virtually a librarian

Interesting response from John Blyberg to David Lee King’s spectrum of 2.0ness, including this insightful comment:

There is, indeed, an existential component to Library 2.0, but it’s the same
aesthetic that drives all librarians into the profession–chances are, if you’re
reading this, it’s in you regardless of your thoughts on L2. What makes
Library 2.0 different is that we can manifest that passion to share and broker
knowledge in a fantastically new egalitarian space. [my italics]

I like this! This is the true beauty of Web2.0 - its ability to give everyone (well, everyone on this side of the digital divide) a voice, a space, an opportunity to interact. And that’s what libraries are all about. And that’s undoubtedly why we’ve grabbed the swag of Web2.0 tools and run.

Getting back to the topic of David Lee King’s original posts on the spectrum: I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about what 2.0 technologies we could harness at mpow to deliver effective, efficient and responsive online services. It’s given me a new appreciation for the idea that the technology is not the end; rather, it’s the means to the end. In my work, providing and promoting online services is the end. 2.0 technologies are one set of tools I can use to facilitate this. But it’s no good implementing the tools for the sake of playing with technology (not in a service delivery context, anyway - I certainly play for play’s sake in my own time). The tool has got to fit the job. We (ie all of us - everyone who does this kind of work) need to envision the online library branches we want to build, and then select the right tools to build and develop them. It’s no good saying “Twitter is cool. Let’s start tweeting”, if we have no real need to Tweet.

David Lee King’s spectrum is interesting, but it’s kind of like, to get over to the ‘enlightened’ side, you need to tick the boxes - get a flickr account, start an IM service, get a library blog… I’m just concerned that sometimes we’re (I’m?) ticking the boxes for the sake of ticking the boxes. That we’re getting 2.0 because it’s the thing to do, not because it’s what we need to do to deliver robust, responsive, needed services. I think we should choose carefully from the swag of 2.0 tools those that will help us in meeting the end towards which we’re working, rather than those that we can kinda sorta use if we try really hard.

Note to self: define the end, then pick the tool. And don’t get (too) caught up in the shininess.