I’ll admit that the terms Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 were not a part of my vocabulary until October of 2009. When Rosanne (Greene) asked me, ‘Why is there no mention of Web 2.0 on your resume?’ all I could do was furrow my brow and look like I’d forgotten to turn off my flat iron. Two point what now?
So of course I looked it up and felt silly for not knowing the latest buzzwords. And to some extent that’s what they are: buzzwords. Until recently some of us were likely throwing the terms around without a complete understanding of the origins of definitions. I used it as my safety net during co-op interviews – when in doubt my stock response was, “Web 2.0 technologies” and that got me the smiles and nods.
Enter LIS9763.
Having read a few of the articles for this week (and skimming through the rest), I’ve chosen Sarah Houghton’s defintion, quoted in Blyberg’s post, as my favourite because it’s straightforward, resonates with my idea of Library 2.0, and addresses the physical space:
“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.”
This definition and Blyberg’s posting both speak to the fact that 2.0 is a shift towards a more user-based and user-friendly system – and this does not necessarily mean that we’ve got to turn into tech wizards overnight to keep up. Yes, technology plays a significant role but our responsibility is still towards the user/community and this means being aware of the trends but placing the needs of our users over the desire to jump on the social media bandwagon.
“L2 is not about technology, but technology is an important component of it…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.” - Blyberg
5 responses so far ↓
chrissy // Jan 22nd 2010 at 9:57 AM
I agree, Amena. I like this definition as well, but for a different reason. This definition takes the digital divide into account and recognizes that Library 2.0 is far beyond conversing with people virtually, but encouraging community dialogues both in person and virtually. This is my idea of what inclusive library environments should be.
sandraherber // Jan 22nd 2010 at 10:43 AM
You make a good point, Amena, when you say “technology plays a significant role but our responsibility is still towards the user/community and this means being aware of the trends but placing the needs of our users over the desire to jump on the social media bandwagon.” The key is to find a technology that satisfies user needs, not forcing our users to use new technologies because we think they’re cool/interesting/cutting edge.
michel // Jan 23rd 2010 at 7:08 PM
Hi Amena,
I love the beginning of your post! I never heard of web 2.0 either until I came here. Maybe that indicates that it isn’t that big a deal until you go to library school? Or maybe being in library school forces you to use a more precise/specialized language? I mean, I used it, I just didn’t call it that.
suri // Jan 25th 2010 at 9:22 PM
Amena, I agree with the first part of Sarah Houghton’s definition of Web2.0. Where I have difficulty is the implication that libraries are irrelevant and empty. That’s not my experience at all with public libraries and this economic downturn has made it even more so. I do agree that Web2.0 is useful only if it addresses user’s needs and is accessible to useful to them.
Amena // Feb 7th 2010 at 1:52 AM
Hey Suri, Sorry about the delay in responding to your comment…
I’m not sure that Houghton is implying that libraries are irrelevant; it’s just that relevance is subjective. Libraries are by no means empty or irrelevant places – if they were, they’d have gone out of business/style a long time ago. I think her definition speaks more to the need to keep up with our communities and their changing needs and attitudes.