Walt Crawford recently offered an “apology” of sorts on his blog Walt at Random for being the only person that the Library 2.0 proponents tend to cite as a Library 2.0 critic or skeptic. His January 2006 survey of the state of “Library 2.0 and ‘Library 2.0′” (link to pdf or html; it’s long, so get the pdf) is the only overtly critical reading on the ALA Library 2.0 Boot Camp Squidoo reading list (though it is hard to tell if that is the list Walt was looking at; that boot camp has a boatload of reading lists!).

In a fit of enthusiasm, I suggested that I would take this particular bull by the horns and come up with a Library 2.0 skeptic’s reading list. I’m not anti-Library 2.0. I like and respect Michael Stephens and Jenny Levine and what they seem to want to do with Library 2.0 Boot Camp. 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.

Working on this little blogliography, I can understand why people are tempted to just cite Walt’s survey and leave it at that: he did a great job of pulling in a lot of different voices on Library 2.0. While his own critical perspective shines through, it’s easy to also trace other dissenting and supporting voices. And I believe some people who are skeptical, critical, or dismissive of Library 2.0 only wrote about it because Walt put out a call for comments on Library 2.0. From what I can tell, people haven’t spilled a whole lot of electrons on anti-manifestoes (with one possible exception). That is perhaps another reason why Walt is the Library 2.0 critic poster-boy: he continues to call people out and take the bait long after other Library 2.0 skeptics have stopped.

In my list, I have tried to confine myself to posts written after (or not included in) Walt’s “Library 2.0 and ‘Library 2.0′” survey, though one or two might have snuck in. I grouped the posts loosely by topic. Within each topic, links aren’t in any particular order (I know, I know: “No particular order? And he calls himself a librarian?!”). I have tried to be neutral: I don’t necessarily agree with all of these criticisms, though I think they are all thought-provoking.

Lots of interesting links after the jump.

Tags:
,
,

Technology

Technology, Books, and the Librarian. Michael McGrorty, Library Dust
I already blogged about this post, so I won’t say much more here. Michael never mentions “Library 2.0,” but his ideas about librarian as “explicator” as opposed to librarian as “manager” is thought-provoking in terms of Library 2.0.
Questioning the Techie Mission. Rory Litwin, Library Juice
Not about Library 2.0 per se, but about the place of technology in the library blogosphere:

I think that there are definite assumptions involved in the technology advocacy posture, and there isn’t necessarily anything supporting those assumptions. In other words, the techie mission is irrational: there would be less emphasis on technology within the library blogosphere if the bloggers involved were more objective about technology.

the new library – can it provide new technology-based services? Richard Akerman, Science Library Pad
How many librarians have the technical understanding to bring about radical change?
But I am concerned at the gap between thought leaders, who are talking massive transformative disruption due to technology, and others who are talking safe incremental improvements to existing technology platforms (Library 2.0: it’s the OPAC, but users can leave comments!)

The “Ratcheting Up” of Technology. Steven Bell, ACRLog
Whether its “what’s the next big technology we can adopt” thinking taking hold of the organization, a belief that if your library doesn’t have programmers customizing lots of applications you’ll be at a disadvantage, or just an overwhelming sense that you ought to be doing more with blogs, wikis, tagging, podcasts and other Lib 2.0 type activity, are we driven to offer our user community more technology without really knowing if it would even benefit them?

Moving, shaking, blogging, and drudging. Dorothea Salo, Caveat Lector
This is a wide-ranging post. The part I’m interested in has to do with Dorothea’s belief that many of the most important changes to academic libraries aren’t going to be on the public services side:
Recently the spotlight has been falling on the crossroads between Web technology and public service. FRBR doesn’t get the ballyhoo because it’s not a Web technology; institutional repositories don’t because they’re not public service. Frankly, I think FRBR and the wave of libraries-as-publishers that IRs are a part of bid fair to have a greater and decidedly more disruptive impact on academic librarianship (note the adjective, please) than MySpace or IM or wikis or blogs or any of the Web/Library 2.0 stuff. Over the course of my career, I expect them to change some pretty fundamental things about what a lot of us do and how we do it. (Am meditating more posts on this subject, in fact.) So spotlight isn’t necessarily the best measure of long-term importance, and vice versa.

Privacy

The Central Problem of Library 2.0: Privacy. Rory Litwin, Library Juice

As serious as privacy concerns may turn out to be, the features of Web 2.0 applications that make them so useful and fun all depend on users sharing private information with the owners of the site, so that it can be processed statistically or shared with others. This presents a problem for librarians who are interested in offering Library 2.0 types of services. If we value reader privacy to the extent that we always have, I think it’s clear that our experiments with Library 2.0 services will have uncomfortable limitations.

Culture and Economics

Library 2.0: A View from the Third World. Perry Joy R. Lumabao, Filipino Librarian
Considering the questions above, we must note their financial capabilities if we are indeed thinking providing for a service like Library 2.0. Not all students will be able to access an on-line type of service. Not all students will be able to fully utilize and take advantage it.

Security

Library computer security 2.0?. Thomas Brevik, Librarian 1.5
Most of the skepticism here is coming from commenter Jeremy Morrow who says:

I think it’s great that people are waving the flag for Library 2.0, but they have to start documenting the security that goes along with it or us IT people are going to take the blame for the problems that will inevitably arise.

Terminology

Why Library 2.0 is Dangerous. Jeffy Barry, Endless Hybrids
As someone who has managed a lot of library technology projects, I feel that the danger behind Library 2.0 is that the message can be obscured by the terminology. Let’s concentrate on talking about and developing those services rather than getting lost in defining versions of the library or the most appropriate rubric for describing these services.

Label 2.0. Meredith Farkas, Information Wants To Be Free
Library 2.0 and Web 2.0 don’t exist. Web 2.0 is hype. Library 2.0 is just a bunch of very good ideas that have been squished into a box with a trendy label slapped on it…. I think we’re spending way too much time defining something that has existed in one form or another for quite a long time and will exist when the meme has ended.

Exasperation

Let’s make libraries better, OK?. Meredith Farkas, Information Wants To Be Free
Meredith Farkas takes stock of the situation after reading L2/”L2″:

Maybe Library 2.0 will inspire libraries. Maybe it will lead to great things. Maybe it will create false divisions where there are none (like the librarian who isn’t a Library 2.0 proponent but is change-oriented, user-focused, and info social software). Maybe the Library 2.0 label will turn people off outside of the blogosphere. Or maybe it will just get in the way of people understanding concretely how to improve their library.

A Library 2.0 hangover by me
Please forgive the self-link. My bit is similar to Meredith’s, above.

Listen: I care a lot about many of the things that people write about under the heading of “Library 2.0.” I am caring less and less about the term itself, and am certainly not interested in (a) splitting hairs about what is and isn’t Library 2.0 or (b) participating in a “with us or against us” campaign.

Evil

Library 2.0 is evil. Brian Smith, The Laughing Librarian
How could I pass up a post with that title? It’s humorous, but not without a somewhat serious point.
So, we propose a new label: Ideas Worth Stealing. That’s what everyone’s actually talking about with this Library 2.0 crap, right? Ideas others might want to steal and use. Possibly. Depending on the library’s situation. YMMV.

[Don't miss the Library 2.0 song (MP3) linked at the end of that post.]

That’s it. This will all be on the final exam, so get cracking.