Writing and talking about librarian 2.0
Fri 3 Aug 2007, 3:38 pm
So you probably don’t need me to tell you this, but David Lee King wrote a post Wednesday called Am I a 2.0 Librarian and the Library 2.0 Spectrum. It featured an image that he titled Library 2.0 Spectrum. Some people really liked what David had to say and how he illustrated it with the image. Some didn’t like it.
I didn’t like it.
The post drew a lot of comments, including a few from me.
David, walking his 2.0 talk, chose to engage the critics rather than write us off, and came up with another post, Library 2.0 spectrum thingie – asking for your input!, and got a boatload of new comments, including one from me.
I called in to Uncontrolled Vocabulary last night specifically to talk about this. Uncontrolled Vocabulary, besides having about the best title ever, is fun to listen to and even more fun when calling in. If you want to hear the segment where we discuss David’s post, it starts around 41 minutes in.
I haven’t taken a comprehensive survey of other blogs’ responses to David’s posts, but a notable one comes from Cindi at Chronicles of Bean. Her post, David’s Librarian 2.0 Spectrum Thingie is in the form of a video. She uses David’s posts as a prompt for her own thoughts on “librarian 2.0.” I find her take on the subject more appealing, as she seems to look at all this “2.0″ stuff as a way of thinking or working, and less as an ultimate destination or doctrine.
You might think I have said enough about this already, but I just wanted to add a few more thoughts to explain where I’m coming from:
- I think it’s fine when people emphasize technology when they talk “2.0.”
- I object when people treat “2.0” as if it were something that exists in some platonic sense. If you want to talk about 2.0 as a group of tools or techniques or ideas, I’m ready to talk. If you want to talk about it as if it were a state of nirvana that we are all striving toward–as something that one either “gets” or doesn’t “get”–I’m out. I don’t “get it.”
- It bugs me when librarians seem to be denigrating books.
- I think my “traditional library skills” are where I need the most work. For example, I bet I could help more people, faster, if I knew our reference collection better.
- Similarly, if we stopped doing all the “2.0” stuff we do at my library–Flickr, IM reference, blogs, wikis, all of it–we’d have a few minor inconveniences. If we stopped doing all the “traditional” stuff we do, we’d all be fired.

Wow, you said it all. I just don’t understand why we are trying to divide librarians with the 2.0 talk. As an administrator, I agree 100% about your last bullet point, people come into our library for books and access, not because we have a flickr account.
Comment by Jeff — August 3, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
I’ve been trying to decide whether or not to jump into that discussion because, while I like most of what DLK posts, the notion of trying to come up with a spectrum that inevitably creates a sense of good guys & bad guys just doesn’t seem very productive to me (although much of the discussion around it has been). But your post presents what I think are the most critical issues quite nicely and succinctly. Thanks.
Comment by T Scott — August 3, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
“If we stopped doing all the “traditional” stuff we do, we’d all be fired.”
It’s not that simple. Case in point – the library of congress let 200 people go… because they choose to not “gain new technological skills.”
I’m simply swiping from Abram here – but I would agree with him and others that say libraries are at the start of a digital-era transformation (along with many other areas, hence church 2.0, media 2.0, law 2.0, government 2.0, etc). Currently, some libraries are like yours – if we got rid of the 2.0 stuff, it wouldn’t really affect us. But others (library of congress, McMaster, etc) are actively pushing 2.0 technology as must-have skills.
And a side thing… I don’t denigrate books. I denigrate the container, not the content – two very different things. Books as a format I thin will stick around for a very long time. The paper they are printed on? Well… I have a Sony E-Reader in my office right now for staff to play with.
Comment by David lee King — August 3, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
Thanks, all for your comments, especially David. Way to spark a discussion!
As to the specifics of your comment, I don’t know anything about that Library of Congress event except what I read in that article you link to. So I can’t judge whether “taken advantage of a voluntary retirement incentive” is a euphemism for “got canned,” or if we are talking about people a few years away from retirement deciding it was easier to hit the road than have their work life completely reorganized.
I think you are right about being at the beginning of a long digital transformation. I think the real action in that digital transformation is likely to not come on the public services side, though, but in technical services, publishing, and legal decisions. I don’t really have that very well worked out in my mind, though.
As for denigrating books, I was careful to say “seem to be,” as I know you were kind of goofing around with the book icon. But I can’t go there with you on the container/content thing. There is something special about books on paper, something that has been a part of our culture for close to 2,000 years. The format will almost certainly become obsolete, but even then books deserve our respect. I don’t want to be part of a profession that doesn’t have a soft spot for books.
Comment by Steve Lawson — August 3, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
David, one more thing I should add. Your comment points out something very important that often gets lost in these discussions. Libraries can be very different from one another. As you say, what can be vital in one library might be a nice sideline in another library and irrelevant, even harmful, in a third library.
Thanks for bringing that point to the fore.
Comment by Steve Lawson — August 3, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
If I’m ever in the position of needing to hire another person at my library, the job description is going to read, in part, “Must like people, books, and computers.” I understand the frustration that people feel when the library is perceived as just a place for books, and not one for computers and software and games and DVDs etc., etc., but I, too, would not want to be in this profession if we didn’t care at all about books. All the hand-wringing about OCLC’s Perceptions report finding that people associate libraries primarily with books seems weird to me–that’s a bad thing?
To be sure, there are libraries where technology is important and where electronic information is more useful than print–but there are also libraries where that is not true, and where it may never be.
Comment by Laura — August 6, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
[...] Lawson is the closest to touching on this in his response: I object when people treat “2.0” as if it were something that exists in some platonic sense. [...]
Pingback by blyberg.net » The Information Experience — August 9, 2007 @ 9:04 am
[...] seems to have been a resurgence of blog posting and discussion on Library 2.0–what is it? is it meaningful or just empty rhetoric? is it a [...]
Pingback by the goblin in the library › library 2.0 — August 21, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
I have heard a lot of time from people that why u adopted this profession .Either you had to go some rich profession or you have to adopted some earning profession why you joined this …But thanks to God for giving me this field …Interresting and peaceful one
Comment by abid Hussain — November 26, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
We need for strong and dedication help with in this profession but we are lagging in this field thats the reason nobody can give preference for improving this profession i am one of them
Comment by abid Hussain — November 26, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
[...] Spectrum, which got so many comments that he wrote a whole post about wanting feedback. Meanwhile Steve Lawson wrote a response (in addition to several comments on David’s posts), Uncontrolled Vocabulary took up the [...]
Pingback by The Book-ish-ness of Books — August 9, 2009 @ 3:07 pm