Library 2.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Library 2.0 is a loosely defined model for a modernized form of library service that reflects a transition within the library world in the way that services are delivered to users. The focus is on user-centered change and participation in the creation of content and community.[1] The concept of Library 2.0 borrows from that of Business 2.0 and Web 2.0 and follows some of the same underlying philosophies. This includes online services like the use of OPAC systems and an increased flow of information from the user back to the library.

With Library 2.0, library services are constantly updated and reevaluated to best serve library users. Library 2.0 also attempts to harness the library user in the design and implementation of library services by encouraging feedback and participation. Proponents of this concept, sometimes referred to as Radical Trust expect that the Library 2.0 model for service will ultimately replace traditional, one-directional service offerings that have characterized libraries for centuries.

Overview

The term "Library 2.0" was coined by Michael Casey on his blog LibraryCrunch as a direct spin-off of the terms Business 2.0 and Web 2.0. Casey suggested that libraries, especially public libraries, are at a crossroads where many of the elements of Web 2.0 have applicable value within the library community, both in technology-driven services and in non-technology based services. In particular, he described the need for libraries to adopt a strategy for constant change while promoting a participatory role for library users.

Library 2.0 made its conference debut at Internet Librarian 2005 in October, 2005, when Michael Stephens of Saint Joseph County Public Library addressed the idea in relation to the typical library website.

A September 2006 article in Library Journal titled, "Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library," begins by expressing the benefit of Library 2.0 to library administrators and taxpayers as providing "more efficient ways of delivering services to achieve greater returns on financial investments." The article continued by asserting that the much discussed Library 2.0 is important for librarians as it may radically change our customer service and interaction.[1]

With Library 2.0, library services are frequently evaluated and updated to meet the changing needs of library users. Library 2.0 also calls for libraries to encourage user participation and feedback in the development and maintenance of library services. The active and empowered library user is a significant component of Library 2.0. With information and ideas flowing in both directions – from the library to the user and from the user to the library – library services have the ability to evolve and improve on a constant and rapid basis. The user is participant, co-creator, builder and consultant – whether the product is virtual or physical.

Key principles

  • Browser + Web 2.0 Applications + Connectivity = Full-featured OPAC
  • Harness the library user in both design and implementation of services
  • Library users should be able to craft and modify library provided services
  • Harvest and integrate ideas and products from peripheral fields into library service models
  • Continue to examine and improve services and be willing to replace them at any time with newer and better services.

Concerns and Considerations

Some concerns about Library 2.0 relate to access to technology, privacy[1][2] and security. For example, Casey and Savastinuk[3] suggest allowing patrons to tag or blog anonymously. In 2006, Steve Lawson, humanities liaison librarian, wrote a blog post entitled, "A Library 2.0 skeptic's reading list" that collected links to blogs which discuss these concerns. Steve says "I'm not anti-Library 2.0 . . . I like to think of Library 2.0 as a continuing conversation about the future of libraries, and it makes sense to me to try to round up some voices that challenge Library 2.0 conventional wisdom."[4]

The Library 2.0 Online Public Access Catalog

See : Next-Generation Catalogs

Library 2.0 is a new way of providing library service through new Internet technologies, with emphasis on “user-centered” change and interaction. Like Web 2.0, a full-featured Library 2.0 OPAC gets better the more that users are involved in the process of interacting with the catalog and sharing content.

Librarians have been working to retool library catalogs in order to make them more useful for patrons to find, organize, and interact with information in a way that has infinite potential for user customization. These new types of catalogs are a shift from "isolated information silos" to "interlinked computing platforms."[5] In the past the information flow was mostly one way, from library to user. With new web tools information can be released to flow in every direction (library to user, user to library, library to library, and user to user).

Jessamyn West, on her librarian.net website, authored "What We Want: An OPAC Manifesto," which broke down the needs of library staff, geeks, and users in their OPAC. These valuable suggestions inform librarians of the flexibility, customizability and plain language approach that is desired by users in their OPAC. Librarians should be aware of these issues so that planning for improvement can begin.[6]

The debate surrounding Library 2.0

Library 2.0 has been a source of debate in the blogosphere. Some librarian bloggers have argued that these key principles are not new and have been part of the service philosophies of many library reformers since the 19th century. Others are calling for more concrete examples of how libraries can get to Library 2.0. Walt Crawford, for example, argues that Library 2.0 comprises a combination of tools and attitudes which are excellent ideas and not new to librarianship, a few business- and tool-focused attitudes which will not serve all users and user communities, and incorrectly places libraries as the appropriate source for all users to gather all information.

Proponents of Library 2.0, such as Stephen Abram, Michael Stephens, Paul Miller and others, have spoken to these criticisms, arguing that while individual pieces of Library 2.0 may not be entirely new, the convergence of these service goals and ideas with many new Web 2.0 technologies has led to a new generation of library service. This includes the use of online social networks by libraries.

Notes

While the term is widely defined and interpreted, "Web 2.0" was reportedly first conceptualized and made popular by Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty of O'Reilly Media in 2004 to describe the trends and business models that survived the technology sector market crash of the 1990s (O'Reilly, 2005). The companies, services and technologies that survived, they argued, all had certain characteristics in common; they were collaborative in nature, interactive, dynamic, and the line between the creation and consumption of content in these environments was blurred (users created the content in these sites as much as they consumed it). The term is now widely used and interpreted, but Web 2.0, essentially, is not a web of textual publication, but a web of multi-sensory communication. It is a matrix of dialogues, not a collection of monologues. It is a user-centered Web in ways it has not been thus far.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Library 2.0 - 9/1/2006 - Library Journal
  2. ↑ Library Juice » The Central Problem of Library 2.0: Privacy
  3. ↑ http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html
  4. ↑ Steve Lawson, A Library 2.0 skeptic's reading list, http://stevelawson.name/seealso/archives/2006/05/a_library_20_sk.html
  5. ↑ Wikipedia contributors, "Web 2.0," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_2.0&oldid=206758560 (accessed April 20, 2008).
  6. ↑ Jessamyn West and friends, What We Want: An OPAC Manifesto, http://www.librarian.net/opac/
  • Harris, Christopher. (2006). Library 2.0 Week (Updated), Infomancy, January 2006.
  • Holmberg, K., Huvila, I., Kronqvist-Berg, M. & Widén-Wulff, G. (2009). What is Library 2.0?. Journal of Documentation, 65(4): 668-681.

See also

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike; additional terms may apply for the media files.