A little under four years ago some clever person saw that there were still new things being done in web applications and they came up with the sarcastic term 'Web 2.0' to describe new ideas relating to web applications. Of course, there is no such physical thing as 'Web 2.0', except a concept or way of thinking. It isn't a new standard or new file format, or in many cases even new ideas. It's just a kinda geeky sounding name which has become quite trendy among those who like being trendy and selling sizzle to their clients, and in as much as it encourages people to develop better and more usable web applications I am happy to go along with it. 2pointno seems to sum up the story of Web 2.0 quite well - that it is a new name for a concept that isn't well defined and isn't all that original anyway.
Library 2.0 seems a bit like the same kind of concept applied to the library industry instead of the web industry, but to me it is quite different in its approach. Having been exposed to the shallow hype of Web 2.0 from my time in the web industry, the library industry's approach to Library 2.0 appears both more earnest and yet also more self-conscious. In contrast to Web 2.0, Library 2.0 seems to have its heart in the right place, genuinely aiming to engage more with users and make better use of technology in order to improve the library experience. At the same time, in its striving to consider users' needs more in delivering services to them, it seems to be fighting a perceived image problem or general deficiency of libraries. It seems to feel that the existence of Google, for example, shows how libraries have slipped behind or are struggling to be 'relevant' to their users. This kind of stopping and thinking about the bigger problems is rarely done in the web industry, which tends to move too fast to stop and think about what it may be doing wrong or who it is alienating, as there will always be more clients to pitch and buzzwords to invent.
In both, the '2.0' part is a bit lame to be as trendy as it's made out to be, and they both come surrounded with tag clouds full of associated buzzwords that mean nothing as a whole, rather than offering a clear definition of the concept and its scope. Indeed, both seem to have no end to their scope, associating themselves with every interesting new concept that comes along, whether technical or philosophical. They also both seem to generate 'gurus' - various industry figures who are idolised for their prophetic sounding blog posts boasting new levels of enlightenment about all that is right about the industry.
See
- librarianinblack.net, "Library 2.0 Discussion: Michael Squared"
- blyberg.net, "11 reasons why Library 2.0 exists and matters"
- wikipedia.org, "Library 2.0"
No comments:
Post a Comment