Thing #23: Is this really the end?

Well, its the end of 23 things, which I found to be a really useful roadmap to exploration. If the library commission started another such exercise, I would likely participate. Among the discoveries or explorations I found most useful were Delicious, Bloglines, and everything having to do with wikis. I'll probably even keep the blog, though I might take a couple of weeks break from blogging for now.

Thing #22: Podcasts

I looked at podcasts in several directories and tried a search on Google too. There is a lot of stuff out there. I probably will not keep podcasts on my RSS feed, again, I have a cheap DSL connection at home, and bandwidth is still too much of an issue for me, so I would only use podcasts maybe for language learning or for some other special task. I listened to a bit of a comedy news podcast I got from the Internet Archive Podcast page.

Thing #21: YouTube

YouTube is so demanding of bandwidth that I rarely use it at home, and even in the library, it often just sputters along. But it does have some interesting effects. It is allowing a kind of journalism to develop that evades the prejudices and self-censorship of our local newspapers and of the American television networks. We can see things the way the rest of the world sees them, and sometimes that is healthy. Here is a link to a long posting on the Israeli assault on the Gaza strip, replete with YouTube videos, on Juan Cole's Informed Commentary Blog, which I think, over time, has been one of the best news blogs on the Internet.

Thing #20 Discovering Web 2.0 tools.

The object of this exercise was to look at the Web 2.0 tools on the Web 2.0 awards site. I enjoyed looking at some of the sites, especially self publishing site Lulu.com, which has some interesting titles. I don't see what is so "Web 2.0" about say, Biblio.com, ABE books was already doing this in Web 1.0 if you want to call it that, but the list is still an interesting one. I expect that Google maps and the hosted Wikis will be among the most useful tools listed for libraries. Another interesting guide to Web 2.0, if you are interested, is the Progammable Web site.

Thing #19: Online Apps

I'm writing this in Zoho writer, which, IMHO, beats the pants off of Google documents, at least for personal use. I'm going to try to publish it to the blog, straight from Zoho, so if you see it, I've succeeded.
OK, it did work, though I am adding this as I had to edit the tag, which did not come out quite right.

Thing #18: PBwiki

I added some favorites to the Nebraska Learns 2.0 wiki. It is not hard to edit a wiki.

Thing #17 Wiki wacky woo, or what's interesting about wikis, for libraries

Or should that be Wookie wacky wig? I'm sorry, Wookie wiki wag! No! No! I meant Wiki Wookie wacky wag! What? No! Wookie whacky wiki wacky wiggy wag! Ugh! No! Wiki wiki Wookie whacky wacky wiggy wag! Thats it! No! Maybe! I'm not sure! I think I've forgotten it!

Wikis are great collaborative tools. Lincoln City Libraries uses several wikis for staff collaboration, and they work well. We don't currently have any public wikis, but I hope that we eventually will offer some. I have, myself, in the past, added entries to Wikipedia to link to some of our archival resources, and I believe this pays off in terms of increased interest.

The Project for Public Spaces (PPS) has a thoughtful page on "How to Make Your Library Great". Among the points they make are that great libraries, rather than thinking of themselves as one-way conduits of information, "foster dialog and exchange with their users." Public wikis offer the single most effective way for a library to move this philosophy onto the web, because the work you do on them, and the contribution the public makes, can endure and continue to help build community and serve other users over time. The Des Moines Public library, for example has a "Des Moines local history wiki" that registered visitors can edit. Its early days there, but it could develop into something really interesting. There are many good local history wikis on the web, especially in Great Britain and Australia, for some reason. As the PPS page also says, great libraries are appreciated as stewards of local history and lore, and this kind of wiki could be a great step forward in providing that kind of service. Since we are on a "W" kick, here is a link to the Wagga Wagga history wiki.

I also liked St. Joseph County Public Library's subject guide wiki. The library has succeeded in creating a flexible, well organized and rather portal like subject guide that works really well. I like that a lot.

It might also be interesting to experiment with offering a (public) wiki for library book displays, encouraging discussion of the books and the topic for the display. This might not work, but it might catch on for some topics, and again, it would foster dialog and build community at the same time.

Thing #16: Library 2.0

The Web 2.0—Library 2.0 discussion seems to be providing many of the ideas that professional librarians are using to try to understand and plan for the future. For this reason alone, we will all have to try to follow that discussion and try to understand what it may mean for libraries in the long run.

The Library 2.0 discussion is about the way that technology and “Web 2.0” may shape or amplify social and cultural trends to disrupt and remake libraries' relationships with their patrons. It is about the way technology may mesh with administrative and economic imperatives to change the way libraries are supported, administered, and staffed. And finally, it is about how libraries will weather, if they can, the end of the modern world: Do they still have a job worth doing? How will they find their patrons, and the financial support they need to survive, in the storm of disintermediation, delocalization, and dematerialization that is gathering before them?

I surveyed the OCLC Newsletter on libraries and Web 2.0, read Wikipedia articles on Web 2.0 and Library 2.0, and looked here and there at the links and references in them, and tried to understand where the various bits and pieces of this discussion might lead. Here are some random responses:

Mash-ups and flexible, modular APIs allow you to imagine doing wonderful things with the library's online catalog, providing local tagging, patron reviews, and other things. Here are a few suggestions: How about being able to see current prices for the first edition on ABE books or ebay? That first English edition of Machiavelli's Prince is going for 17 or 18 thousand dollars? Maybe it is worth reading all the way through, after all! Or look up Daniel Patrick Moynihan's Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding and see in the margin that it was cited (say) in 200 books and 800 articles in the 1970s, but only in 20 books since 2000. We could provide a “thing” that patrons could put up on their own blogs or web pages that would show “what I am reading now,” a list of what they have currently checked out. Many patrons would love a “my library” page that could access a list of everything they have ever checked out. Many patrons just don't share the professional librarian's concern for privacy that leads us to avoid keeping such records ourselves. Those who prefer publicity over privacy should be able to have what they want, and vice versa.

A lot of these ideas are not that realistic, given current staffing and skills. “Perpetual beta” and quick turn around for projects sounds good, but thats not how it really works in our library, where the good virtual services people struggle to keep what we have up and going. Flexibility of the kind people are dreaming of in Library 2.0 requires quite an investment in skills and in experiments that may not always reap immediate results.

Some of the most realistic articles were about the way technology can promote cooperation and sharing of resources between libraries. This is, unquestionably, a good thing, opening the way to better and more cost-effective service. On the other hand? Its quite possible to imagine, further along this road, that something like the state library commission would run the ILS for all local libraries in the state, off of a single server farm, and that even the larger local library systems would need fewer technical staff. Perhaps cataloging and, for smaller libraries, even collection management would migrate in the same direction. “Local identity” for libraries would perhaps become more and more of a false front end. Such a monolithic service provider would capture its clientèle, and might in time become a profitable political target for privatization. Eventually, and this would become even easier as people demand everything on the Web, the whole thing could, even more profitably, be phoned in from a foreign country, where people are still paid a lot less.

Surely that is an extreme scenario, you say? Well, surely it is. But it does capture something indefinable about Web 2.0. For all the celebration of its social side, on-line communities and the like, Web 2.0 now plays a role similar to that played by advertising in supporting corporate capitalism in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. It offers a pleasant and superficial patina for deeper, and potentially more disturbing, developments. Behind every Web 2.0 application, without exception, as far as I can see, there is a huge database. Your data in that database does not belong to you.

I seem to notice that the people who write the more “cheerleading” kinds of essays about Library 2.0 are not very interested in books. For various reasons, I am personally pretty optimistic about the survival of book culture and about the way way libraries and book culture can sustain each other. Those Library 2.0 cheerleaders are also culturally passive; strikingly so, in having so much to say about how libraries should change to adapt to the “new” culture and absolutely nothing to say about any role libraries might play in shaping that culture.

Nobody has fully understood the impact of disintermediation on libraries. One of aspect of disintermediation is that libraries become publishers. Libraries become publishers when they allow their patrons to tag and review their books. How do they then deal, one article asks, with insulting ethnic tags? Or a problem review? Do they let these things stand as expressions of the real world we live in? They are more likely to need to edit them out according to some standard of what is and is not appropriate for a public institution to offer. Libraries become publishers when they digitize pictures or texts and put them on-line, when they put up podcasts of book talks or story times. Libraries become publishers when they begin to offer more “portal-like” pages to introduce their books and on-line databases to patrons in a more interesting and integrated way. They face the same design and presentation issues that say, an on-line magazine publisher might face. And they are likely to need to meet the same standards for design, reliability, and quality of content. Otherwise, in time, other kinds of providers will win their on-line audience away.

Who should know, better than librarians, that information has its own ecology. Its availability and quality reflects the economic, social, political, and scientific environment of some particular place and time. Some is copyrighted and some is not, some can be freely accessed, some cannot. Some communities can afford to buy licenses to access certain kinds of information and some cannot. Some information that is available on the web is here today, but will be gone tomorrow, as governments or businesses remove it from circulation, or begin to charge for it. Librarians do their jobs well when they help their patrons understand that ecology.

The two cheerleading articles that open the OCLC Next Space Newsletter on Web 2.0 appeared to me to promote an emerging “Web 2.0 reality” as a kind of self-sustaining narcissistic illusion that ignores that ecology of information. Because information has contexts, it will never be pushbutton simple. Libraries will always be about educating their users. As I read the essays (and it is possible to get a much larger dose of Michael Stephens with a Google search), I had the feeling that they were trying to promote a kind of “technological correctness” for librarians, quite unconnected with the values and community service libraries and librarians have stood for in the past.