Note to self (and others):

If you decide to embark in a spot of Neologism to name a new trend you have identified, don’t fall for the easy option of using an old name and slapping 2.0 at the end. - Far more heat than light will inevitably emerge from the debate about the name, than the concepts it was intended to label.

In a posting, as a taster of the discussion in today’s proposed Library 2.0 Gang Podcast, T. Scott Plutchak scratched an itch of his about the usefulness of the term Library 2.0.

Unfortunately, for various logistical reasons, there was no Gang recording today but Scott’s thoughts are well worth comment nevertheless. The trigger for this was the failed attempt to get the Library 2.0 page dropped from Wikipedia, as we reported the other day.

He was in favor of the page being retained

I strongly agree [that the page should be kept], although I’m firmly in the camp of the last commenter who, while supporting the notion to keep it, said, “the term causes my teeth to grind.”

I still hope that the term will fade away, but certainly the Wikipedia article, which documents the discussion that has swirled around it for the past year, is valuable and serves as an important bit of background and a useful pointer.

At the core of Scott’s problem is this

…by defining it as “Library 2.0″ and as a new model, they necessarily place it in opposition to the old model, which must have been Library 1.0 and which, by the definition of 2.0, must have been a model of librarianship that was opposed to reaching users, evaluating services, and making use of customer input.

Whilst seeing where he is coming from, my problem with his argument is the assumption that something new is necessarily in opposition to what went before. There is very little that is really new under the sun, especially in the rash of 2.0s that have hit our world over the last couple of years Web 2.0, Office 2.0, and the others including Library 2.0. - they all build on and utilize what went before.

My understanding of the 2.0 phenomenon is more a step-change in the speed of evolution, than a new direction. To use a motoring analogy, it is a move from 1st to 2nd gear, as against a move from 1st to reverse. Many of the traditional values of Librarianship that Scott espouses “matching services to user needs and desires, evaluating what we’re doing, making use of the latest technology, etc., etc.” are all clearly visible in the so called Library 2.0 model.

What is also undeniably clear is that Library 2.0 has created a massive stir in the world wide library community. So there is something going on that is different to previously. The question is what is driving this that is difference?

In my opinion the magic ingredient is ‘participation’ at all levels enabled by the spread of web technologies. Because of the emergence of ubiquitous high speed connections and of forums, blogs, wikis, podcasts, tagging and sharing sites it has recently become far easier for people to participate - and with that participation comes innovation. Who is participating? Librarians with each other; library users are participating with libraries; users are participating with each other. Yes, librarians have always had conversations and taken suggestions from their customers on a face to face or latterly individual email conversation basis. Now, enabled by these technologies, anyone can not only start such a conversation but they can watch and join in with everyone else’s conversation, creating a massive network effect.

So we have what we have with Library 2.0 - something that is an important influence in the way librarians are facing the challenge of the Internet world - and an average name for it that will have to do for now and the foreseeable future

Technorati Tags: Talis, Library, Library 2.0, Web 2.0

Share This