Library 2.0, Random Thoughts and Musings

My reactions to Library 2.0, at the risk of becoming the class curmudgeon...

I read the Blyberg blog post and watched the Wesch video posted on Shifted Librarian. If we look at Sarah Houghton's definition and stop, right after "community needs", it's pretty obvious that there is nothing revolutionary about Library 2.0. There may have been a time in the 80s when libraries were not considered to be relevant, but I fail to see anything of the sort today. Indeed, libraries are even more utilized today simply because someone/something needs to help people make sense of the glut of information out there. Even those living in very affluent communities are warming to the idea that they just can't become fully informed over the Internet. At least that's my perspective.

I agree with Blyberg's statement that "libraries will feel increasing pressure to provide services that both compliment and diverge from Google." Google has actually done libraries a big favor; Google has shown people the value of knowing. So I am really not all that worried about Google supplanting libraries. Google will never get all the world's knowledge digitized - not mathematically possible, never mind financially possible. And Google will never help all people make sense of what they see on the net.

Spending so much time mulling over just what Library 2.0 is takes away precious time from providing the services that an individual community needs. I sometimes see a quiet desperation on the part of organizations in this regard, i.e. we've got to get on the technology bandwagon, or we're sunk. It's been my experience that organizations which focus on those they serve, without worrying about whether they match the way some other organization discharges their duties, are in the end the most successful. It's also been my experience that without community input and buy in and assistance, any attempt to serve that seems 'new and fresh' has a huge risk of failure, not whether or not there's a cute fancy name attached to what they do.

Thinking that we have to offer gaming, have to do blogs, have to be on Twitter, etc., is pretty short-sighted and wastes energy. What we have to do is serve our population, of all ages. I resented Blyberg's description of a "dwindling elderly population, the soon-to-retire baby boomers", as if those generations are to be dismissed as important. What I have found as I have gone through life is that a balance of young, stars-in-our-eyes ideas and "yeah, but" wisdom seems to work pretty darn well in developing products, systems, and services that last and have staying power. Think of the adoration Craig's List has gotten for so many years - new, fresh, exciting, freeing of pesky regulations, etc. Until someone is murdered as a result of its Wild West atmosphere. Think of the MySpace issues with bullying, including adult impersonators doing the bullying, and the result. MySpace doesn't look so great after that, right? Maybe there's a need to pull on the reins, which some think is anathema, but which helps, in the end.

Change, of course, has always been a part of human existence. And I am sure that the perception of the rate of change has always been one of, “things are moving too fast”.
And then there's the Wesch video posted on the Shifted Librarian link. All nice and glitzy, resounding, pounding, emotionally exciting background music. A clever, “Matrix-like” title. But, it told me this – 1) things are changing in an amazing way, and 2) you (meaning me) had better have brain wiring that is capable of keeping up with this video, because if you don’t, you (meaning me) won’t be able to keep up with the things that are changing in an amazing way.

I say hogwash. I think we are at least two generations away (maybe more) from the majority of the worldwide human population having brain wiring capable of keeping up with that video. And I think it’s disrespectful to present a concept in such a manner with any other expectation. There may have been something there, but how could someone not a geek comprehend it? My ADHD son, whose brain wiring requires multiple things happening quickly and simultaneously, would absorb it without difficulty. But what would he absorb? I saw no thoughtful analysis of the issue. At the end, Wesch flashed a dozen conceptual words that he claimed we must reassess: “copyright, authorship, identity, ethics, aesthetics, rhetoric, governance, privacy, commerce, love, family, ourselves.” (I paused the video multiple times to write them down) All of which require much more than the flash of the word on the screen to make sense of them. Shakespeare certainly didn't think that his themes of love, ambition, and human frailty could be examined as such.

Where is the invitation to think in that kind of presentation? Does Wesch assume that we with the ‘slow caveman brains’ are incapable of weighing in on the issues? Does he believe that non-geeks are not able to learn this stuff because we don’t learn this stuff at his expected rate?

I am not arguing for a ‘stop the presses’ approach to change within libraries. What I believe is that when the introduction of a change is tailored to a specific generational group, we all lose. My experience with ‘flavor of the quarter’ management theories (MBO and TQM come to mind immediately) has taught me that without adequate reflection of a new concept, without adequate and varied experiential input, and especially without buy-in from key players on all levels, change sputters, falters, spins wheels, and leads to demoralization, apathy, and resentment.

It really is OK to want to see Library 2.0 as something which "challenges library orthodoxy on almost every level"; but in the end, half of what is being considered will be disregarded as unusable. So let's not think that the challenge needs to be accomplished in a week.