Remember my Library 2.0 Spectrum post and graphic, and all the discussion that took place on my blog and on other blogs earlier this month? I asked for reader’s input and received some great responses – so thanks, you wonderful readers, you!

Here’s the finale of that discussion: I created a second image. I have to say, I liked my original one, disruptive though it was, and I liked Cindi’s video version as well – all show generally the same idea. But let’s try this new one on for size, and see where it gets us.

So – introducing Library 2.0 Ripples (graphic and explanation below):

Explanation of the Library 2.0 Ripples:

1. Traditional Library: everything starts here.
2. Augmenting the traditional library: This is where libraries realize that search engines, online databases, and email reference can augment their traditional services. They haven’t yet realized that these tools can be stand-alone services instead of simply augmenting traditional services.
3. Change and Scanning the Horizon: Library realizes that 21st century services can stand by themselves. They start reading and watching trends, they realize that to meet current and especially future demand, they need to change/grow. The library is ready to experiment with emerging tools.
4. Pilot Projects: The library starts experimenting with emerging tools. They take Learning 2.0 courses, they start blogs. Staff are allowed to “play” with emerging tools, start holding digital conversations, experiment with video, or start podcasting.
5. Customer Participation: the library starts evolving their website into a digital branch that offers participation to customers rather than just information. Conversations start taking place via the digital branch, in many different forms. The library realizes that radical change=growth. The library trusts their staff enough to allow them the ability to interact via the digital branch (this is huge. Old models of website content sometimes went through PR. New models turn website content into conversation that gets added to rather than edited).
6. Community Engagement: the goal. The library and the library’s local community are actively creating digital community via the digital branch. The library trusts the community enough to allow real-time customer participation. The digital branch is recognized as an actual “branch.”

More explanation:
I really liked Carrie’s idea (from comments on this post) – here’s what she said: “I see our evolution as a series of circles, like concentric rings, the heart and soul of librarians or libraries will always be books and knowledge, but the tools we use to share it and how we interact and network with the community expands in different ways out from the center of the library.”

So that’s where the circle/ripple idea came from. I’m calling them “ripples” because I was reminded of a rock tossed in the water when I read the circle idea. The hope is that this version isn’t as negative as my first one (ie., luddites), and focuses less on specific technologies (ie., iPhone) than the first one seemed to do.

The Library 2.0 Ripple is doing something else – like Carrie’s idea, everything starts with the traditional library. This isn’t a negative thing! None of this library 2.0 stuff would happen without there being a library 1.0, right? So the Traditional Library is at the center of the ripples. Then, ripples start moving outward towards the edge of the graphic. I honestly don’t think anyone has made it to the edge of the ripples yet (though we are headed that way).

So… thoughts?

library2.0, web2.0

There has been much good discussion on my blog lately about 2.0 stuff. I even made it into the cool discussion going on in Greg Schwartz’s Uncontrolled Vocabulary show, and it’s spawned at least one videoblog post – so if nothing else, it’s a very 2.0 discussion!

A central issue that keeps popping up in this discussion is one of technology: how is the concept of Library 2.0 related to technology? Is Library 2.0 all about the tech … does it even need tech to exist? I’m going to jump off the deep end here and tackle this issue separately from the other 2.0 spectrum stuff.

First off, an example completely outside the library realm.
I drive a car. The car has a computer in it. The computer and the engine that runs the car was created by someone much smarter than me. In fact, the car and the engine were probably created by some type of engineer. So – by driving the car, does that make me an engineer? NO! Does it make me a “car creator?” NO – I know absolutely nothing about how cars work. I think I could change the oil if my life depended on it, and I can change a tire – but other than that, I’m definitely not “car-creator” material.

I can, however, DRIVE the car (though my wife wonders about that ability at times). I have “car-user” skills. There are two sets of skills going on here: car-creator skills and car-user skills.

Now let’s compare that back to Library 2.0…
And use blogging as an example. Blogging is seen as a very 2.0 activity, and one that’s a starting point for many libraries and librarians. I’d certainly include blogging as a solid Library 2.0 activity.

I think my car skills example mirrors blogging skills in many respects. There are two skill-sets needed for blogging. First, there are “blog creators.” Someone has to write the blog software code, someone else has to install the blog software on a server, and yet someone else maintains that server and the server operating system. Those skills are the “techie skills” of blogging. And those skills occur BEFORE the actual blogging begins.

Then, there is the “blog user.” This person’s job starts AFTER the techie person has finished his/her job. The “blog user” actually uses the blogging tool to blog – they write blog posts, respond to comments, create categories, and delete comment spam. Is this person a techie? No – at least, not in the same way as the server/coder dudes.

The skills needed to blog successfully are the ability to write, and to do so with a human enough voice that people actually want to respond. And maybe the ability to know what to write about. These are not techie skills!

Going a bit further with this, what are the other skills needed for being a “blog user?” “Well, David – you blog by using a computer and the Internet … that’s pretty techie stuff.” Right. But the actual skills being used – are those techie skills?

To do the “act of blogging,” you basically do two things:

1. type
2. hit the “publish” button.

That’s all. That’s such an extremely basic competency in a library setting that it’s usually a given – most library job ads include the “can use Microsoft Office Suite” line as a given – they won’t even look at you if you don’t have this basic skill.

Most of the other 2.0 competencies I listed earlier would also fall under the “entry level not really techie” skillsets, too… except maybe for the “understanding basic HTML/CSS” one. Even the ability to edit an image – yes, that’s definitely using software… just like using Excel is using software. But is it a techie skill? I’m not so sure about that.

So I ask again – is Library 2.0 a “techie” activity? Looking back at the key principles listed in the Wikipedia entry for Library 2.0, here’s what I find:

• Browser + Web 2.0 Applications + Connectivity = Full-featured OPAC
  (Techie skill if the library does this themselves, but not if they buy it from a vendor)
• Harness the library user in both design and implementation of services (Non-techie)
• Library users should be able to craft and modify library provided services (Non-techie)
• Companies wanting to do business with public or academic libraries should not be creating proprietary software; Library 2.0 is not a closed concept. (Non-techie)
• Constant change is replacing the older model of upgrade cycles (Non-techie)
• Beta is forever (Non-techie)
• Harvest and integrate ideas and products from peripheral fields into library service models (Non-techie)
• Continue to examine and improve services and be willing to replace them at any time with newer and better services. (Non-techie)
• Rigidity breeds failure (Non-techie)
• Harness The Long Tail (Non-techie)

So one more time – is Library 2.0 a techie activity? What do you think?

library 2.0, web 2.0

OK… so my Library 2.0 Spectrum post has garnered a good number of comments on this blog and in Flickr – some positive, some negative, all useful. And so far, the graphic I created seems to be a useful pursuit, if for no other reason than it gets people thinking about libraries and change, so I think I’ll continue to pursue it for awhile… but only with your help!

Here’s where you can help – I’m seeking input from you, my readers: Listed below are things that need to change on the graphic – please help me figure out how to change it. If this works the way I think it will work, I’ll get some good comments from you, and we’ll be able to create more of a collective “here’s what we think” graphic. And if not… ehhh.

Stuff that Needs to Change:

The name: – spectrum didn’t work for some, did work for others. Continuum and Evolution were both suggested. Originally, I was thinking of Field (as in, where are you standing in the L2 field…), but then decided that would be too goofy, even for me. What do you guys think works best?

My choice of icons: Many strong reactions from these! I chose a yellowed, parchmenty book to represent traditional libraries and (unfortunately) chose an iPhone to represent the “I get it” side. Some of you were a bit miffed by my choices.

So I ask you – what icons would you use to represent:

1. traditional libraries
2. The complete Library 2.0 library – this should focus on participation, community and conversation and NOT on a specific piece of technology (like, say, the iPhone)

The use of the word Luddite: oops. Sorry. My geek bias was probably showing there. I definitely want to start off with traditional libraries, but I don’t want to associate that positive base with a luddite (someone who “fears or loathes … new forms of technology” – from whatis.com). If I remove “Luddite” and keep in “Traditional Library” – will that make the left side of the spectrum less negative? Remember, I AM attempting to show a someone who really doesn’t get Library 2.0 of this side of the spectrum/graph.

On the other end of that, I think I should remove most of the techie terms (ie., web 2.0). Because being Library 2.0 isn’t about using cool tools, as more than one commenter pointed out (and I agree with). It’s more about a change of focus than about new technology. Thoughts?

That’s all for now – your comments are appreciated!