There would be no Library 2.0 without the internet.*
* Restrictions Apply
To let everyone else in on what I’m talking about, Alan Gray and I had a discussion the other day over lunch about the nature of L2. I was trying to make the point that L2 is not all about technology, that a library can be Library 2.0 and unplugged, if it so chose. Alan feels that it is all about technology. The snark portion of the disagreement went something like this:
Me: “If the power goes out, we can still be 2.0.”
Alan: “That’s because everyone’s laptops and cell phones have batteries.”
Smartass.
He’s correct, of course, but so am I. We’re both approaching the same center from different vectors. As it turns out, this is a relatively unexplored finer point on the mercurial nature of Library 2.0. The topic was briefly broached by several people at one point, but never fully expounded. But it’s an important one in that it gives us a frame of reference in which to consider the types of services we are (or are not) offering in our libraries. It’s vital to understand why Library 2.0 is meaningful to us and if it is only because we’re in the midst of an intense preoccupation with its foundational technologies then that’s not terribly healthy. If, on the other hand, the 2.0 hive has cemented anything of true value into our collective ideology, then we have an obligation to apply it in our work. I believe it has.
Back in March, 2006, I put this image together and I have to confess that after posting it I thought I should have added “People” as one if its principle elements. But now I’m glad I didn’t isolate the human component in its own category. People are infused through all of these realms in too many ways to count–and not necessarily those that might immediately spring to mind. You may remember that during that time, the term “Library 2.0″ itself was under scrutiny, as well as the uncertain complexion of the very thing it sought to describe. In hind-sight, it appears that the people I’m talking about here were, by debating the existence of Library 2.0, becoming some of its initial architects. One of the paradoxes of the 2.0 world is that it is essentially a socialist system based on wholesale, acute individualism. The many unique voices talking about Library 2.0 have served to expand its meaning and sharpen its borders.
Interestingly, a mere one year later, most of us who talk about this stuff are talking about it as though it’s been around forever. Of course, it hasn’t and the debate really never resolved gracefully. Those that accepted it to begin with simply continue to, and many who were skeptical have come on-board with the anticipation that precedes a long, slow gulp of barium. Last week, Walt Crawford mentioned that he might revisit his well-known Library 2.0 Cites & Insights issue. I hope he does because this discussion is far from over and I’m very interested to hear his take on things these days. When he last took me to task, he pointed out that I was suggesting that ‘anything different is”Library 2.0″‘. Admittedly, that stung a little at the time because it was, in essence, what I had said and it was a flimsy assertion. But that’s blogging for ya.
So now I’m asserting that there would be no Library 2.0 without the internet. More specifically, that the internet was a prerequisite for what we now agree to call Library 2.0. Like an awkward adolescent, however, L2 will inevitably experiment with independence from its high-tech bloodline. Ultimately, if the power goes out and the laptop batteries die, we will be left with a profoundly different library. Certainly the one we hope to build here in Darien will reflect a set of attitudes that are less constrained by convention and more motivated by collaboration, empowerment, and hospitality. The first two of those virtues clearly come from Web 2.0, while the third reflects commitment to what many call Business 2.0.
We can transform our libraries in a number of ways, as evidenced by Leslie Burger’s transformation track at ALA this past June. But what I’m interested in here is how the internet has changed our profession, and what its legacy will be. There will come a day when libraries and networked technology are so closely associated that the very term “library” will be synonymous with “online” just as it is with “books”. As Jessamyn is quoted in the recent NYT article, librarianship is becoming “a techie profession.” For newcomers to the industry, that train has left the station–it is a techie profession. In the near future, new librarians will need to be technologists. At the very least, they’ll need to be able to participate in an information-centric community that requires all the disparate parts of the library to come together in a seamless fashion. The very best librarians will be able to cultivate those systems. We’re germinating an information ecosystem that is just now begining to sprout and it’s the next generation of information professionals who are going to bear witness to the full bloom. They’re also going to inherit what we do right now and play steward to it well into their professional lives.
And at the heart of it all resides the Network–an albatross to some, a blessing to others. The Network is four little octets, a new domain, a new human experience. And we’re dumping shit into it at a phenomenal rate without any thought as to where it will end up, how useful it is, how accurate it is. Typical human behavior. Yet its value cannot be overstated. The internet has a penchant for compartmentalizing its minutia in ways that make it seem sentient. There are gems to be found.
There is a lot of sludge too and that is overwhelming to the uninitiated. I’m reminded of Wordsworth’s Prelude where he describes the serendipity of finding a rowboat that he climbs in to and paddles toward the looming cliffs. As he approaches, a dark peak rises up before him and blocks out the stars causing a darkness that fills him with dread. For many, accepting this new world is akin to his journey back from that darkness because it is so different: it’s simultaneously huge, incorporeal, and iconoclastic. Libraries are the first stars to reappear in that night sky. We’ll help guide them through that wilderness. That is what Library 2.0 does–with our technology, our spaces, and with everything we offer. Without Library 2.0 there is only dead reckoning for too many people.















8 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Nice post! I have two slight disagreements…
1. There would be no Library 2.0 without the Internet - I’d say without web 2.0. L2 would never have sprung up from gopher, for example! I think it’s the fairly recent web developments that have spurred new thinking and new ways of working.
2. leaving out People. Yes, I agree - people are in each of your 4 areas. No doubt about that. But - I feel strongly that there’s a transformative realm for people. Because the other realms you list - tech, policy, etc, all happen OUTSIDE the individual (it’s all stuff, so to speak). But there’s a HUGE transformation that needs to take place WITHIN individuals, too - L2 doesn’t happen until employees embrace the outside changes taking place in the tech, the policy, the building, etc.
Just some thoughts to chew on…
By david lee king on 07.12.07 11:51 am | Permalink
David,
Thanks.
I’d say you’re partially correct on the first point. Web 2.0 is the wholesale adoption of the values that it represents, but I would suggest that Web 2.0 was simply an inevitability. Let’s not forget that the same type of collaboration was taking place online long before even hypertext. Remember MOOs and MUDs, for instance? They were the first “second lifers” who collaborated on building entire worlds, albeit text-based. Different protocol, same behavior.
I can completely appreciate your second point, and yes our people need to be transformed too. I suppose I could go either way on that. Maybe I just don’t want to recreate my illustrations.
At any rate, you’re right–something to chew on.
By john on 07.12.07 12:11 pm | Permalink
Hi John,
I don’t expect to “revisit Library 2.0″ as such. As this post explains, I had considered reissuing the special issue and the followup half-issue in book form–but decided it was a bad use of my time.
I continue to be involved in the discussion in at least two ways:
1. My book, Balanced Libraries: Thoughts on Continuity and Change is in many ways my continuation and broadening of the discussion–explicitly so.
2. The Making it Work essays in Cites & Insights, which may spin off into a separate epublication depending on how my future “employment” pans out, also in part continue this discussion–but with relatively little focus on the term itself.
By walt crawford on 07.12.07 12:27 pm | Permalink
Ick - MUDS! I forgot about those, certainly. No, you’re correct - the behavior was there - in ICQ, too.
I think web 2.0 made all these things more accessible to the “normal” person. In some cases, easier to use - in others, simply more press = more popularity.
But yes, I’ll give you that one. Even were I completely correct, web 20 came to be because of web 1.0, which came to be because of all those muds, moos, and gophers… and not all that long ago, either!
By david lee king on 07.12.07 10:33 pm | Permalink
[...] such as Web 2.0, Library 2.0, Learning 2.0, etc). What started it was that we’d both read a post by John Blyberg about whether or not Library 2.0 required technology and being ‘plugged-in’, or if [...]
By All Things Web 2.0 What is Web2.0? or I know it when I see it. « on 07.17.07 8:49 am | Permalink
In what measure L2 is a sort of Technological Sublimation of the problem of distance from users stated in F W Lancaster Second thoughts on the paperless society. Library Journal. 1999 Sep 15;124(15) 48-50?
By Julio Anjos on 08.07.07 5:39 pm | Permalink
Julio,
After reading Lancaster’s article, I come to the conclusion that he’s simply wrong. I don’t hold that against him, of course, very few predicted that the internet would evolve the way it did–primarily because nobody had any idea of how broadband would influence the user. Hindsight is always 20-20.
Lancaster writes:
At many libraries now, all you see are people hunched over terminals. There’s no direct, face-to-face socialization. Technology has contributed to a loss of camaraderie.
in response to:
A recent column by LJ’s Digital Libraries columnist Roy Tennant (LJ 1/99, p. 39) identifies nine “skills for the new millennium”–skills that, the author maintains, are needed to “create and manage digital library collections and services.” The skills are imaging technologies, optical character recognition, markup languages, cataloging and metadata, indexing and database technology, user interface design, programming, web technology, and project management.
Nearly a decade later, it’s clear that Roy’s game was just ramping up in 1999, while Lancaster’s was winding down. Roy’s comments are as true today as they were eight years ago. I do see a lot of people sitting at terminals at our library, but I also see the rest of the library being utilized.
Furthermore, the idea that we’ve lost our sense of camaraderie is just not true. Like I was trying to convey in my post, technology–in the way that its use has evolved–is teaching us how to meet in an entire new collaborative space. It’s rubbed our noses in the fact that the type of information our users want is sometimes more important than the quality of it. So we find ourselves playing the role of information mediator, not the information dispenser.
I can appreciate Lancaster’s article insomuch as it cautions against a bleak possibility–something to which we should all be vigilant. The concerns of this decade are far different than those of the last.
By john on 08.08.07 12:51 pm | Permalink
[...] such as Web 2.0, Library2.0, Learning 2.0, etc). What started it was that we’d both reada post by John Blyberg about whether or not Library 2.0 requiredtechnology and being ‘plugged-in’, or if [...]
By What is 2.0? or I know it if I see it. « My Weblog on 09.27.07 10:57 pm | Permalink
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=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>