic, cultural and physical changes that are bound to come about as a result of L2. Library 2.0 marks historical change.

L2 is essential for survival/pertinence

L2 is not an option. If we don’t acknowledge the weighty significance of L2, we will not just be running the risk of sliding into obscurity, we just wont be that important to society. We will become the functional equivalent of back-room storage full of green hanging-file-folder boxes.

I’ll admit (again) that “Library 2.0″ probably isn’t the best label. That assumes that everything that came before now was “Library 1.0″ (including Alexandria). That’s silly. I’d suggest, then, that the term was coined amidst a flurry of excitement, partially spurred by Web 2.0, but mostly by the promise of an exciting new era in modern librarianship. Instead of arguing over the efficacy of a label, look inward and evaluate your own institution’s efficacy.

So, finally, what is Library 2.0? Is it just a collection of ideas? Is it a movement? A revolution? Maybe a little bit of all those things, and more. It may not be the right label, but whatever IT is, it IS.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

47 Comments so far
Leave a comment

[…] John Blyberg continues to be one of the most articulate voices for Library 2.0. His most recent post is a must read… blyberg.net » 11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters L2 challenges library orthodoxy on almost every level […]

[…] I’m not sure if I’m finding the whole thing to be very meaningful to me personally. It seems like many people are writing Library 2.0 commentary and manifestos, but I’m not seeing many practical applications, or even proposals or roadmaps for practical applications. I think that the Library 2.0 thing might come in handy for people who want a conference presentation with buzz. I still find the whole thing very amorphous even after reading a list of reasons why “it” exists. I think it is very easy for those of us who are comfortable with libraries and technology to automatically assume that just because we’re doing something new, it needs to be transferred to library patrons. The latest development in social software is probably not of much interest to the average public library patron, and I don’t think it should be. As a library patron, I don’t want my public library to be “2.0″, I just want it to be open on the weekends during the summer so I can actually be able to go there and check out books. I think the example over at Information Wants to be Free of a library stocked with popular fiction at a mall does much more to make the library more relevant to people than any kind of technology. […]

I agree that the ‘Library 2.0′ term isn’t quite right, and it draws a line in the sand that leads to contentious debate, even when there’s no central disagreement.

I prefer the term ‘Things that Libraries need to do if they expect to survive the Impending Content Distribution Apocalypse’, or TTLNTDITETSTICDA.

It’s possible that might take off, Eli.

[…] The more people have defined Library 2.0, the more confrontational the rhetoric has seemed. This “be a 2.0 library or be irrelevant” makes it sound like if libraries don’t join the movement, they are doomed. And what Jenny Levine wrote about the “L2 opponents” who feel “confusion and fear” over Library 2.0 really surprised me. Jenny is a nice person, a rational person, and I was really surprised to see what looked line a line in the sand being drawn. I really hope that Library 2.0 isn’t a polarizing force in the blogosphere because we all need to continue sharing our good ideas and success stories. From what John Blyberg has said, and correct me if I’m wrong, Library 2.0 means providing the same level of service to the elderly and the Boomers, but improving services only to young people. That really does concern me, because so many libraries also need to be providing better services to people over 40. And it’s not just an issue of age. What about providing services to people of different cultures, people who speak different languages, people with disabilities, people who’ve never used the Internet, homeless people, jobless people, people trying to start their own business, etc? We haven’t just been ignoring the young and the tech-savvy, and all I keep hearing is that we aren’t serving that demographic. But what about everyone else? We shouldn’t pretend that every library has the same specific gaps in service provision and that every library should use similar approaches to get there. […]

John, just in case you missed it the new Cites and Insights is devoted to Library 2.0 and has a section devoted to you. He got most of what I said wrong but your section seemed better. I’ll have to work on my prose.

[…] What Tools? What Ideas? To fully answer this question, you will need to embark on a long journey through a couple months worth of collective writing. I would actually encourage you to start with a Walt Crawford’s cautionary Perspective: Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0.” At 32 pages, it is a hefty read - but well worth it. There have been some additional ideas shared in the last week that I will also be referring to in trying to answer this question for myself. John Blyberg provides “11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters” and Meredith Farkas took a look at “Label 2.0.” […]

Just saw your comment Eby (already posted my response to C&I). I think he took everything at face value. Of course when you can read something more than one way, it can obfuscate the issue. I wonder if that’s part of the problem people are having with L2.

[…] blyberg.net 11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters […]

[…] - 11 Razones por las que Library 2.0 existe e interesa - ¿Interesan las bibliotecas? -Biblioteca 2.0 y “Biblioteca 2.0″ […]

[…] Here is an interesting article on the topic on blyberg.net "11 Reasons Why Library 2.0 Exists and Matters." and of course the article that many have been waiting for from Walt Crawford on the topic. […]

[…] I just finished reading 2 great posts - one from John Blyberg and the other by David King. […]

The concept of L2 is both interesting and in my mind evolving right now. Though I statrted in the profession some 10 years ago, I realize that I had to let go of tradition and respond to what the users want and are asking for. Doesn’t mean that I don’t occasionally drag my feet, but I would prefer to run with the wolves and not be left behind.

Librfun,
A certain amount of feet-dragging is sometimes necessary so that we don’t rush headlong into a pursuit full of reckless abandonment. It’s knowing when not to second guess yourself that is the trick.

I think you may have confused me saying that library 2.0 “is no big deal” with me saying that it’s to be ignored or overlooked [i.e. “not that big a deal”]. My talk was primarily aimed at librarians in a very non-L2 setting trying to let them know that just because people are buzzing about L2 stuff, it doesn’t mean that it’s going to require them to learn to code perl or IM on their cell phones (necessarily). My point is that people can learn these tools and these methods of interacting easily once they can cut through the chatter and figure out what the L2 mindset is actually about. I don’t mean to downplay the importance of it, just to let librarians know they shouldn’t be scared by it. I’ll pick words more carefully, clearly they don’t communicate exactly what I think they’re communicating.

Jessamyn, Thanks for the clarification. I definitely missed the context in which you said that. I think that pursuing solutions that are inside the L2 “wrapper” is important to everyone–especially those non-L2 libraries. I agree with you that there is no reason to be afraid of L2. For the most part, Library 2.0 is focused on ways to make the concepts work in a practical way–a discussion I attributed you and a few others as doing a good job of.

[…] 越多的人界定图书馆2.0就会产生越多的不一致。“要么是2.0的图书馆，要么不相关”，这听起来好像如果图书馆不加入这场运动，那只有死路一条。Jenny Levine文章中那些感觉“迷惑与恐惧”的“图书馆2.0的反对者” 确实让我吃惊。Jenny是一个不错的理性的人。我真的希望图书馆2.0不是导致博客界两极分化的力量，因为我们都需要继续分享我们好的想法和成功的故事。John Blyberg说过，图书馆2.0意味着为老者和新居民提供同一水平的服务，而只改进对年轻人的服务。我对此很关注，因为许多图书馆也同样需要为超过40岁以上的人提供更好的服务。这并不是单纯的年龄问题。怎样为不同文化的人们服务，怎样为不同语言、残疾人、不利用互联网的人、无家可归者、失业人员、开始新事业的人们等等提供服务？我们没有忽视年轻人与技术人员，但我听说我们并不是只服务于这些人。其他人怎么办？我们不该假装每个图书馆都有特殊的服务差距，每个图书馆都用同样的方式去填补这一差距。 […]

[…] John Blyberg. 11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters […]

I am having a little trouble catching the revolutionary wave, here. Perhaps it is because I don’t really know enough to understand what a “traditional” or a “non L2″ library is, or perhaps I am just not technologically astute enough to see the same stuff ya’ll are seeing. Please allow me to offer a couple thoughts I had while reading John’s post.

1)It’s not post Google, or to compete with Google, it’s With Google:
I remember librarians claiming that we should be the ones cataloging the Internet. That was ten years ago. It was clear to me that the market place was going to make that decision, and so it did, first with Yahoo and now with Google. Yet, I have never felt particularly threatened by Google because I am pretty busy helping people all day long in my library as it is. The difference is that I help them do different things than I did ten years ago.

2) Technology is only a tool in transforming libraries:
I am speaking of public libraries, mainly, but I believe there remains an untapped potential to be realized that is enabled by technology, but which still has to do with people. I am referring to the fact that we could choose to position ourselves as an outsource for businesses, local nonprofits, government entities and other organizations and that we can use the tools of L2 (if not simply the open internet) to strengthen those relationships. We have an established infrastructure for supporting the information needs of a clientele…and presumably we are experiencing excess capacity due to patrons choosing Google over us. If that is so, then perhaps it provides us with an opportunity to establish relationships with some new stakeholders in our communities, turning public librarians into community information consultants.

I have been experimenting with this over the last year by reaching out to nonprofits and businesses in my community and the result has been sort of astounding. The response we get from people when we challenge them to challenge us, and then actually deliver the goods has ranged from surprise to jaw dropping amazement. “I had no idea you could do that” is a common response, yet what they don’t know is that the project may have only taken ten or fifteen minutes. To me, this is the kind of thing that creates relevance- delivering the goods that our clients want, whether that is with flickr or with a telephone. And those clients aren’t just millenials, they are anyone and everyone.

I gather from Sarah’s article that I am allowed to consider myself an L2 kind of guy, even if I’m not real techy. But, I believe John, Michael and others ought to put the technology into the right perspective. It isn’t just having those tools that makes the difference, it is creating a library where those tools can be appreciated that will get the job done and using the right ones in the right places. Sometimes the best tool in the box is a package of soft skills.

Sorry for the long post, John…I don’t have my own blog.

[…] Blyberg.net. 11 reasons why library 2.0 exists and matters […]

[…] To read some of the posts (my favorites) on this topic look at the following sites: Michael Stephens' Do Libraries Matter: On Libary & Librarian 2.0 A 2006 article from Walt Crawford's Cites & Insights entitled Library 2.0 and "Library 2.0" Library 2.0 - Questions and Commentary from Library Stuff Working Toward a Definition of Library 2.0 from LibaryCrunch 11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters from blyberg.net Label 2.0 from Information wants to be free Library 2.0 Discussion: Michael Squared from LibrarianinBlack […]

[…] But what about bringing libraries into the 21st century, by utilising web 2.0 applications and services? Introducing Library 2.0… […]

Library 2.0?
But we have ‘L-space‘!
2.0 just sound so .. beta.

[…] Library 2.0- posted on September 20, 2006 - a response to John Blyberg’s 11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters. […]

For me, “Library 2.0it’s one of the ways civilization progresses. It has become clear, these revolution winds would to blow to the Arab world Sooner or later, I hope we be prepared for hosting it , And not as always delayed ,This requires collective action and participation, I hope we ready for that

[…] blyberg.net » 11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters (tags: library2.0) […]

[…] 11 Reasons Why Library2.0 exists and matters by John Blyberg […]

[…] 11 Reasons Why Library 2.0 Exists and Matters […]

Just an fyi: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the US population of 65 and over is expected to double in the next 25 years, and that the largest growing age population is those 85 plus. Whatever Library 2.0 really is, it needs to include all of your constituents, it shouldn’t be a choice.

[…] this discussion has been called “Library 2.0,” and John Blyberg has given a sufficient summary of the supposed challenges and opportunities which confront the library. I say supposed, because it […]

[…] Library 2.0- posted on September 20, 2006 - a response to John Blyberg’s 11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters. […]

New trends in technology is the only way for our small libraries to survive.
We jump through hoops to lure more people to our building, and all are pleasantly surprised by the progress we’ve made inside the four walls that have been brushed off for too long.

Library 2.0 is a necessary vision that reminds us to best serve the public. If we do not observe the trends and respond to them, it will be grave for us. Our villagers know where their tax dollars are going, and they want to see results.

To me, L2 can mean a variety of ways to reach out to the public. It involves teaming up with other organizations and developing a plan to introduce the tools that keep us at the forefront of technology and information needs. It also involves becoming familiar with your community, what it needs, and what it favors.

I know I’m at the tip of the iceburg with this debate, but my personal philosophy is to develop a library that will grow and change with technology. Perhaps a small library will make it easy for me to hide from the larger issues, but then again, a small library certainly struggles to prove itself to a Google crowd

Coming from a school library setting, this concept (or the terminology therein)is new to me. With the rest of the world moving at 2.0 speed, it only makes sense for the public library to embrace this idea. For me, it means sharing resources with libraries in our system as well as other systems (ILL), helping the elderly patron as up to date and “comfortable” as they desire to be with technology, the Internet and on-line resources, refering students of all ages to appropriate materials and making sure on a regular basis that we have both the materials, space, and information and personnel sources required.

MARKETING-
I look forward to these changes- as does most of out staff— but unfortunately I doubt we have the support of the county’s IS department behind us. I am looking for new ways to advertise library events and programs, but so far only our friends group is considering an email newsletter. Has anyone else come up with a unique way to publicize events? Is anyone posting videos of author talks, etc. on their web sites?

[…] Just read John Blyberg’s blog post on Library 2.0 as part of step 2 of the 23 Things on a Stick program. He quotes Sarah Houghton’s (aka the […]

Well, this is some pretty heavy duty reading for a non-tech person. I will make further comments on my blog page but one of the things I really enjoyed here was the comments made by other people. I agree that technology has come a long way in the last 10 years and for me I always think, “Oh can I do it” and then you know what, its like old hat once you get the hang of it. Not sure if this is what you want commented

[…] and had seen evidence of his leadership in the library world, but I had never seen him.) I like Sarah’s definition of Library 2.0, too, because it doesn’t emphasize the technical. Yes, the technical is important and […]

As a non-professional, I’m glad to see the relevance of L2 to the Library needs of today. I applaud the effort.

I had no idea that this movement even existed until our media specialist informed us about it. I think it makes total sense because so many of our young people today are getting their information from sources other than the library. I think that if libraries want to be a useful source, then they have to be willing to change. Sure it will take work and it will feel uncomfortable, but change is necessary like with everything else in this world.

I applaud John’s insightful article. It is interesting to me that it was posted a year ago and the things he said have become more true than they were then.

Here are the high spots for me.

1. “It will require a fundamental shift in the library mission.” I would amend that to say, “It MAY require.” I’m in an academic library our mission has always been to reach out to our patrons where they are. What has fundamentally shifted is the way in which we do that. L2 has been a catalyst for that change.

2. I agree that “Authority” is one of the most heated discussion regarding W2 and L2. We still teach that being a wise shopper is always the key. It has actually made me question the authority of “authoritative” sources more than ever before. I also think that tagging is the coolest trend in Authority work. Over time the unneccessary tags will sort themselves out and we will be left with an easy to use and relevant handle on the information we use and need.

3. I also agree with the need to be technically agile. I don’t think we have to be fluent in the W2, but we have to understand the nouns, some verbs, and how to find the bathroom.

4. As for L2 not really having an impact - that is not true (as one comment replied). The single most radical change in my world is the shift in LIS vendors. The Library world has finally realized it does not have to continue paying for a product it cannot use. L2 has been the spark that started that fire. I’ve seen a huge shift in the way “mature” librarians view their ILS. They now see the need for a discovery layer that is as easy as Google, but gets patrons to “better” stuff. I see that as the future of librarianship.

[…] also enjoyed Blyberg’s 11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists. He’s right on the need to re-think management to effectively use Web 2.0 tools. I think […]

I second Anita’s thoughts on familiarity being the key to unlocking new technologies to benefit our users. Breaking with our traditions when necessary and daring to play and learn are essential. However, we must never lose sight of the fact that unless these new technologies are ultimately used to support our ability to make information available to users, they are nothing but toys that take our focus away from our mission.

I had no idea that there was a Library 2.0 until I was introduced to 23 Things on a Stick by the Media Specialist that I work with. I feel that the library is a vital and important part of not only our history, but of our children’s education. I also feel that for this to remain true, we have to be willing to change and stay with the times. I believe that with a little effort we can be a place that people continue to value even as time goes by.

[…] Blyberg says in his blog that “L2 requires a fundamental change in how we handle ‘authority’.” The internet is […]

[…] to repudiate the title ‘Library 2.0′ because they feel it has been hijacked, or ‘co-opted‘, by overzealous librarians and vendors: ‘the term Library 2.0 has been co-opted by a […]

Well I will probably be tarred and feathered for this one – or at the very least lose brownie points, however, I really do not see what the hype is about with Library 2.0. Let’s take a look at a quote that Mr. Blyberg says he likes and what best describes Library 2.0

Hmmm. Gaming nights for teens?? Collaborative photo sites? Are you kidding me? The majority of people have computers in their own homes for that. Also, do we really think the teens will come into the library for gaming nights? Most of the teen gamers I know want to order pizza and pop, get rowdy and loud and play “First Person Shooters”. Do we want that in the libraries? I don’t in my library. What happens when little Billy goes over the edge after playing a “First Person Shooters” at the local library? Can we say lawsuit?

“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.”

Okay, the above quote I like and agree with. The question is how do we go about doing this? I think the library itself does not need to evolve into something other than what it already is. Do we want to increase the patronage and relevance of libraries? Why not concentrate on digitizing the library books that we have and make them easier to obtain? As an example: I have ordered a book through the ILL program – that was almost 2 months ago. If I am a student trying to do a report - forget it – the report is already past due. Why not digitize the book and make them accessible to the patrons? We do this already with white papers, magazines and e-books. I should be able to log on to my library’s website and if they do not have a copy of the e-book they should be able to connect me to a library that does have it and I would have the information at my fingertips instantly.
No, I am sorry I have not heard anything that convinces me that Library 2.0 is the way to go or that it will revolutionize the way we do things. I did not see one example of how they would implement technology in Library 2.0 with regards to the libraries either. What I do see is a lot of rhetoric telling us this is the way to go and that it is unstoppable.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>