Kate Sheehan makes some interesting observations about the cultural awareness of librarians. She also touches on an unfortunate truth about Library 2.0:

It’s easy to become enamored of social networking sites and Web 2.0 toys to the point where they seem like a panacea for everything that’s wrong with your library or your job. Slap a wiki on it and call me in the morning. The most successful uses of the newest tech tools have recognized that they’re just that: tools.

I’ve been feeling, for awhile now, that the term Library 2.0 has been co-opted by a growing group of libraries, librarians, and particularly vendors to push an agenda of “change” that deflects attention from some very real issues and concerns without really changing anything. It’s very evident in the profusity of L2-centric workshops and conferences that there is a significant snake-oil market in the bibliosphere. We’re blindly casting about for a panacea and it’s making us look like fools.

Ignoring the information ecology

Perhaps the most significant area of neglect is our failure to recognize that Library 2.0 is a delicate ecology. Like Web 2.0, it represents technology that is inherently disruptive on many levels. Not only does Web 2.0 undermine notions of authority and control, but its economic and human costs are very real. There is, indeed, something very exciting about the fact that Google bought YouTube for $1.65 Billion–especially since it was only a company of sixty-odd employees. But at the same time, I’m a little alarmed that sixty-odd people could dominate such a large piece of that market-share. Not for the same reason that we have (soon to have had) the FCC’s media ownership rule, but because the force of that type of change has to be felt somewhere. Think of it in terms of a bag of nitrate dumped in a stream–the algae does really well, but the fish suffocate.

Luckily, Web 2.0 as a whole exists in a large, rather well-insulated economy that will adjust over time. Libraries, on the other hand, are significantly more delicate ecosystems that require more care and discretion. Specifically, we need to understand how our internal information ecology works and how to tend to it. How and where we interface with our users is where the rubber meets the road and should merit a little more thought then simply thrusting a MySpace page in their face or building a new library in Second Life–a service our users overwhelmingly do not use and, which seems to me, like a creepy post-apocalyptic wasteland. I’ll even turn the tables on myself and admit that I was wrong about local tagging in the OPAC. SOPAC was by-and-large a success, but its use of user-contributed tags is a failure. For the past nine months, the top ten tags have included “fantasy”, “manga”, “anime”, “time travel”, “shonen”, “shonen jump”, and “shape-changing”. As a one-time resident of Ann Arbor, I can assure you that these are not topics that dominated the collective hive mind. Well, maybe time travel, if hash-bash was going on.

So we need to understand that, while it’s alright to tip the balance and fail occasionally, we’re more likely to do so if we’re arbitrarily introducing technology that isn’t properly integrated into our overarching information framework. Of course, that means we have to have a working framework to begin with that compliments and adheres to our tradition of solid, proven librarianship. In other words, when we use technology, it should be transparent, intuitive, and a natural extension of the patron experience. If it can’t be transparent, then it should be so overwhelmingly beneficial to the user that it is canonized not by the techies, but the users themselves.

You can’t buy Library 2.0

…And vendors, you can’t sell it. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be attempted. I think perhaps there is an expectation that real-life should somehow mimic the success of the software plug-in model. There may be something to be said for the “object-oriented” library, but that is a far cry from stuffing a new product into an already-awkward, malformed, and ill-suited portfolio. For example, third-party OPACs, as they are currently being sold to us, are likely to fail. Not because they are inherently bad products–some are, some aren’t, but because the companies producing them are only mimicking the Web 2.0 widget–the deliverable. What they are not doing is reevaluating their business and development processes with the goal of realigning them with the interests of libraries. I discussed the pressing need for significant development partnerships back in the July 2007 issue of LJ’s NetConnect and I still believe that that particular model for collaboration is the only way to significantly improve our ability to embed technology in the library. It’s not a long-term viable solution to sell the concept of development partnership when all it really is is just the opportunity to report bugs on software that is not quite ready for prime time.

As libraries, we need to realize that the answers to our larger questions cannot be found out on the exhibitor’s floor. That’s where we find solutions to specific needs that have been identified by a thorough self-examination.

Meeting technology half-way

Don’t hold your breath waiting for technology to adapt to the library environment. Web 2.0 did not evolve with libraries in mind, and there’s no reason to think that it ever will. I realize that, at first glance, that statement seems to run counter to what I’ve been saying with regards to not forcing a square peg into a round hole. What I mean is that we cannot expect to retrofit our libraries with tomorrow’s technology. The true pursuit of Library 2.0 involves a thorough recalibration of process, policy, physical spaces, staffing, and technology so that any hand-offs in the patron’s library experience are truly seamless. We can learn a lot about collaboration and individual empowerment from Web 2.0, but we cannot be subsumed by it because we have a mission that eclipses “don’t be evil” which is the closest thing to a conscience the Web will ever have.

I woke up Saturday morning, grabbed a cup of coffee and saw that I had an email from Kate Sheehan saying, “Nice article in the Times!”

It turns out that Louise Berry, our director, was interviewed months ago for the article and thought it was probably abandoned. Not so, and it’s quite good. It begins:

WHEN residents of Darien, Conn., walk into their new library sometime in 2009, they will be able to read a book or magazine while sipping coffee in a cafe that spills out to the sidewalk. They will find books grouped by subject, as they are in bookstores, instead of according to the Dewey Decimal System. They will lounge in overstuffed chairs, peruse DVDs in a Blockbuster-style video section, write a report on a wireless computer or print one on a color copier, and bind a proposal in the building’s small business center.

And I love this:

“Libraries see their roles as much more of a cultural gathering place where people come together, kind of like the salons of the French and Victorian coffee houses,” said Darien’s library director, Louise Berry.

Other Connecticut library directors were interviewed as well: Maxine Bleiweis (Westport), Pat Holloway (West Hartford), and Kathy Leeds (Wilton). Connecticut is really a nexus of library change–an observation I made when coming to speak at Quinnipiac for the Connecticut Library Consortium in October, 2006. The librarians here do not lack for passion and energy and it shows.

But I think the article is good because it doesn’t take the familiar “oh, look what the cute libraries are doing” tone. It also reinforces what I’ve been thinking all along–libraries are not just about content. We need to be focusing on the library experience. In fact, content is going to become a tertiary component of what we do. Instead, we will be become enablers and collaborative partners with our public. A strong focus on the community is key to that vision. Not just reactive care and customer service, but a proactive approach to enriching the lives of the citizens around us. If you look at where the houses and hotels are on the game board, this is the real estate that Google and Amazon cannot touch. As Maxine Bleiweis says, “Human contact has gradually gone away. You add the isolation of the suburbs and you’ve really got a situation where people need to come together. One of the most natural places is the library.” If I could get our users to associate any two words, they would be “home” and “library.”

And if you want to watch the progress of the New Darien Library (you know you do!), click on the image above to see our construction site web-cam.

No, I didn’t just remember that I actually do have a blog. Sometimes you just need to take a break from things to gain new perspective.

So I’m late to the party to do my bit for the promotion of Information Tomorrow. I was very pleased to be asked by Rachel Singer Gordon to write a chapter on my thoughts about the ILS.

I think it’s an incredibly useful book for those people who are insterested in getting a sense of what the relationship between libraries and technology looks like today. Of course, a quick glance at the list of contributors should be enough to convince you to grab a copy.

Having contributed the chapter over a year ago, I have to say that I’ve revised my thinking somewhat since then. I stand by what I wrote, mind you. The library-vendor relationship is, in far too many cases, an unhealthy and unbalanced one. I now temper that conviction with a more pragmatic approach to the problem and feel that while it’s important to let your vendor know that you’re unhappy with aspects of their business model, developing good working relationships with them provides a vital symmetry to that loop.

Of course, the market will sort it all out in the end. With the rise of the open source ILS, that playing field is about to tilt drastically in favor of libraries.

I simply cannot blog in real-time. That’s better left to the pros. Instead, I prefer to do something like the following:

$ diff self.preIL07 self.postIL07

IL2007 marks the third Internet Librarian I’ve attended and, in my estimation, the best. At least one other person has commented to me that there seemed to be something different about this year’s IL and I’ve been trying to articulate what that is. Certainly, the vibe was different (hey, I’m allowed to use ‘vibe’ in reference to a conference in California). I think several factors are converging that made for a particularly beneficial Internet Librarian this year. Instead of recapping the entire conference (since others have done that far better than I could), I decided to look back over my notes and quote, verbatim, some snippets that stand out:

“Look at all these first time attendees!”

Indeed there were many. In fact, first timers outnumbered returning conference-goers two-to-one (from my very unscientific eyeballing of raised hands). Moreover, the general attitude of these attendees seemed to be that of open-minded, curious anticipation. I’m heartened to see this kind of response to a conference like Internet Librarian and I’ll be curious to see how that trend continues in the years to come.

“Nowhere is the value of 2.0-based tools, applied to learning and research, more evident than in the work done by Helene Blowers.”

Yes well, I hadn’t really considered the impact Helene has had on libraries until seeing her talk about Learning 2.0. I’ve heard her speak a number of times on this but for some reason this was the one that hit me between the eyes. Learning 2.0 changes libraries and librarians. It’s success can be attested to by the fact that is has been duplicated over 200 times worldwide–that makes Helene the Miss Rumphius of the library world.

“The Shanachies remind us that imagination and passion are the ying and yang of next-generation librarianship.”

What can really be said about the boys from Holland? They were the rockstars. It’s not often that you meet people who care enough about their profession to seek funding for, then set out upon a cross-country road trip on the other side of the world to shoot a documentary on The American Library. IL2007 will always be referred to as “the year the Dutch guys came.”

Note to self: Visit Dok.

“Encourage the heart.”

I was again reminded of Michael Stephens’ call for libraries to ‘encourage the heart.’ You can’t bring to bear a more fundamental charge and this is really at the heart of our mission, isn’t it? Librarianship will never be boring, because regardless of how you come at it, it will be like examining a many-faceted statue–simultaneously impenetrable and encompassing. If you can’t see what he means, perhaps it’s time to back off and approach your work from a different angle. I don’t care if you’re a corporate law or a YA librarian, this applies to you.

“Focus on community.”

Another subtle trend I picked up on was the lighter focus on specific tools and a closer examination of community and the library. I’ll freely admit that some of that may be me, projecting my own thoughts into the mix, but only partially. The word “community” itself came up several times in more than one session. Not only do we have a responsibility to engage our patrons where they live (outside our walls), but we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fill a void where Google, and Yahoo! and Amazon cannot go.

“Org 2.0 = movement toward cohesion”

Interesting thoughts from Rebbecca Jones on “Organization 2.0.” Too many institutions need to learn the hard lessons and even more are under siege from within by departments who refuse to integrate with each other. Maybe it’s time we recognize that departmental boundaries are artificial and harmful. Hierarchy is important but what good does it do if it turns your organization into a menagerie of fiefdoms?

“Folks like Glenn Peterson from Hennepin County are conducting a quiet revolution whose shock-wave is both impending and building in intensity.”

I wrote that along the edge of some marketing literature because I didn’t have anything else to write on. Glenn really is a quiet force of nature when it comes to next-gen library websites and catalogs. The work he’s done at Hennepin is truly impressive. Casey Bisson is another uber-innovator who is changing the game with Scriblio. It occurred to me that it’s really only a matter of time before these types of efforts impact the already-tenuous ILS market. Get your popcorn.

“In two years, many libraries have gone from ‘what’s this?’ to ‘here’s this.’”

Internet Library 2005 was exciting. Web 2.0 was spinning up its dynamos and making its way into Libraryland. I remember hearing a lot and seeing a lot about Flickr and del.icio.us and the like–demonstrations mostly. But the relevance of these services in libraries was immature and unclear. Not so, two years later. We’re seeing more than just a few libraries leveraging 2.0 tools to do some pretty cool stuff. I think that trend is likely to continue as organizational responsibilities begin to encompass the use of Web 2.0.

“All hell is about to break loose.”

This was scrawled on my notepad sometime during the second day. I really don’t remember writing it, but it’s in my handwriting and I hope it’s true.

See you next year in Monterey!

The library unconference is fast becoming a fixture in the assortment of library-related gatherings. Having been a facilitator of two previous Library Camps in Ann Arbor and Darien, it was a pleasure to let someone else do all the heavy lifting and simply enjoy the fruits of their labor! Many thanks to Stephen Francoeur, Linda Rath, Louise Klusek (the kind folks from Baruch), Rachel Watstein (IBM), and Steven Kaye (Accenture).

Attendance at Library Camp NYC was quite large (100+ people!) which certainly tested the open spaces concept. The 14th floor of Baruch’s vertical campus building was well equipped to handle the crowd, however, and a number of really great sessions were spawned. The only drawback of the unconference format, I’ve found, is that I always find myself wanting to be in two or three places at once. You can take a look at how the final program evolved on the event wiki.

During the first session, I attended ‘Library 2.0 show and tell‘ which focused a lot on wikis and some other specific technologies. The group also touched on topics such as how to get staff/patrons to buy-in to new services. I also attended a session led by OCLC’s Eric Hellman on their grid services concept (xISBN, etc). I think I enjoyed the final session the most, however, which was a discussion about cataloging and Weinberger’s Everything is Miscellaneous.

A great day, and I’m sure we’ll see more library camps in the future.