Contemplating the existence of… Library 2.0
The readings I’ve focused on this week have taken me through the arguable reasons for Library 2.0; in particular, Meredith Farkas and John Blyberg list their reasons for why libraries should embrace social software, Blyberg quite literally. What really strikes me about both these responses to the 2.0 naysayers is that Farkas and Blyberg actually had to defend the existence of Library 2.0. (Although, at one point in his post, Blyberg points to a Farkas blog post and claims that she doesn’t herself believe Library 2.0 exists. This seems a little over-simplified: Farkas seems to me to be saying in the post that the particular vernacular is irrelevent, that whatever label we give it, trendy or not, Library 2.0 is “just a bunch of very good ideas that have been squished into a box”.)
Farkas and Blyberg wrote out their reasons only a few years ago, and yet I would be surprised to find many librarians now who would argue against the very existence of Library 2.0. There’s still a lot of (healthy, in my opinion) debate about the particulars of Library 2.0, and just how far and to what extremes we should be embracing it, but it’s existence is taken as a matter of course by all but the most naive of librarians.
Now, what hit me as really, really striking about this very recent debate over the existence of Library 2.0 and the now virtually undisputed and unavoidable fact of its being, is the rather obvious point that we are rushing ahead at breathtaking and back-breaking speeds. (And now you’re thinking, “hello, mom, welcome to the world of technology cliches”.) Yes, I know this is something that we all hear spouted on a very regular basis, but it doesn’t hurt to have it hit home, really hit home, every once in a while. The very existence of something was debated a few very short years ago, and now that something is taken as a matter of course, for better or worse. Simply because that something has rushed so headlong at us that it’s utterly unavoidable.
The question is, did writers such as Blyberg, arguing passionately for the importance of internal reorganization, fundamental change to library mission, the necessity of technological agility and the actual revolution that is offered by the concept of Library 2.0, actually change the minds of librarians out in the field? Perhaps some, but if I had to guess, I’d say not many, convincing and thought-provoking as his argument is.
What is really going on is a hopefully organic, but fundamentally forced, shift in thinking – and the whole library world is creaking and groaning it’s way now toward more or less participation in Library 2.0, because it’s expected by library leaders, because it’s what users expect, and because it’s what’s obvious.
It may help some reticent librarians feel a little more involved and a little more plugged in if they engaged with the persuasive writings of those such as Farkas, Blyberg, and Jessamyn West, but from what I’ve seen and experienced, it doesn’t much matter whether librarians like the concept of Library 2.0 or not – it’s here, and they are resigned or excited to deal with it, as the case may be. Existence is non-negotiable anymore. Exist, and exist as a 2.0 librarian…
January 21st, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Hear, hear, Dayna!
I agree and love your description about the library “creaking and groaning” towards a fundamentally forced shift.
It’s true, whatever label we put on this, it’s really just a part of the evolution of the library. As with all change, there are many who are resistant and hesitant to embrace it.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Dayna, I tend to agree that whether people are arguing pro or con as it applies to Library 2.0 or Web 2.0 the technology exists and the expectations of a portion of the population exists and neither will completely go away. Our world is changing and we must decide which parts of the changes we will accept and act and which we will ignore or record, but not use.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Hi Dayna,
I like that you talked about whether or not Web 2.0 exists, and that there is much back and forth over it. Do you even need to give the technology its own name? We don’t do that in other apects of our everyday life. People don’t call their laptops “desktop 2.0″.