Saturday, October 11, 2008
Library 2.0
After reading much information on Library 2.0, I liked the wikipedia article the best. It layed out exactly what it is: adapting library services to customer needs, making the library a relevant part of their lives. I got lost in the newsletter mainly because it was so techno oriented. I agree with several comments that I believe the library has always tried to figure out what our customers wanted and to provide those services (a great example are all those promises of improved services we promise with each levy). The key difference I suppose is that we have started asking customers instead of trying to "figure it out" based on statistics or other info. Web 2.0 seems like a terrific fit to creating the Library 2.0. Complete and full access to information where people can contribute is a wonderful thing. My main concern with sources of info that are self editing is that there are a lot of people out there that know "something about everything and really nothing about anything." We as library professionals have always been concerned about making sure the info that we pass along to customers is accurate (anyone remember STYLE?), how can we do this with a giant animal that Web 2.0 could create? Everyone can point to webpages and articles that have misinformation according to a certain movement's belief systems. As part of being relevant to our customers' lives, we owe it to them to make sure that the basic service we have always provided (information) remains accurate and useful to them. Otherwise all the other cool things we provide customers won't matter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Saying this: "something about everything and really nothing about anything" is problematic only because its not an accurate depiction of our society. I think librarians who are generalists are the types of folks who know something about everything, plus they probably have a couple areas/passions/hobbies where they could be considered an expert. I believe that many people throughout society are like this, more or less. A farmer could be an expert in his/her vocation (corn & wheat proliferation/harvest), but also know enough about vehicle repair, construction, and chemistry to instruct others.
There's plenty of factual information out there put in place by all sorts of individuals and organizations, and there's a whole lot of dis-information as well, sometimes put into play by the same trusted people. Just because the information is contained in an encyclopedia doesn't automatically give it more credibility than a Wikipedia article for me. We've been conditioned to hold this belief as true, yet the fact remains that people throughout history who are authorities get things wrong or don't tell the whole story (ex. "Lies My Teacher Told Me").
I've thought for a long time that one of the most important things that teachers and libraries should insist upon is the use of multiple sources, but to also give the reasons why they must be used. I don't think this aspect of research/information acquisition can be stressed enough.
Even if we get to the point where people habitually re-check their info, library people will still be important because of our ability to quickly search and evaluate effectively.
Post a Comment