Well, I think this whole conceptual framework of Library 2.0 is nice but unnecessary. I understand that libraries have to change in order to be relevant in today's quickly-changing world. There are so many new ways to communicate with others and create your own personal statement for the world to see and hear, and the pace of how things are changing seems to be increasing.
I guess my thought is that it's not really helpful or necessary to give ourselves a brand-new name as if everything is completely different. These developments are just the next step in the evolution of the overall concept of library. Calling it by some different, high-tech-sounding name is basically just confusing and potentially intimidating to people, making it even harder for staff and long-time library users to make the transition.
That having been said, I consider myself a fairly savvy user of library technology, having worked in that specific field for seven years, so it's not like I'm some Luddite who doesn't like to see things changing. I just think all the hoopla is much ado about very little. To quote one of my favorite people (no, I will not say who), "It is what it is."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with you. Libraries and librarians have always adapted and embraced new technologies. I imagine going from scrolls to printed and bound books was big leap at the time. Using the Internet as a tool for advancing the work librarians do isn't such a big leap. Publicizing how we use the Internet as groundbreaking or a revolutionary evolutionary leap by calling it Library 2.0 is misleading. Librarians and librarianship have made evolutionary leaps in the past without fanfare. If we counted the 'leaps', we'd find out that we're probably up to at least Library 20.0 by now -- if not higher.
I agree, too, Carol.
I'm also concerned about all the non-tech customers we are leaving behind.
Mike
I also, agree, just after Heather and Mike.
Post a Comment