The implications of Library 2.0 on service.

One of the more worrisome trends for me with Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 is the fetishism that sometimes comes with it. So many people are absolutely obsessed with progress for progress' sake and seldom consider the long-reaching implications of rash technological change.

As someone who comes from an IT background previosly, I know a lot of people who are involved in IT and most of them would agree that the Internet was not truly designed for Web 2.0: the bandwidth is not fast enough, nor is the infastructure powerful enough to keep up with the rapid change of multimedia and true interactivity. This is, of course, one of the reasons why Internet Service Providers (ISP's) in Canada are currently imposing bandwidth caps on customer accounts. Unfortunatey, GB's of bandwidth are simply not available en masse. One of my friends who is a systems analysis is abolsutely certain that the Web will eventually crash hard unless either a) infastructure is improved or b) Web 2.0 is curbed in it's rapid development.

Personally, I would hope it would be the former, as I do see the value in interactivity and personalisation of the Web experience. As I mentioned in my first blog, I am quite an active participant in Web 2.0 and would love to see that service keep growing and progressing, but the progress must be tempered with pragmatism or we'll likely, in trying to move Web 2.0 along, bring it to a technological halt because of technological limitations.

This brings me to my first criticism of one of the articles I read. As I'd mentioned in our first chat, the Carr article concerned me a great deal because he seemed to criticise Web 2.0 based on some romantic notion of human society in the past and how it existed. Academically, I come from a History and Folklore background, and I can certainly say, based on my research, that human beings have frequnetly enjoyed celebrity dirt and stretching the truth at least a little to have their own worldview accepted. Though it may seem to Carr as though Web 2.0 is the lowest common demoninator of socializing and communication, it is really not that different than conversations we have in person, or, for instance pen-and-paper journals that people in decades of the past would have written. The only difference is that these things are now in the public sphere, and are accessible to a wider range of readers. In this sense, it occurs to me that Carr is taking a very "back in my day, things were different" approach to Web 2.0, which is, in my opinion the worst possible way to begin a thought process. :P

This leads into my main point about Library 2.0. I abolsutely feel that Library 2.0 is a useful goal to pursue, and that it is vital to keeping the library as a diplomatic and user-focused environment. In out goals to get to 2.0, however, we must not forget that not all users want Library 2.0. Some users want the traditional library experience and will likely come to the library far less if they feel innundated with technology. Rather than imposing 2.0 on all users, it's important to keep Library 1.0 alive and well for those who want that sort of experience. To me, there is no competition between 1.0 and 2.0, but rather, two different focuses which are entirely capable of being offered simulteneously without detriment to either. Afterall, if our libraries are truly about diplomacy and equality, all users should be able to come in and not feel pressured to do things a certain way to enjoy their library experience.

To this end, I agreed with Dames' analysis of Library 2.0 in "Social Software and the Library". To contrast, some of Maness' ideas in "Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries" seemed to promote some of the technopillia that worry me about the shift to Web/Library 2.0. Similarly, Blyberg suggests that the shift to Library 2.0 is necessaryThough not stated directly in these articles, it was certainly implied that Library 2.0 was a necessary replacement for 1.0, and while I might be taking the author out of context, decision makers might do so as well and run with the good advice to adopt Library 2.0 quickly and mercilessly. Though that may sound all rather "doom and gloom", it's certainly not meant to discourage or dismiss the development of Library 2.0. In fact, I'm a big proponent of Library 2.0, but we simply need to be aware that not all users will be comfortable with (or even want to be involved with) Library 2.0; for these users we should make traditional ways of enjoying a library experience available.

Although the "traditional" library experience is perhaps fading into obscurity according to young and librarians, the historian and folklorist in me says that tradition is not simply something to be dispatched when it is no longer convenient for us or popular with young users. In fact, it is something to be recognized and looked to to understand where we came from, why we exist and, truly, where we are going. As much as we need to be progressive and move forward, we also need to be respectful of our origins and those users who have enabled us to exist as long as we have.

Afterall, do we simply kill our old dog because he can't learn new tricks? ... I think not!