Web 2.0

Web 2.0 is such a big thing that it's hard to make one all-encompassing statement about it. It's a way of using the web that opens up the possibility of greater expression of creativity, more customization by the masses, more interconnections, more cutesy animation... And more junk.

From the entertainment, geek-a-thon perspective, all of these widgets and add-ons and links, and third-party tools are major league fun. Pretending that one is a pundit or that the world is interested in one's personal little acre of creativity is also fun. It's the latest parlor game between friends when not sitting in the same parlor. But all of this is entertainment when it comes right down to it. Is entertainment bad? Of course not.

Except in a limited way, this is not my kind of entertainment, except for the joy of fiddling with cool computerized tricks and trappings. I am not a highly social animal, so I don't want more venues in which to socialize. I don't want the world's kudos, so I'm not motivated to strut my talent on the world's stage. I can appreciate other people's inventions (Wow, isn't that cool?) but only in small doses. I do, I admit, want to know what the rest of the world is doing. By and large, unfortunately, I find that it's doing very little of interest most of the time. With all the new types of search engines with user rating of searches and new ways of viewing results, I still find that Google's old-fashioned long list of hits and bits of text from those hits gets me where I want to go fastest with the least fuss. Google's gotten pretty good at ranking those hits, with new tweaks coming on an almost continual, if invisible basis.

And here's another thing. I've learned over my life that most other people's opinions about things do not reflect my own sensibilities. Therefore, I pay little attention to the man on the street's views about specific books (Amazon, e.g.), movies (IMDB, e.g.), blenders, recipes, online vendors, etc. I'm not saying that those opinions are less valid than mine, just that I know who I can rely on to provide opinions that can guide me accurately. For example, I tend to agree with the movie critics in the NY Times and New Yorker magazine (though not always), but not those in the Baltimore Sun, the LA Times, the Washington Post, People Magazine, Time Magazine, and on and on. And if I want to know which blender to buy, Consumer Reports still has the clearest evaluation criteria, the most careful research, and values that I agree with (and if I don't they give me plenty of info to draw my own conclusions).

So, it's exciting, entertaining, fun to fiddle with, but it's not doing a lot for me beyond that. (But keep twiddling and I'll keep watching.)

Now for Library 2.0. A vague term referencing a vague term, but we know what is meant in a general way.

Here is what one pundit says about the subject:

"With these approaches, we take our existing wealth of data, and we make it work much harder. We begin to break down the internal silos of the separate systems within a single library, and we connect those components to one another, and to related components and services far beyond the building. At a technical level, we make it possible for searchers to be presented with choices to view online, borrow locally, request from afar, buy or sell as appropriate to their needs and circumstance. Technically, it is possible, and we are doing it with standards and specifications shared across a range of sectors, rather than inventing our own library-specific standards once again. Can our institutional procedures, and our antiquated notions of 'membership' keep up?

Libraries were once the guardians of knowledge, and the point at which those seeking existing knowledge would engage with it. With the rise of Google, Amazon, Wikipedia and more, there is an oft-stated fear that many users, much of the time, will bypass processes and institutions that they perceive to be slow, unresponsive, unappealing and irrelevant in favour of a more direct approach to services offered by others that just might be 'good enough' for what they need to do." (Click HERE for the link) It sounds good, but we have to think this through. What we are learning and using in the Library 2.0 initiative, the "23 things" as it were, is way beyond what 99% of my branch's customers know about. Sure, they're doing YouTube, MySpace, Massively Multiplayer Online games and such, but they're not making use of more than a tiny fraction of what's possible. It's the way it's always been with word processing and spreadsheets: For the most part, we ignoring most of the functionality built into these programs, because we meet our needs with the basics. But there are some real and positive elements to Library 2.0. For one thing, doing things from home without having to come to a building is a good feature for many customers. A few use our databases (which are not massively Web 2.0 at this time) from home, but not many. And this isn't California, where it seems most of this stuff originates and circulates. BUT--over time, succeeding age brackets will be comfortable downloading movies and recorded books without coming into the library, and some may even learn to contact us for homework help (why don't more do so now?). Maybe the most important thing is that we have to have the right LOOK for the right generation of users. Right now our website has a clean, attractive look, but it doesn't look very 2.0. How do 22 year olds view it (or do they?). And another question: Will people continue to want what we offer regardless of the look or process to get to it? In the end, it is the content and not the form that matters.