Library 2.Oh, Here We Go Again

I hate 2.0's! There, I've said it. Rather than continue with a long new rant I am going to repost a rant I did for another subject as a critique of a 2.0 based article.

Web 2.0 & Library 2.0: Revolution?

Shakespeare will always sound more eloquent than a grizzled old prospector, circa 1849, but I think “Thar’s gold in them thar hills!” serves adequately in critiquing Anderson’s (2007) article “All that glisters is not gold” – Web 2.0 and the librarian. And there is gold in the article but it is buried, as gold often is. Like everything in the world searching for that gold will be a much more pleasant task with the help of John and Paul ... the Beatles, not the Saints.

(Scream along with Paul - Aaaaah!)

“You say you want a revolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world”

(Lennon-McCartney, 1968)

Web 2.0, according to Anderson (2007), is O’Reilly Media Inc’s revolution regarding the Web. But is it really all that revolutionary? The theory has many detractors and weighty ones at that. John Dvorak, a well-known columnist for PC Magazine, argues that the so called Web 2.0 revolution is in fact a simple evolution (Black, 2007). “The tools that allow people to do things for themselves are simply getting more efficient. The Web 2.0 products, such as podcasts and blogs, are all built on technology from the early 1990’s.” (Black, 2007, p. 4). Is this right? It certainly seems that way when his argument is backed up by the creator of the World Wide Web Tim Berners-Lee.

“Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along. [...] The idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be as a collaborative space where people can interact.”

(Berners-Lee cited in Black, 2007, p. 3)

So, Web 2.0 is nothing more than a myth but it has already has the library hitching its wagon to its star in the form of Library 2.0.

“You tell me that it’s evolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world”

(Lennon-McCartney, 1968)

Library 2.0, the supposed evolution or revolution of the library, is nothing more than a myth itself. Curran, Murray, Norrby & Christian (2006) state, “Libraries, as we know them today, can be defined by the term Library 1.0. This defines the way resources are kept on shelves or at a computer behind a login. These resources can be taken from a shelf, checked out by library staff, taken home for a certain length of time and absorbed, and then returned to the library for someone else to avail of.” (p. 47). Really, is that all a library is? Many librarians would argue that it’s something more. And many do.

“You say you got a real solution

Well, you know

We’d all love to see the plan”

(Lennon-McCartney, 1968)

Objection to Library 2.0, “often comes in the guise of ‘we have been doing all this before’” (Godwin, 2008, p. 177). That is certainly the stance of T. Scott Plutchak, as cited in Black (2007), where it states:

“the term Library 2.0 is meaningless because the term suggests that the changes in libraries are radical, when they are actually evolutionary. Librarians in the past have sought out the newest technologies and sought to provide good customer service. [...] libraries have evolved many times as the communities they serve have changed. When librarians embrace the changes in technology and society to find new and more effective ways to serve their patrons, they are not acting in brand-new 2.0 ways, they are simply being good librarians.” (pp. 10-11)

And being good librarians should be the goal for those for and against the Library 2.0 moniker. Being good librarians in the age of the “web generation” will mean adopting the appropriate Web 2.0 technologies (Godwin, 2008, p. 5). As Miller (2006) states, “To those who object to the term, for whatever reason, should be careful not to dismiss the trends and messages along with the label.” (p. 1)

“You ask me for a contribution

Well, you know

We’re all doing what we can”

(Lennon-McCartney, 1968)

There is gold in them thar Web 2.0 hills but the whole hills are not made of gold. “We should utilize the tools, not for their own sake, but only where they improve our services, for the benefit of our users.” (Godwin, 2008, p. 177). Another problem is that by aligning itself with Web 2.0, Library 2.0 is missing the bigger technological picture. Anderson (2007) notes the comparison made between Amazon’s book delivery mechanisms and the inter-library loan process and points out that while its book delivery mechanism is key to Amazon’s success, it is not one of its Web 2.0 features.

In conclusion, Anderson’s (2007) article is golden in its suggestion that today’s librarian needs to understand the technology of the day but that message is mired by the 2.0 minutia. Libraries would best serve their patrons if they would all take Phil Bradley’s advice “Forget the 2.0 label and consider how you can do things better.” (cited in Godwin, 2008, p. 165)

Posted by Luke Warren at Saturday, March 31, 2012 

You might have noticed that I cherry picked some of the quotes for my Web 2.Oh that hype rant from earlier in the semester. I do love to recycle some hard found quotes when they are appropriate. Tomorrow's posts will be less negative towards my hatred for the 2.0's in the world and instead focused on the good they can produce if we all drop the 2.0 myopia we seem to be suffering from. Three legit OLJ's postings tomorrow should give me some variety to choose from at the end of the semester.