The Trough

There is some debate in the discourse on the Internet as to just what the x in the equation above actually is, or to what extent that x factor is worth pursuing.  To many, Library 2.0 means much more than just adopting the tools provided by Web 2.0 and applying them in a library situation. They see Web 2.0 as providing the opportunity for a radical reformation of what constitutes a library and its relationship with its users, going  beyond merely adopting Web 2.0 tools to expand library content and services.  An interesting summary of this philosophical position can be seen at Laura Cohen’s A Librarian’s 2.0 Manifesto on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZblrRs3fkSU.

In essence, Library 2.0 is reaching out to new users, inviting customer participation, and relying on constant change. The most radical aspect of the philosophy is, I believe,  the degree to which these librarians wish to relinquish control of library content, and even organisation, to the users.  Much of this I can agree with; for instance,  using Web 2.0 tools for users to suggest items for purchase, blogs or wikis to write reviews,  including LibraryThing tags in the catalogue (although I do not think this can be done using the catlogue at my school). It is likely that these online applications may provide the opportunity for the library to engage with users who would never walk through the library doors without being pushed.  It is worthwhile looking at John Blyberg’s “11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters” at http://www.blyberg.net/2006/01/09/11-reasons-why-library-20-exists-and-matters/. He points out that, as a result of L2,  librarians need to confront the need for internal reorganisation, a fundamental change in the library’s mission, a fundamental change in the way we handle “authority” (of content), a challenge to library orthodoxy, and the realisation that L2 is essential for library survival and pertinence.

As an example of these challenges to orthodoxy and authority, some would do away with conventional subject headings altogether, believing they are too restrictive and not user-friendly.  One writer was contemplating using a Web 2.0 site for delivering his catalogue using mainly user input. This seemed a bit unwise. What happens if the site goes out of existence – is all the data lost? 

Some  cautionary opinions regarding L2 can be seen at Meredith Farkas’ blog at http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/index.php/2006/01/06/label-20/, and at http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/index.php/2008/01/24/the-essence-of-library-20/. John Blyberg, in his blog entry Library 2.0 debased ( http://www.blyberg.net/2008/01/17/library-20-debased/) also has some cautionary opinions now, even being sceptical of local user tagging in the catlogue.

It is worth looking at Jack M. Maness’ article Library 2.0 theory : Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries at http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html.

The discourse on Web 2.0 leads naturally to that on School Library 2.0.  An interesting take on School Library 2.0 can be seen at Wired Librarian http://wlteam.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-is-school-library-20.html. Here it  is pointed out that some of the common themes and concepts of Web 2.0 can be applied to non-technological library activities to strengthen our student’s learning lives (we do not need to throw out the baby with the bathwater). 

Christopher Harris blog entries at Infomancy http://schoolof.info/infomancy/?p=127 are important readings on this topic. For instance, one of the features of School Library 2.0 is the idea of School library as a platform. He says “When the school library is a platform, it extends beyond the walls of a room – in fact, maybe it so transcends the walls of a room that the room becomes secondary. With this view, as with Web 2.0, the real power and purpose lies with the tools that can exist because of the platform. The library isn’t what is critical to student success, it is the librarian.” Elsewhere, he says “Maybe instead of School Library 2.0, we can call this new idea a Digitally Re-Shifted School Library. That brings in not only this idea, but also the Web 2.0 elements of digital interaction with students and staff to provide them with the information they need in the most appropriate format while recognizing that school libraries have long used digital resources. Yes books are still the most appropriate format many times; I am not saying get rid of the books. What I am saying is that if school libraries fail to make a digital re-shift, they are going to loose relevancy in the world of digital information. As David Warlick reminds us, today’s information is networked, digital, and often overwhelming. We are still needed, perhaps now more than ever, to serve as guides through the digital chaos.”

The discourse on School Library 2.0 leads on further to the discussion of the concept of Learning 2.0. Marlene Asselin, at http://asselindoiron.pbwiki.com/AERApaper, says  “As more and more educators face the impact of Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005), and as we see emerging what could be called a Learning 2.0 environment, it becomes urgent to extend teaching to meet the literacy and learning needs of the Net Generation (e.g. Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). These ‘new’ learners and their expanding literacy needs have major implications for current models of school library programs which are traditionally focused on reading promotion and information literacy skills.”  She goes on to consider the implications of  “new learners”, “new literacies” (which spring from Web 2.0), and “new concepts of knowledge”.  These concepts are also considered in the article by John Seely Brown and Richard P. Adler  at http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0811.pdf. These need to be explored further in the context of our school library.