Thing 16: Thoughts on Library 2.0

My initial thoughts...

I am all for finding ways to serve our users in ways that make sense for them.

It's my impression that some academic libraries are having a hard time with the underlying notion of library 2.0 (my underlying notion being that we need to find ways to help our patrons in ways that work for them, rather than in ways that are less helpful to patrons but have worked for libraries for the past few decades).

Within academia, libraries have long been the only game in town. Which differs from public libraries in that library users actively seek out the services that public libraries offer. But public libraries work hard to get users to take advantage of their services, rather than waiting for potential users to come to them.

Generally speaking, academic libraries (I'm anthropomorphizing here, I know) expect their users to come to them, because where else could they go? Then came the Internet; students had another option for getting information. In order to get users to view the academic library as relevant and useful, we have to change the way we think about our patrons and our services.

Away from the "icebergs"

Whoa, Rick Anderson and I are on the same psychic network about the whole outdated, come-to-us view of library services. We share a similar philosophy. My opinion differs from his, slightly, when it comes to user education. While I agree that we need to make resources as accessible as possible, I believe that there is a need for a deeper education when it comes to hardcore research. It's true, we aren't going to reach every student on campus. But I also believe that we need to participate in outreach activities so that we get out of the library and into the classroom.

Into a New World of Librarianship

"This involves users from the get go in planning and launching services based on their needs. This librarian asks what new technologies or new materials users need. This librarian proposes building projects and involves users in designing those places." (paragraph 2)

I really like this idea of "involving users." I am intrigued by it. I don't quite know how it's done. I guess I haven't really seen it work successfully. What I've seen are small groups of students (too small to be significant) give feedback that isn't always particularly useful. I'm thinking specifically of the students who felt that the new library building ought to have a gym. (Yes, that would be nice. Now focus.) So I'd like to see a scenario in which a significant group of patrons provided feasible feedback that was later implemented by a library. I know these scenarios exist; I'd like to see the steps that were taken...the logistics, if you will.

To More Powerful Ways to Cooperate

OCLC is living the 2.0! I am so pleased to see that they're considering offering services like tagging, list creation and sharing, citation management, and personal cataloging. I'm curious about how that will affect our next generation Melvyl project...for the better, I assume.

To Better Bibliographic Services

Yes, all good ideas. Not much to argue with here. It is indeed good for our patrons if resources are discoverable in as many venues as possible. And yes, it is good to use our metadata in as many creative ways as possible.

To a Temporary Place in Time...

It's late on Friday afternoon, so I am less capable of coherent and worthwhile thought than at other times during the work week. Which is all to say, I have no response to this perspective on Library 2.0.