defining, debasing and moving on: library 2.0

library2.0 7 Responses »
Jun 082010

For today’s installment, I’ve dusted off a post I’ve had sitting in draft since 2008. Uh-huh. 2008. I’ve updated it so it makes sense in the here and now, but I haven’t done much editing, because I think it’s really interesting that we’re still having conversations about the relevance of the ’2.0′ tag. Right no, in my research group, we’re trying to come up with an alternative language to think about all the 2.0s: Library, Business, Government, Enterprise. For me, the best fit for an alternative term (at least around libraries) is ‘participatory’: The Participatory Library.

When the early proponents of Library 2.0 argued that Library 2.0 is not about the technology, I think they did themselves a disservice by not clearly and simply articulating what it is actually all about. For me, the strong link (other than technology) between Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 is that both are about participation. So these days, when I talk about ‘the concept formerly named Library 2.0′, I tend to talk about the participatory library.

I found it interesting when I unearthed this post to discover that I was having the same thoughts about an alternative language two years ago that I’m having now.

So here it is: out of the vault…

Just before I wrote the first draft of this post, I got asked to do an interview on Library 2.0 for a non-library publication. At one point during the interview I said to the interviewer “Ummm, this is kind of a weird topic to pick up in such a generalist publication” (from memory, I think it was a general government news broadsheet). It’s pretty cool that something library-related has gotten enough mainstream interest to generate an article in a publication targeted at a more general audience.

Unsurprisingly, the interviewer’s conception of Library 2.0 was pretty much entirely technology-centric. It’s noteworthy that technology is the aspect of the Library 2.0 ‘philosophy’ that someone outside libraries has picked up on. And it’s interesting that this interview came up at this particular point in time: firstly, given the conversation that was happening in the biblioblogosphere at that point in time around the debasing of the concept of Library 2.0, and secondly, given a paper I was due to present at a conference in a couple of days time.

The interviewer came across my name on the 2008 VALA program, and so was interested in my work with IM. It was kind of a tricky interview, because our understandings of Library 2.0 differed. I think technology is a central part of Library 2.0, but I’m not sure that the interviewer had heard too much about the other aspects of Library 2.0.

Why did we do IM at the National Library in 2007? We thought it could be a good step forward in virtual reference service provision, for a number of reasons, one of which was that the technology seemed to be responsive and flexible and fit for the purpose. We thought our customers might prefer to use an IM client they were familiar with rather than navigating to a web page to use a proprietary chat product that was essentially trying to replicate the technology they were used to, but not really succeeding (in my view). We did it because we were looking at ways to overcome some of the well-documented issues with proprietary chat reference products. In short, we did it for the users and to reach out to non-users, not for the sake of technolust. It was kind of difficult to explain to the interviewer that the technology, while a motivating factor, was not the main impetus for the pilot.

Is the Library 2.0 label any good to us?

Around the time I started writing this post, there was a fair bit of discussion around the Library 2.0 discourse and whether the rhetoric is any good to us, or whether the term has been debased* to the point of no return. I’m in two minds about this (both then and now). If the concept of Library 2.0 helps us to get library staff interested in and thinking about technology, if it means we deliver responsive, needed services in the way our customers want them delivered, if it means getting people engaged with the library, then that’s great.

*See the comments on this post, not so much the post itself.

But I just don’t know how much useful a term as open to conjecture as this one is can really be. Largely, I think we’ve failed to reach a definition of Library 2.0 that we can all agree on. Yes, many have attempted to define it, but in doing so, they’ve been more focused on what it’s not about (technology) than what it actually is about. (Go here and see how one librarian has attempted to grapple with what this thing we call Library 2.0 really is.)

For me, Library 2.0 is about user-centredness, responsiveness, and meaningful innovation informed by research, evidence and evaluation. It’s about participation. In my last role, where I was responsible for online collections and services for a large public library, any thinking I did about Library 2.0 was intrinsically related to technology, but that was more because my business was online services, not because Library 2.0 is technology is Library 2.0.

The early proponents of the term tell us that Library 2.0 is not just about technology. Maybe not, but whether we like it or not, it’s an enormous part of it (and there’s nothing wrong with that, so long as our forays into technolust land and focused on user needs).

At the time I drafted this post, I was preparing to give a paper at a conference that’s aiming to go beyond the hype of Web 2.0. I presented there on Gold Coast Libraries’ online library project, which encompassed a range of initiatives, some a little 2.0, but most decidedly 1.0. So I’d been pondering the whole Library 2.0 thing and whether I really had anything invested in the Library 2.0 rhetoric. I certainly love that it’s given technology and particularly online services a raised profile in library land. But I think the answer I came up with in the end was that I think some of the rhetoric is floored, and I’m certainly not wedded to the term.

No matter how much we theorise about Library 2.0 NOT being all about technology, the whole concept of Library 2.0 is wed to the concept of Web 2.0, and I don’t know that we can impose a divorce. A lot of people are caught up in the tools. I (and many others) have said it before, and I’m sure we’ll all say it again: it’s got to be about the service and what the user wants, first and foremost. But, with a concept that is so intrinsically linked to Web 2.0, I’m not sure that we can entirely shift the focus from the tool to user needs. Alongside Library 2.0, we’ve been encouraging people to play with technology through Learning 2.0 / 23 things programs. It follows that people who play with this stuff are going to want to put it to use. Can we blame people for succumbing to the shiny and putting the tool before the need?

The rhetoric around Library 2.0 cannot be separated from technology because the 2.0 meme will not allow it. We can’t coopt a technology concept like ’2.0′ and apply it to our context and expect people not to tie it up with technology in their heads. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that Library 2.0 is (at least in my head) about user-centredness and engaging our users and non-users. But it’s also about technology, and using technology to achieve user-centred services, community engagement, and meaningful change.

Have we debased the term Library 2.0? I don’t think so. I’m not sure we’ve so much debased it as picked the wrong term to describe the phenomenon in the first place. Where the early proponents probably saw the 2.0 meme as a way of articulating next generation library services, the mainstream has linked the meme with its origin: technology. I have to say, while I’m in total agreement that the technology shouldn’t come before the user need, it’s pretty hard to tow the line that Library 2.0 is not just about technology when I’m yet to see or read about a non-technology based Library 2.0 initiative. (Or maybe I should say: a non technology initiative that’s been labeled as Library 2.o-ish.) If you went to a conference with Library 2.0 in the title, and you heard about storytime (with paper books, not ebooks), bookclubs (of the physical kind, not the blog based) and newsletters (of the dropped-in-your-snail-mail-box kind, not the rss kind), would you feel ripped off? I’m pretty sure I would, and yet these anecdotes could well epitomise the tenets of Library 2.0: empowering users through participatory, user-driven services, a focus on constant and meaningful change, improving services to current users, and reaching out to non-users.

Do we hear about libraries implementing non-technology based Library 2.0 services? Not in my experience. And what does that tell us? That this term, defined by the masses, is intrinsically linked with technology. At technology conferences (and non-technology conferences) we often here about the how, not the why: how we used this tool to do this. The tool focus is hard to avoid when we hear so much about it.

Maybe it’s time to stop talking Library 2.0 and come up with a term that gets to the guts of it: let’s get the words user, needs, responsive, service, evaluation, participation in there. If I were to describe what it is I tried to do in my last job, where I was the ‘innovations’ person who was responsible for online services, I’d say I was in pursuit of responsive, streamlined, flexible online services that meet the needs of our customers. Not as sexy as Library 2.0, but much less airy-fairy, and open to far less conjecture. I think The Participatory Library just about cuts it, so that’s what I’m sticking with for now.

libraries, saas, the cloud and more: participate in our survey

evidence, library2.0 6 Responses »
Oct 202009

A colleague and I have been spending a lot of time lately thinking and chatting about libraries’ use of SaaS solutions and free, third party proprietry cloud-based services to host their systems and software. We’ve thought about it so much that we decided to take that one step further and do a spot of research.

At the VALA 2010 conference (one of Australia’s leading ITish conferences for librarians), we’re presenting a paper called ICT as core business: will we prosper or drown? Here’s the abstract:

Information Communications Technology (ICT) is core business for libraries. Every day, libraries deliver ICT services to their customers, in the form of public access computers, wireless Internet connectivity and technology training programs. We increasingly rely on the Internet and the World Wide Web as a core service and collection delivery channel. And ICT is the single most important set of tools in allowing us to carry out ‘traditional’ library functions such as collection management and circulation.

At the same time as we are seeing our dependence on ICT reach new heights, we are also seeing IT departments locking down and standardising organisational ICT environments in response to an increasing need for control in order to meet efficiency and governance requirements. Often, these efforts occur in response to the organisational needs of the parent organisations to which libraries belong, not in response to the library’s needs. The move towards shared service models for ICT services means that libraries have to compete for ICT services and support, and as a result, do not always obtain the needed support.

Libraries are surrounded by tools and systems that provide new and exciting options for service delivery, but that require a move away from the traditional ICT model. The authors’ conversations with colleagues throughout the industry, commentary in the biblioblogosphere, and even the library literature, suggest that with the proliferation of these new tools and their uptake by libraries, there has been a disconnect between some libraries and their IT support groups. Many libraries are adopting, or at least investigating new models, including Software as a Service (SaaS) options for major systems, cloud computing for hosting of services and resources, and open source systems and software solutions. How does this fit within the broader ICT framework of parent organisations? Often, it simply doesn’t fit at all.

Why is it that libraries have chosen to position services in the cloud, to move core systems to SaaS environments, and to seek out open source alternatives to proprietary software and systems? This paper considers whether the adoption of these tools and environments by libraries has occurred as a result of a lack of appropriate and necessary ICT solutions and support within our corporate ICT environments. Did the disconnect cause libraries to seek out new models and tools, or did our adoption of the new models and tools cause the disconnect?

Given that libraries are adopting strategies and implementing services in this new ICT sphere, what do libraries need to consider in order to ensure sustainability, supportability, and ultimately, success? As the end users become controllers of ICT – as libraries implement ICT solutions quite independently of the ICT groups within their broader organisations – is it enough for library staff to be able to depend on the intuitiveness of the tools, or are there skill sets – ICT, writing, publishing, design and other skill sets – required by library staff, skills that have perhaps been taken for granted as being provided by the organisational ICT group?

If you work with IT in libraries, if you adminstrate a library management system, if you’ve ever implemented a blog or wiki or Facebook page for your library, then we need your input to get a clear understanding of why libraries are looking for alternative models for system and software hosting, and what that means for skill requirements.

If you’ve got 15 minutes to spare, we’d really appreciate you taking the time to complete our survey.

Tagged with: , , ,

do we want to know whether library blogs are succeeding in the big, bad web world?

ebl, evidence, library2.0, soapbox 3 Responses »
Mar 142008

There’s been plenty of talk around the Library 2.0 theme on the idea of evaluation or assessment. At Information Wants to be Free, Meredith Farkas says what she wanted to see come out of Library 2.0 was a greater focus on assessment. I certainly want to see libraries have a greater focus on assessment, too, and I want to see them publishing about it. (Particularly public libraries. We just don’t publish enough.)

Why aren’t we (libraries in general) publishing about the success (or failure) of our 2.0 projects? Why is there virtually no data to be found that quantifies some of the outcomes of 2.0 projects? We’ve been on this 2.0 bandwagon long enough for studies and assessments and evaluations to have been undertaken.  For a movement that’s intrinsically tied up with quick publishing channels like blogs and wikis, it seems strange that there is a real dearth of published studies on 2.0 projects. Why is that?

Walt Crawford had this to say in a recent post on his two blog survey books:

Maybe there’s a clear desire not to know how library blogs are doing in the real world, other than a few cherry-picked examples. I’d like to think that’s not the case. It would be unprofessional to tell people about how wonderful library blogs are, and encourage them to create such blogs, without giving them honest and broad-ranging information on what’s actually happening with such blogs.

I’d like to think that’s not the case, too. But I wonder. I wonder a few things:

  • Is the lack of publishing indicative of a lack of success? (And a fear of talking about it?)
  • Is the lack of publishing indicative of a perceived lack of success, a perception that might be formed because we’re not collecting the right data? (eg. How are we measuring ROI? Do we just count comments on blog posts? Or do we look at exit links, time spent on the page, holds on titles blogged about, impact on online resource usage stats…? I certainly hope all of these metrics and more are informing libraries’ evaluations of their blogs, because if we’re just relying on comments to measure user engagement, then we’re not seeing the full picture.)
  • Is the lack of publishing indicative of a lack of evaluation? (And if so, why aren’t we evaluating? Because we don’t know how? Because we don’t have time? Because we don’t want to know?)
  • Or, is it just that we’re not publishing about our evaluations?

I’ve got a blogging project in the pipeline at mpow. It’s germinating quite slowly, because I want to see it well planned. We want a well planned implementation, but also a well planned, multi-faceted evaluation. If it works, I want to know about it, and I want us to be able to reflect on what we did and make links to what worked. If it doesn’t work, I want to know about it just as much (if not more), because I want to be able to reflect on what we did, look for ways we could improve, and ultimately, pull the pin if that’s what we need to do.

Blogs (and all things shiny and 2.0) are just great. They’re fun for staff to work on, and have huge potential to engage our users. But none of us have time to run services that don’t work. If we don’t evaluate, we have no ability to know whether

We know that “because we always did it that way” is not a good reason to keep doing the things we’ve always done, whether they work or not. But neither should a failure to evaluate be the reason we keep on keeping on with our 2.0 services.

If you have evaluated your 2.0 service, publish about it! And if you have published, I’d love to receive some links.

Tagged with:

free, commercial web 2.0 services: should libraries be relying on them?

library2.0, soapbox No Responses »
Dec 042007

A participant in a Learning 2.0 program recently posted on his course blog and to an ALIA elist about libraries’ use of free, commercial web 2.0 services. He analogises that libraries’ use of free web 2.o services like Blogger, del.icio.us, YouTube and the like is “privatisation by osmosis” and he is concerned by the lack of debate about this issue.

He’s right – there hasn’t been a great deal of debate in the biblioblogosphere, but I’m sure this is an issue that many libraries and librarians have grappled with on a local level.

There are a few points I’d like to make on this issue… But first, I should point out that I agree that (where possible) libraries should be developing infrastructure to support their 2.0 services. So, onto my stream-of-consciousness response…

Libraries as content producers

The author of “It’s the Queen of Darkness, Pal” suggests that libraries’ use of commercial providers might mean that they don’t see themselves as content producers to the same degree as they have historically:

It seems to me that libraries used to see themselves as content providers, actively providing tools for finding information. At the moment, it feels more like we have resigned ourselves to using the services of the private sector.

I’d like to suggest that libraries’ use of third party providers doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t producing content or don’t see themselves as content producers. In fact, in some ways, I think use of free third party providers can free us up to produce content, because we spend less time maintaining the back end of the systems that house the content. Indeed, libraries’ quick up-take of content-based technologies like blogs seems to me to indicate that we are very concerned with developing content.

Sure, we mightn’t want to rely on third party providers to maintain a record of our business transactions or our content for the purposes of records management. I would suggest that any library using a third party provider for any 2.0 (or 1.0) service should be exporting content for archiving in their local records repository. But I’d also suggest that a library with, for example, a blog hosted on their own server, should also be doing this.

Yes, libraries should build and host their own infrastructure for 2.0 services, but…

The author asks why libraries aren’t hosting their own web 2.0 technologies, and he also suggests an answer:

The superficial answer is, of course, that libraries don’t have the funds. The deeper underlying answer though is that, really, our society has decided that it’s information is best entrusted to and run by the private sector on an advertising funded basis.

Do we (as in society) really think our information is best entrusted to the private sector? I’m not so sure about this. I know that I personally am often a little nervous about entering or display personal information in/via web apps or tools. I think it’s more that it’s very easy to entrust our information to the private sector, and the private sector seems to be very good at providing tools that work for people. I think libraries have been so quick to use commercial web 2.0 services for exactly the same reasons as individuals have: they work and they’re easy to implement and use.

Should libraries be hosting their own 2.0 services? Absolutely! It would be awesome if, for example, a library offered a social bookmarking tool that their customers could use as an alternative to del.icio.us. But as the author of “It’s the Queen of Darkness, Pal” acknowledges, there are hurdles libraries need to jump in order to be able to do this sort of thing. It’s not just about money – we all know there are robust open source options for a lot of the technologies we’d like to implement. There are many other issues, too, which impede libraries in building 2.0 infrastructure, such as:

  • lack of library staff with the technological expertise to allow for implementation and maintenance of the technologies
  • the need to respond to new technologies and user demands quickly often dictates that we need to find fast solutions, and hosting the technologies locally can result in time lags between identification of demand or need and implementation – an externally hosted commercial service might be a great interim solution in instances like this
  • the need to work with and within in-house enterprise architecture requirements
  • cultural and organisational factors, including policy, procedures, history

Some libraries are in a position to independently develop their own Web 2.0 infrastructure. Some are in a position to work with their parent organisation’s IT services to work towards the development of such an infrastructure. But some do not fall into either of these categories.

As one response to the recent thread on this topic on the NewGrads elist pointed out, it’s technically possible to buy a domain name and host your library’s virtual services entirely separately from your parent organisation’s web presence and without any input from your local IT people. But many libraries are not in a position to do that, often for the same reasons as those listed above.

Is commercialism really an issue?

Consider the other commercial services libraries make use of every day – particularly those that involve data hosting and end-user service provision. We purchase subscriptions to online resources from third party vendors. Many libraries also use “software as a service” models for external hosting of their LMS or other systems. How do these two examples differ from, for example, delivering a blog via a free service such as WordPress? Other than the fact that the first two cost money while the latter is free, I’m not sure that there is a great deal of difference… Or is there? Is the fact that the Web 2.0 services are free an issue? Is the fact that they are mainstream (ie non-library) services an issue? How about a service like LibGuides? Where does that fit in?

Scattering the breadcrumbs

I think there’s one other very important reason that libraries use commercial Web 2.0 services rather than build our own infrastructure, and it’s a reason that means a lot of libraries will continue to use these commercial services: we’re attempting to meet our users in their own space. We’re “scattering the breadcrumbs” and placing our services where the users will see us – that is, in the spaces they inhabit. If we hosted our own services, would we be able to do this as effectively? If we created a social network space on the library’s website, we might create a space in which those users who actually come to our websites could interact with each other and the library, but we wouldn’t be reaching out to, for example, the users of Facebook who’ve never even contemplated visiting the library’s website.

Should libraries be using free, commercial Web 2.0 services?

The answer? I don’t know if there is one. Perhaps it’s that where possible, libraries should use a combination of local infrastructure or locally hosted services and commercial tools that can position us in the user’s space.

But I think what must be acknowledged is that, as it stands right now, there are some libraries for whom implementing their own locally hosted services or infrastructure is just not a possibility, or not a possibility that will be realised any time soon. For those libraries, free commercial services are their only option, if they’re to make use of Web 2.0 tools at all.

Finally…

I’m really glad that there is finally some debate happening on this topic. I hope it continues and some other people weigh in. This is something I’ve been pondering at length recently, and I’d really like to hear others’ thoughts.

Tagged with:

the height of coolness: topeka’s techie toybox

gadgets, library2.0 No Responses »
Oct 242007

David Lee King posts about his library’s techie toybox – a set of tech gadgets bought specifically for library staff to play with.

What an awesome concept! I am coveting this box of tricks.

Not only is it unbelievably cool that these resources are there for the staff, but just look at David’s open-minded approach to play: check out his tips for how staff might want to use them. His suggestion for what to do with the camcorders?

Dump videos into the library’s YouTube account. Do something original… Start a weekly “what’s going on at the library” video magazine…

A casual suggestion to start a video magazine. I love it. Way to set your library up as a breeding ground for innovation.

Tagged with:

reflecting on the conference that wasn’t: ideas i took away

library2.0 No Responses »
Oct 142007

As I had hoped, the SLQ Unconference got me thinking a bit more about the shape of online services at MPOW. Coming away from the unconference, I made notes to myself to pursue a few ideas:

  • LibX: I’ve been trying to think of ways to take our services to the customers. Of course, I’ve considered all the obvious possibilities (social networking sites, blogging, e-newsletters and so on), but, as an avid toolbar user, the idea behind LibX really appeals to me.
  • del.icio.us: I love what QUT Creative Industries faculty are doing with del.icio.us tag clouds in their subject guides. I’ve been pondering this idea for a while (triggered by some work I did at the NLA on a developing core set of web links for AskNow operators using del.icio.us – the AskNow crew have done some great work populating their del.icio.us account – add them to your network!). At MPOW, we’re currently reworking our online resources interface and are about to start taking a more proactive approach to selecting free web resources for inclusion in our online resources page. I’ve been pondering del.icio.us as a means of compiling links and generating tag clouds for inclusion in the interface. Now I’ve seen QUT’s implementation, I’ve got some firmer ideas on how this might be done (eg I think we’ll need a separate account for each subject area, because I’m not sure that it’s possible to generate a tag cloud for bundles of tags).
  • In-service events for ground-up implementation of L2: At the concurrent session on getting staff on board, there was a bit of discussion about the importance of direction coming from front line staff rather than administration staff. I’ve never seen my role at MPOW as an administrative one. I see it as a service-driven, user-centred role, but it suddenly occurred to me in this session that maybe other people might view it differently. I’ve tried to take a proactive approach to getting staff input and buy-in to what we’re trying to do with online services. I really, really want our online service portfolio to be driven by the needs of customers as identified by the staff they interact with on a daily basis. But am I using the right channels to engage staff? It was suggested that in-service events might be the way to go. I’d like to spend some time thinking about this idea.
Tagged with: ,

reflecting on the conference that wasn’t: change is not a dirty word

library2.0 No Responses »
Oct 142007

To my mind, the one constant theme throughout the SLQ unconference (besides technology) was change. It’s undeniable that if we’re going to get 2.0 (in the ethos-sense, not the technology sense) libraries need to change in a lot of ways, and most of them are to do with our culture. Some things that were identified as necessary changes during the course of the day really resonated with me:

  • We need to embrace the concept of perpetual beta. People, internet users, our customers, do not expect perfection, but we persist with this culture of perfect. It’s no good waiting until we’ve perfected something to put it out in the public sphere – we need to let our services evolve. If Google, a company with so much invested in meeting users’ needs, can deliver services that are perpetually in beta, why can’t we? (And no, this doesn’t go against the idea of putting the need before the technology. I’m just advocating that once we’ve chosen the right technology, we shouldn’t get hung up on achieving perfection.)
  • We must start taking risks. Carefully assessed risks, for sure. But take them we must. I’m a big believer in risk management strategies, but we need to focus on the management, and not so much on the risk itself. We can’t let the presence of risks stop us from innovating, from serving our customers as best we can. We just need to work out how we can minimise the effect of the risks that inevitably come with trying something new. And, moreover, we need to weigh the risks, their likelihood, and their manageability against the risks associated with not taking the ‘risky’ action. Because to fail to be a responsive, innovative organisation is a huge risk in itself.
  • Embrace radical trust. And accept that trust is really not that radical. People are smarter than we give them credit for. We need to get over ourselves a bit and just give our customers (and our staff) the chance to surprise us.
  • Accept that abandonment is a healthy practice. If we’re going to add new services, we must let go of some of the old ones. Certainly, we’re not going to (and indeed we shouldn’t) abandon everything we currently do: as Kathryn Greenhill says, we can keep the baby when we throw out the bath water – Web 2.0 is an adjunct to the services we already have, not a replacement for them. But we are very good at taking on more and more and more, and we must stop doing this before we stretch ourselves so thin that we’re no good to anyone. We should assess the services we currently provide and see where there’s room to rationalise. Moreover, it’s not just the ‘old stuff’ we should be abandoning: if we try a new “L2″ service and it doesn’t work, there is nothing wrong with abandoning it. In fact, if we give something new a good try and it doesn’t work, we’d be crazy not to abandon it. Abandonment is not admitting defeat. Rather, it’s tantamount to admitting just how astute we can be.
  • We must see online services as core business. The things we do online, the services and collections we deliver online, are not just pretty little adjuncts to the ‘real’ work we do in library branches.Our strategic directions and goals, and indeed management support, should reiterate this. There is a very real, growing group of users who want to access our libraries from the comfort of their lounge rooms (or their offices). These users are just as legitimate as our in-person users, and our online services are just as much a core part of what we do as those services we deliver in-branch. The library website is a branch of the library. Every member of staff needs to understand that.
  • Scatter the breadcrumbs. We’ve traditionally been focussed on the library website and OPAC as a single point of truth. This model may not be the right model for these times. We should scatter the breadcrumbs in places where our users hang out online. As one attendee said : “the perfect, all-in-one swiss army knife may not be a reasonable expectation”. We just may not be able to do everything we want to do or need to do within the constraints of the library website and/or OPAC. And maybe that isn’t such a bad thing. I personally have been hung up on trying to figure out how to bring our sometimes dis-integrated services together. Maybe it’s not that big a deal.
Tagged with: , ,

reflecting on the conference that wasn’t: my "uh-oh" moments

library2.0, soapbox 1 Response »
Oct 142007

Sometimes, I come away from library-related events mulling, in a not-quite-positive way, over some of the thoughts that were articulated. I guess these can be described as my “uh-oh” moments: they’re instances when someone (or even many someones) comes out with something that perplexes me. They can also be instances of silence when I don’t think there should have been silence; that is, when something important goes unsaid. I had two of those moments at the SLQ Unconference, one of the unsaid variety, and one of the said.

Need before the tool
First of all, and perhaps most importantly, I don’t know that there was quite enough reiteration of the fact that the customer’s need, or the service imperative, must, must, MUST come before the technology. We cannot adopt an attitude of “oooh, shiny new thing, let’s give it a try” – at least, not in developing services for our libraries. In our personal and extra-curricula lives, and even within defined work-play situations (like Learning 2.0 programs), it’s fine to play with technology for the sake of it. We shouldn’t, though, grab at new technologies and attempt to deliver services using them just for the sake of it. There must be a defined need for a service, and we must carefully evaluate the tools we have available to us to deliver it. We must think through the options, and those options should include our full swag of tools, not just the Web 2.0 ones. If a static HTML page or a database driven interface would work better than a blog, we must be prepared to let go of our techno-lust and get back to basics.

Wikipedia (and the web?) are never going to be as good as our collections
I heard a couple of times, from a couple of people, this idea that “the information we have in our collections is always going to be better than what our customers find online”. No, no, no! This is not what Web 2.0 is about, people!

(Aside: Interestingly, the phrase used was, I’m pretty sure, ‘find online’, not ‘find in Wikipedia’. I can kind of, almost see the rationale behind our fear mongering about the quality of information in Wikipedia. But to use the generalisation ‘online’? Hmmmm. If I had the time to spare, I’d hyperlink every word in this paragraph to a quality online resource on a different subject, just to prove my point. Maybe they meant Wikipedia by inference. Maybe they said ‘Wikipedia’ and I heard ‘online’. I’m going to cling to the idea that one of these two scenarios is true, because the suggestion that the information we have in our collections is necessarily better than anything that can be found online is just so bewildering that I have to hope that’s not what was meant.)

We go on and on about how user generated content is wonderful. “Let people tag our catalogue records”, we cry! “Let people comment on our blogs”, we argue. Why, then, do we insist that what we have in our collections is absolutely, necessarily better than what can be found online, simply by virtue of being in our collections? I’m not sure that I see a great deal of difference between letting users tag our catalogue records (or even pulling data from Library Thing into our catalogues) and the authorship model for Wikipedia. If we continue to tell our customers “Wikipedia bad, library good”, we’re going to set ourselves up for a fall, because no matter what we do, our customers are going to use it. And not only our customers, but our staff: if I need some basic information on something techie-ish, my first port of call is Wikipedia, because the information I get there is consistently good and more up-to-date than what I get anywhere else. Wouldn’t it be better, then, to teach our customers about using Wikipedia wisely, and about how they can contribute to make it a better resource, than to try and stop them from using it?

Everyone’s an expert: that’s a basic tenet of this Web 2.0 world we’re operating in. And you know what? It’s true. Wikipedia facilitates the documentation of the knowledge everyday folks have stored in their minds on every topic you can think of. It’s democratisation, globalisation of the knowledge sharing process like we’ve never encountered before, at least not to this extent. Wikipedia allows you and me to document that which we are experts on. As a result, there are information artifacts in Wikipedia that are pure gold, and that are simply not published anywhere else.

Yes, let’s focus on making our resources as easily discoverable as Wikipedia articles, because our resources are good (and our discovery services often aren’t that great). But Wikipedia has its place, and sometimes it’s going to be able to supply more up-to-date, more detailed (dare I say better?) information than what’s in our collections.

[the virtual librarian steps down off her soapbox]

Tagged with: ,

reflecting on the conference that wasn’t

library2.0 No Responses »
Oct 142007

On Thursday, I spent the day at the State Library of Queensland Library 2.0 Unconference. This was my first unconference experience, so I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect.

The reality was a day of dialogue. The most useful part of the day for me, given that I am new to public libraries, was to sit and hear front line staff talk about Library 2.0 and Web 2.0: their excitement, their anxieties, their thoughts on impediments to change (and on administration and administrators), their passion for delivering responsive services.

I did a fair bit of talking, so my notes from the day are quite sparse, but I want to take some time here to reflect on the ideas and issues that resonated with me on the day. A few posts on this topic coming your way…

Tagged with: ,

lita forum commentary abounds

library2.0, misc 1 Response »
Oct 072007

The 2007 LITA forum is happening right now in Denver. There are some good summaries being posted, many on the LITA blog.

Check out these in particular:

Older Entries
© 2013 virtually a librarian Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha