Library 2.0 Explained

Stephen Abram has a great post about The Library 2.0 ‘Bandwagon’ on his blog. If you’re on the wall about Library 2.0 then this is the post to read. Stephen makes some great points that (I hope) will shut the mouths of the people debunking Library 2.0 and make them go “hmmmm”. make the people debunking Library 2.0 sit back and go “hmmmm”.

2.0 is ‘smoke and mirrors’? I think not. It’s a great title for a conversation about how Libraryland needs to adapt to the wider changes happening in our communities.

Stephen also says that “The users are moving into the control position. Libraries are no longer able to drive the good bus ‘library’ alone.” and then provides a bunch of great examples of how the users are taking control (LibraryElf, LibraryThing, Amazon, etc).

The fact is that the users want self service – and more control! Of course he also brings up a good point and one the reoccurring arguments I see – can we trust the user? What happens if we open up commenting on our blog and the users post something inappropriate? What if we allow users to review books and they use curse words? Well, these are things we need to come up with solutions to – they are not reasons to decide not to upgrade, just hurdles to get over.

[3/1/06 10:04AM - Edit made to better express what I was trying to say]

10 comments

  1. “Stephen makes some great points that (I hope) will shut the mouths of the people debunking Library 2.0 and make them go “hmmmm”.”

    Shut the mouths? Wow. Another demonstration that there’s no “us vs. them” in Library 2.0: If you’re not on the bandwagon, shut up and go away. Certainly makes me go “hmm.”

  2. “Stephen makes some great points that (I hope) will shut the mouths of the people debunking Library 2.0 and make them go “hmmmm”.”

    Shut the mouths? Wow. Another demonstration that there’s no “us vs. them” in Library 2.0: If you’re not on the bandwagon, shut up and go away. Certainly makes me go “hmm.”

  3. Walt,

    I’m sorry you thought I meant it that way – I most certainly didn’t – maybe I used too strong of language.

    I’m also sorry that Spam Karma blocked your comment for so long – I’m still learning how to use it.

  4. Walt,

    I’m sorry you thought I meant it that way – I most certainly didn’t – maybe I used too strong of language.

    I’m also sorry that Spam Karma blocked your comment for so long – I’m still learning how to use it.

  5. I understood how you meant it, Nicole. Anybody who knows you knows you would interpret it as a spunky (good word), “step back and think about the possibilities” way. It can be difficult for us librarians to let go of control, but the goal line has been moved, and the technology will pass us by if we don’t pay attention to that. It’s not letting go of control as much as it is considering the new parameters which are being added.

  6. I understood how you meant it, Nicole. Anybody who knows you knows you would interpret it as a spunky (good word), “step back and think about the possibilities” way. It can be difficult for us librarians to let go of control, but the goal line has been moved, and the technology will pass us by if we don’t pay attention to that. It’s not letting go of control as much as it is considering the new parameters which are being added.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>