David Lee King

social media | emerging trends | libraries

Basic Competencies of a 2.0 Librarian

By

Update: see my Basic Competencies of a 2.0 Librarian, Take 2 – it’s an expanded list.

Emily, at the Library Revolution blog, posted about minimum tech competencies she thinks librarians should have. Her list is certainly fine – but I share her frustrations when glancing at that list! Those are all very basic skills that some librarians still don’t have, unfortunately.

And so I started to think: what are some competencies a 2.0 librarian should have? I’m refraining from calling them tech competencies, even though they all reside on the computer – I think we need to get away from calling something a tech competency just because it’s done on the computer. Most of these skills are similar to word processing – the skill of writing isn’t a tech competency, even though you most likely use MS Word to do it these days, for example.

So – here’s David’s off-the-cuff Library 2.0 Competencies:

  • write and post to a blog
  • add photos and videos to a blog post
  • embed a widget into blogs and social networking accounts (like Myspace)
  • social network knowledge – basic understanding of Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, etc
  • shoot, upload and edit photos
  • shoot, upload and edit short videos
  • record, edit and upload a podcast
  • use IM in different forms
  • use and explain rss and rss readers to others
  • send and read sms text messages
  • edit an avatar’s appearance
  • basic console gaming skills (multiple formats preferred)

And then, a few bonus skills that go beyond the basics (but are still essential in this new era):

  • understand how everything above can cohesively fit together
  • understand how everything above compliments a physical, traditional library
  • the ability to learn the basics of a new digital service or tool within 15 minutes of fiddling around with it
  • And most importantly – the ability to tell the library’s story, through various media – writing, photography, audio, and video.

What do you think? Would you add or remove anything from this list? I know I’m forgetting some of the non-web library 2.0 things… Let me know!

,

Thoughts on Everything is Miscellaneous, Part 1

By

hard rock cafeI just finished reading David Weinberger’s book, Everything is Miscellaneous (thanks, Brad!). It’s a great read – one that I highly recommend to everyone who reads my blog. You might not agree with everything in the book, but I guarantee the book will make you think.

First things first – Weinberger MUST know some librarians! Throughout the book, he mentions librarians… even some specific ones (ok, he even mentions Gorman and Blog People!). Weinberger also mentions card catalogs, FRBR, faceted searching (in relation to Endeca), DDC, and LCSH. He even quotes Ranganathan! So it’s definitely a “librarian-friendly” book.

Now, on to my main beef with the book. The title of the book, obviously, is Everything is Miscellaneous. And in most of the book, Weinberger tends to discuss first how something is either currently categorized or organized, and then how that organization or categorization has changed with web 2.0 tools and tagging specifically. How has it changed? According to Weinberger, allowing individuals to sort and tag information however they want equates to the world of information turning miscellaneous.

Interestingly enough, I agree with everything Weinberger says… but the term “miscellaneous” bugs me.

Instead of using “miscellaneous,” I’d use “personal.” In fact, I’d change the title of the book to Everything is Personal or Everything is Personally Relevant. Most of the information Weinberger describes as being miscellaneous isn’t actually haphazardly mish-mashed together (definition of Miscellaneous found using Google). Instead, the information, or the metadata at least, has been customized – or personalized – for “me.” Tags, searches, descriptions, customizations – all help to make the information personally relevant to me.

So… it might just be a semantics thing – I dunno. But I don’t see Weinberger’s miscellaneous pile of leaves (read the book – you’ll understand) as miscellaneous. Instead, I see it as opportunity. As something waiting to be discovered by me, tagged and described adequately enough that I can revisit it – which pulls it out of the miscellaneous pile and into my personally relevant, “I place you here” organizational needs.

And if my personal, sorted-through pile helps others (ie., tagging items in flickr), then great!

Update: Part 2 is here…

ALA2007’s Most Attended Program

By

Guess what ALA2007’s most attended program was? Was it Julie Andrews? Was it Peter Morville? No.

This is only my guess, because I don’t have all the numbers… but my guess, based on one set of numbers alone, was … the BIGWIG Social Software Showcase UnConference!

What? There were only 30 or so people who attended! How can that be, David? That’s just the physical attendees. But so far, my twitter presentation for the showcase has been viewed 953 times. That’s a bunch of attendees!

How about some of you other BIGWIG presenters? How many people have viewed your screencasts (those of you whomade screencasts)?

,

ALA2007: RUSA Preconference: The Hyperlinked Library: Reference Services in the 2.0 World

By

Michael Stephens, Keynote: The Hyperlinked Library: Reference Services in the 2.0 World

David says: other people probably took better notes – honestly, I really enjoy just sitting and listening to Michael talk – he does a great job, and it’s fun!

********

introduced web and library 2.0, discussed the information revolution that’s taking place.

three things to do:

evolve – checking out laptops, camcorders, etc… welcoming buildings
let go of control – no cell phone signs as examples
be visible online

plan with your users

engage your users
– catalog search box in facebook
– comments in catalog

adopt a 2.0 philosophy

– throw out the culture of perfect
– learn from the gamers (it’s ok to make mistakes)
– discover, play and experience these new tools

Second Life reference desk – 200 questions a week

create a culture of trust
– trust users
– trust each other