Chad and Miller make some valid arguments. They are right that librarians need to think a great deal about what their patrons want and what will make information retrieval more efficient for those users. If libraries can get away from the expensive operating systems they use now, all the better. Chad and Miller’s enthusiasm, however, is a little suspicious because they seem too eager to move ahead with new technologies without thinking thoroughly through the possible negative as well as positive effects on the library; especially the physical library. They offer no quantitative evidence, such as statistics or in-depth studies, of what library patrons really want out of their library, but make assumptions about the desires of library users. Their suggestions about partnering with corporate entities like Amazon are disturbing as well because it is not particularly well thought through especially in terms of what corporations would want in return in such a partnership. These omissions, combined with the fact that Chad and Miller are employees of a computer company that could stand to gain from Library 2.0 technology, should give librarians pause to consider Chad and Miller’s motives.
Ultimately, Chad and Miller’s article is speculative. It wisely doesn’t seek to provide any solid answers, it merely attempts to open a dialogue with librarians about the future of their libraries. Their motives are some what suspect and their enthusiasm for future seems premature, the debate indeed has merit. Credit should be given to Chad and Miller for bringing this topic into the open and insisting on its importance. It is essential for librarians to find ways to make the library a vibrant and relevant place, and this discussion will only help in that endeavor. Despite the sloppiness of Chad and Miller’s presentation, this is a conversation that must continue. Hopefully other information professionals and librarians take up Chad and Miller’s challenge but will bring more nuanced and thoughtful arguments forward to discuss Library 2.0.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Shhhhh!!!!
I read a small comment in something I was reading for the Library 2.0 debate assignment for FIS 1311 and it has started me thinking. In his response to the Talis white paper, Michael Stephens chides libraries for not being up to date with their users. He says, “No cell phones. No IM on public PCs. No talking. No working together on the workstations. No THANK YOU, [emphasis in original] I’ll go to Starbucks.” (http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2005/11/do-libraries-matter-on-library-librarian-20.html).
So I understand what he means and agree that libraries have to be vibrant welcoming places where information and knowledge can be exchanged freely and, if need be, noisily. However, and this might be putting me squarely in the “bun and cardigan wearing” set, what is so wrong with a little quiet? I mean haven’t we all had that experience where we are trying to do our work and some jerk beside us is talking loudly about their personal life on his or her cell phone? That’s really annoying! I go to my favourite library to do work because it is peaceful and quiet, free from distractions.
Okay, I’m being a little facetious here, I know that Stephens isn’t suggesting that all libraries be turned into marketplaces, devoid of any quiet places but I do get a bit worried with all the talk that goes on constantly about how we can fix libraries. Yes there are things wrong with libraries, but there are also things right with them. I think what bothered me about the comment was the “I’ll go to Starbucks” part. Essentially, what Stephens is saying, I think anyway, is that if libraries can’t be more like coffee shops, then people will go there instead. But what if people go to libraries because they *aren’t* coffee shops? Do we want libraries to be coffee shops? Because a Starbucks will always be able to do ‘coffee shop’ better than a library, that’s not what libraries are for. I know lots of people go to coffee shops to do work, but I don’t think they go because the library won’t let them talk. I’m picking up on the coffee shop idea as more of a metaphor here, it is not so much about the physical space of the library (although that is important too), but I think we need to think a lot about what works in libraries and not lose that in the push for more technical advances. Just because the technology exists to do something, doesn’t mean it is the best thing to do, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t, but I think we need to think and talk about this.
This is the beginning of my thinking about the Talis Library 2.0 white paper. The suggestions therein are certainly exciting but I’m still a little skeptical, for reasons I’ll get into in more depth once I’ve thought about it more. I wonder, are we trying to turn libraries into something that other commercial vendors do better? Like Amazon for example, which Chad and Miller cite as a hassle free way for consumers to get books, libraries can’t be Amazon because they don’t operate at a for profit level so they don’t make as much money. And I doubt that consumers/users expect libraries to function like Amazon, at least in the book delivery capacity.
Don’t worry, I’m not a backward thinking luddite who’s biting at the bit to go smash some computers. I agree that libraries have to keep changing with technology. I’m open to changes and some of those proposed by Library 2.0 adherents sound like they could be wonderful. I’m just sort of skeptical of new technologies, especially ones that people are frothing at the mouth with excitement over. But I’m going to approach this with an open mind and do some more reading. Who knows they may just convert me? Speaking of which, I am also inherently distrustful of someone who calls themselves an evangelist (Miller & Chad, 2005) of any kind, yikes!
Reference List
Chad, K. and Miller, P. (2005). “Do libraries matter: The rise of library 2.0.” [version 1.0] http://www.talis.com/. November 2005.
Michael Stephens. (2005). Ala TechSource. November 18, 2005. Accessed on Sept. 27, 2005. http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2005/11/do-libraries-matter-on-library-librarian-20.html.
So I understand what he means and agree that libraries have to be vibrant welcoming places where information and knowledge can be exchanged freely and, if need be, noisily. However, and this might be putting me squarely in the “bun and cardigan wearing” set, what is so wrong with a little quiet? I mean haven’t we all had that experience where we are trying to do our work and some jerk beside us is talking loudly about their personal life on his or her cell phone? That’s really annoying! I go to my favourite library to do work because it is peaceful and quiet, free from distractions.
Okay, I’m being a little facetious here, I know that Stephens isn’t suggesting that all libraries be turned into marketplaces, devoid of any quiet places but I do get a bit worried with all the talk that goes on constantly about how we can fix libraries. Yes there are things wrong with libraries, but there are also things right with them. I think what bothered me about the comment was the “I’ll go to Starbucks” part. Essentially, what Stephens is saying, I think anyway, is that if libraries can’t be more like coffee shops, then people will go there instead. But what if people go to libraries because they *aren’t* coffee shops? Do we want libraries to be coffee shops? Because a Starbucks will always be able to do ‘coffee shop’ better than a library, that’s not what libraries are for. I know lots of people go to coffee shops to do work, but I don’t think they go because the library won’t let them talk. I’m picking up on the coffee shop idea as more of a metaphor here, it is not so much about the physical space of the library (although that is important too), but I think we need to think a lot about what works in libraries and not lose that in the push for more technical advances. Just because the technology exists to do something, doesn’t mean it is the best thing to do, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t, but I think we need to think and talk about this.
This is the beginning of my thinking about the Talis Library 2.0 white paper. The suggestions therein are certainly exciting but I’m still a little skeptical, for reasons I’ll get into in more depth once I’ve thought about it more. I wonder, are we trying to turn libraries into something that other commercial vendors do better? Like Amazon for example, which Chad and Miller cite as a hassle free way for consumers to get books, libraries can’t be Amazon because they don’t operate at a for profit level so they don’t make as much money. And I doubt that consumers/users expect libraries to function like Amazon, at least in the book delivery capacity.
Don’t worry, I’m not a backward thinking luddite who’s biting at the bit to go smash some computers. I agree that libraries have to keep changing with technology. I’m open to changes and some of those proposed by Library 2.0 adherents sound like they could be wonderful. I’m just sort of skeptical of new technologies, especially ones that people are frothing at the mouth with excitement over. But I’m going to approach this with an open mind and do some more reading. Who knows they may just convert me? Speaking of which, I am also inherently distrustful of someone who calls themselves an evangelist (Miller & Chad, 2005) of any kind, yikes!
Reference List
Chad, K. and Miller, P. (2005). “Do libraries matter: The rise of library 2.0.” [version 1.0] http://www.talis.com/. November 2005.
Michael Stephens. (2005). Ala TechSource. November 18, 2005. Accessed on Sept. 27, 2005. http://www.techsource.ala.org/blog/2005/11/do-libraries-matter-on-library-librarian-20.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
