Comments on: Writing and talking about librarian 2.0

By: The Book-ish-ness of Books

The Book-ish-ness of Books — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 21:07:08 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: abid Hussain

abid Hussain — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:53:00 +0000

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

By: abid Hussain

abid Hussain — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:46:51 +0000

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

By: the goblin in the library › library 2.0

the goblin in the library › library 2.0 — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:06:44 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: blyberg.net » The Information Experience

blyberg.net » The Information Experience — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:04:49 +0000

[...] 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. [...]

By: Laura

Laura — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:09:47 +0000

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.

By: Steve Lawson

Steve Lawson — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:09:21 +0000

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.

By: Steve Lawson

Steve Lawson — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:19:08 +0000

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.

By: David lee King

David lee King — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:21:38 +0000

“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.

By: T Scott

T Scott — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:08:13 +0000

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.