"the sound of a holy war?": on twopointopia

library2.0, soapbox No Responses »
Aug 312007

Roy Tennant analogises about the recent war of words triggered by a post from the Anonymous Librarian on twopointopians.

Tenant starts out his post on this topic by admitting to his tendency to stay out of the way of religious wars. Indeed, the fervour illustrated in both the comments on the AL’s post (all 52 of them) and all the counter-posts on other blogs does indeed smack of the kind of fervour that often springs up around religion. And the terminology? Cult. 2.0 gospel. Manifesto. Sacred. Mantra. There’s a thesis here in the language choices, alone, let alone in the play out of the us vs them polarisation.

Anyhoo, the real point of this post was to comment on what Tenant alludes to as Meredith Farkas’ voice of reason. I actually read Meredith’s post in response to the AL’s before I read the AL’s post, so I came to it with no real understanding of what inspired it. What resonated for me, then, wasn’t how well Meredith had responded to the whole thread, but just how well she articulated the fact that every service we implement, every Web2.0 initiative we embark on, must be informed by a need:

I have dealt with a lot of people who are like kids in a candy store when it comes to these technologies. Like someone who told me the other day that Flickr is the logical next thing libraries should have after a blog (never mind whether there’s a need for either of them or not, I suppose). I used to be one of those kids in a candy store. I remember when I came to Norwich over two years ago, eager to implement blogs, wikis, etc. And a lot of the initial things I tried to implement failed. Why? Because I put the tool before the need…

Hallelujah! I’m the first to want to play with shiny new stuff, but as I’ve said before, the need has got to come before the tool.

Library2.0 (or twopointopia) is about creating user-centred services, and, where appropriate, harnessing technology to help us do it. It’s not about the technology.

This is the most insightful blog post around Library2.0 I’ve read in a while. It should be mandatory reading for all Library/Learning2.0 programs. It’s certainly something I’ll be sharing with my colleagues, as we think about the services our users want from us and the tools available to us to deliver them.

Tagged with:

on 2.0ness

library2.0 No Responses »
Aug 122007
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.

Tagged with:

are we really ready to get a second life?

library2.0 No Responses »
Aug 122007

Second Life: we’ve all heard about it, many of us think it’s pretty cool, and we can see applications for future service delivery. But are the users there yet? Is anyone, other than librarians, looking for library services in Second Life?

My feeling is: probably not. I went to a forum called Generation MySpace on Monday (more on that later), and in one lightbulb moment, I scrawled across the page in big, scratchy letters: “Second Life – hype far exceeds usage”. This really resonated with me, because I’ve been thinking for a long time that setting up library services in Second Life right now is a tad preemptive. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be exploring Second Life… Far from it. I think we should be actively playing in Second Life, so that we’re ready when (and if) there is a real demand (or at least a clear indication of potential demand) for library services within this space. But from what I can tell (and I admit, this is an outsider’s perspective, as I’m not a Second Lifer myself), it just doesn’t seem like the users are there yet.

Apparently, 90% of Second Life’s reported 6 million+ accounts have been abandoned. Indeed, I’ve read one article that estimates the number of active users is something like 320 000 – in fact, less than 320 000 (NB data from early 2007). Yup, that’s still an impressive statistic. Yup, usage is on the increase. And, yup, our users might be there one day… but…

In the future, will the average person inhabit virtual worlds as a matter of course, as part of their day-to-day business? Possibly. But IMO, I just don’t think that Second Life is going to be the next big thing. Big? Maybe. But not the next big thing. (What is? Mobile phones, but that’s a separate post altogether.)

When shiny, exciting new things hit my radar, I usually latch onto them pretty quickly. I am a true digital native, and a self confessed nerd. I work, study, play, pay my bills, plan my life etc online. For me to say “nope, this technology is not where we should be right now” takes a fair bit of thought, because it’s in my nature to want to try every new tech tool that comes along. Some technologies I see the value of and just don’t take them up myself because I can’t see a need for me to use them, but I get that they are useful for other people, or, more to the point, that they’ve got viable service delivery applications.

But with Second Life, I just don’t think the potential is there, in terms of it being a space to deliver our services, or even, really, to promote them. Not yet anyway. Not because the technology is lacking or it can’t be harnessed to deliver the kinds of services libraries deliver in other ways now. But just because I think there are surer bets – services our users are actually looking for – that we should be exploring right now.

Peter Binkley said in one sentence what I’ve been trying to articulate through this long, rambling post:

I’m not persuaded that this is the best use of our time: libraries have so many challenges and opportunities these days in the online world, and the resources to act on so few of them.

For now, I’m putting my energy elsewhere. But I’m glad that there are other librarians out there, trying out service models in Second Life. And who knows? One day, when I find some spare time, I might join them…

But for now, this virtual librarian is not gonna get a second life (hey, I’m still trying to find a first one!).

Tagged with: ,

library branch 2.0

library2.0, soapbox No Responses »
Jul 302007

David Lee King posted about an epiphany or two late last week. The stand out for me was this one:

…a library site should mimic the actual library. And what type of experience happens in a library?

One of community. And conversation. And participation.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the idea of community and library websites. I think the key is we need to consider our library websites as spaces, just like our buildings, where people ‘connect’ (and I don’t mean connect in the sense of ‘dialing in’ – I mean it in the sense of real, meaningful interaction) with our services and collections and with each other. Library websites are, essentially, online branches. They’re places for exploring the collections, for interacting, for sharing and developing ideas and knowledge… And just like our physical spaces, they should centre on community and activity; they should allow users to interact with, and through, them in meaningful ways.

Does any of this sound familiar? We’re operating in a 2.0 world, where social networking is the buzz concept of the day. Sites like Facebook allow users to communicate with friends and colleagues, to form and join groups on topics of interest to them, to connect for work, play, and a whole lot more.

The tools we need to create dynamic, participative online branches are at our fingertips. Lots of them are even free. Initiatives like Learning2.0 are seeing us build the skills sets we need to allow us implement these tools. So now all we need to do is just get cracking.

And, perhaps, give up on worrying about getting it perfect.

Tagged with: ,
Newer Entries
© 2010 virtually a librarian Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha