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.

Essentially, those of us who are familiar with the term "Library 2.0" all assemble in the same theoretical nebulae when we read and talk about it, and that's good enough for me. For the moment. But there is the real danger of getting mired in discussions like 'what does it mean to be Library 2.0ish'. That's why I think we ought to have a series of clear objectives that forge a path toward L2. I've put together a list of components that, for me, define a strategic vision for L2 in terms of general statements, questions that need to be asked, ideas that need to be drawn up, and unknowns that need to be discovered. It's important for me to do this for myself because any time I'm in "dev mode" I need to have an ideological framework to work with.

Ongoing discussion: What is Library 2.0?
This is where most of the current L2 discussion seems to be centered, and for good reason. Why pursue something if you don't know what it is, or whether it even exists? I love the current discussion because, despite everyone's differing perceptions of L2, there is a common denominator emerging that defines some interesting boundaries for the term. Naturally, a concise definition of "Library 2.0" is not going to happen--it'd be a house built on sand. Assuming that ongoing discussion is part of L2's foundation seems to be the pragmatic thing to do. Pursuing any subsequent action should acknowledge that L2 has a core set of ideologies that are interpreted differently by many.

What are our current impediments?
I've talked a lot about the culpability of vendors when it comes to stifling innovation. I think the nature of vendor-library relationship is perhaps the largest battle we're going to fight on this winding road and I predict a casualty, or two, among vendors who refuse to make way. Many vendors are still building SUVs in a hybrid world.

But vendors are not the only impediments to L2. It might be worthwhile to look a little closer to home. Your largest obstacles may lie within your own organizations. Perhaps you need to finally have that sit-down with your IT department. Maybe some of the changes heralded by L2 are threats to the old-timers. I have a feeling that many of you read about L2 and think to yourself, "it'd be nice to take our library in that direction, but..". Finding solutions or workarounds to those caveats needs to be an important part of the collective discussion.

A perfect example, that has been discussed a little, is the fact that many librarians wish they had coders to implement their ideas. It's a good example because having coders is the dividing line between the have's and the have-not's. At this point, it's inevitable, but in the long term, that is an unacceptable disparity. For now, however, it's the libraries with coders that have the burden and responsibility to build the prototypes for next-generation online services.

How do we overcome those impediments?
Librarians are smart people and I have faith that no impediment will go unaddressed. Of course, different problems have different degrees of complexity, but discussing and brainstorming possible solutions is the first step in dealing with any setback.

I previously mentioned that vendors are a large part of the problem, therefore it stands to reason that vendors need to be a large part of the solution. We need to be able to use the correct language when we draft RFPs or talk to their support teams. I drafted the ILS Customer Bill-of-Rights for two reasons. First, I wanted to give other libraries a very basic set of demands to present to their vendors. If vendors hear it enough, they might just crack the tiller over a degree or two and chart a new course. Second, I wanted to throw down the gauntlet with vendors themselves and, hopefully, open up a discourse with them. Of course, Talis is the only vendor to respond so far, and they are the only vendor to publicly acknowledge the existence, let alone the importance of L2. I think L2 scares the pants off most of the others.

It's important to demand change not only from your vendors, but from anyone else who is stifling your library's progress. Share your ideas and success stories so the rest of us can see how you overcame adversity. Also, share an analysis of your failures because those are just as important when it comes to making futures decisions and laying plans. Ironically, in the Web 2.0 world, being open and honest about your failures tends to bolster your credibility.

Who is going to facilitate this change?
You, for one. But before L2 can enter the mainstream, we're going to need an "official voice" that endorses L2 from both a technology and human perspective. Once this happens, it'll be easier for everyone to bring L2 up in an organization and make headway when it comes to implementation and, especially, buy-in. Of course, ALA comes to mind, but multiple voices of less authority can suffice, depending on context. For now, the debate over how much L2 matters is pertinent, but at some point it becomes farcical to defend the merits of L2 philosophy. An official ratification of L2 as a label would certainly shake loose some acceptance within organizations as well as put pressure on vendors to turn their sights toward L2. If you can, lobby for L2, spread the good news!

What, precisely do we want to offer?
I think we are at the point now where we need to be discussing, in detail, what types of features and services we want to offer under the auspices of L2. Tag cloud mock-ups, prototypes, RSS feeds, collaborative development, memes, and library blogs all serve as hard evidence of a life after Library 1.0. Aside from all that, however, so much focus is on ubiquitous web 2.0 sites like flickr and delicious. Events like Internet Librarian and the Code4Lib conference will undoubtedly serve as periodical collective brainstorming sessions, but what would be great is a clearinghouse of off-the-wall ideas for the practical application of Web 2.0 in the library setting. There are a few of us in the library-coder community who could certainly draw from that pool to create some interesting prototype services and applications.

Ultimately, what are we trying to achieve?
Every now and then, stop and ask yourself why this is all so important. Maintain perspective on your goals. For my part, I'd like to see L2 reach a 'critical mass' within the next two years. That's an ambitious time-line by any standards when it comes to libraries, but think about the fact that the sooner we start harnessing the intelligence of our communities, the sooner we will be creating a living record of our time. Doesn't that cut to the very core of our mission as libraries? What you want to achieve personally and what you want for your institution need to be aligned so that you can set a clear agenda for yourself as you begin tackling your projects.

L2 is not a fad.
Despite what some people may say about L2, it is not a passing fancy bandied about by a few hypertechno-literate librarians. L2 is part of an evolution that is taking place worldwide--a movement in which the threshold between technology and individuality is giving way. Those two seemingly disparate concepts are starting to bleed together, creating the emergence of a new culture. We can be a part of it, or we can be relics. As libraries, I think we have a unique moral obligation to usher our communities into it.

Bear in mind, this post is a brain-dump of questions and ideas that orbit L2 in my head. I'm certainly no authority on the future of L2, but I do have strong convictions about it and, therefore, my interpretation of L2 may reflect that. My desire is to build interesting, useful, and immersive tools for our users. A simple goal with a very complex path.

[update]
Michael Stephens pointed me in the direction of this month's SirsiDynix OneSource in which Stephen Abram takes a look at Library 2.0. Bear in mind that even though only Talis has engaged in public discussion, other vendors are quietly listening and developing strategies behind the scenes. What we don't want, is a mud-slinging contest between vendors. They certainly don't want that either, so expect most of them to inch in slowly and quietly.

It's also worth noting that Sirsi actually does comply fairly well to the ILS Customer Bill-of-Rights, which is not an endorsement since I have no hands-on experience with their ILS, just a statement of fact. Any SirsiDynix customers want to review their API?
[/update]