# 10 Web 2.0 and Libraries

A definition of Library 2.0 comes from Wikipedia "…increased flow of information from the user back to the library" and "Library 2.0 also attempts to harness the library user in the design and implementation of library services by encouraging feedback and participation. Proponents of this concept expect that ultimately the Library 2.0 model for service will replace traditional, one-directional service offerings that have characterized libraries for centuries."

Wikipedia goes on to state that actually these concepts are not new, it’s just the combination or convergence of them that is new. I concur. So much of what is "new" is actually repackaging of other ideas, and in this case I think that’s true. For many years libraries have been increasingly responsive to patron’s needs. I expect the main difference now is that they simply are responding more quickly and through a variety of different channels that didn’t exist even 10-20 years ago. Into a new world of librarianship by Michael Stephens says, "User-centered libraries breakdown barriers and allow users access wherever they are…" I think KDL has already done well with this concept, as well as using and integrating new technology.

"To better bibliographic services" by John J. Riemer states, "Federated searching needs to pull data from all these separate silos and combine resources in new and valuable ways for users." Certainly this is becoming an expectation of the general public, just as they have been lead to expect constant improvement from any service. However, in my opinion two key cautions remain. First, is usability; second is quality and control of content.

Usability is addressed by "Away from the 'icebergs' " by Rick Anderson. He states, "But if our services can’t be used without training, then it’s the services that need to be fixed—not our patrons." Unfortunately, librarians have no control over this even though we’re expected to know all about every technology available in the library or accessible through library computers. It appears there will be constant tension for a long time between how much we could or should be training the public, and whether or not we should even offer something each librarian can’t troubleshoot.

My second concern is quality and control of content. Tim Storey from the OCLC Newsletter article, "Where will the next generation Web take libraries?" makes the statement, "Consider the roaring success of sites that embody Web 2.0 principles of simplicity, rich interactivity, user participation, collective intelligence, self-service, novel and remixed content—Flickr, MySpace, FaceBook, del.icio.us, YouTube, LibraryThing—to name a few." Oh come on. Do these sites really reflect "collective intelligence?" Is the "novel and remixed content" always findable and user-friendly? I think not. These sites reflect the content of their users which is too often far from being collectively intelligent.

My nervousness continues when I read "To more powerful ways to cooperate" by Chip Nilges. He states, "Another key lesson that O’Reilly emphasizes is the notion that ‘users add value.’ For OCLC and its member libraries, this means expanding our definition of ‘collective intelligence’ beyond the library professional to faculty, researchers, library patrons and others by building into our systems services that encourage these users contribute their expertise to the cooperative." Having just said above that we need to beware of the "collective intelligence," I will add that unlike other sites, librarians need to be far more careful of who adds what "expertise." The Internet still seems to be at the stage where value just means quantity. This had better not be the case for library-related sites. If it is, we might as well name the next library meta-search tool "Avalanche."

All of the articles emphasize the glowing attributes of more online content and less use for paper content. With Web 2.0 and as one article says, 3.0 and beyond, is always online is a good thing? That depends on so many factors. Briefly, first, whether or not one considers online life better than "offline" life. Second, much depends upon how much time you believe sitting at the computer is "worth it." One article mentions that some people spend 40+ hrs per week on Second Life. It bothers me that the name Second Life sort of elevates the experience, as though "second" implies a higher and somehow better existance than regular life. For some, sadly this might be true. But I believe to put virtual life in perspective, a better name would be "Secondary Life."

Finally, is always online and increasing dependence on connectivity such a good thing? Ask the country of India on January 30 and 31, 2008. As I write this, news reports are saying their Internet connectivity bandwidth capacity has been reduced 50%. The cause is not immediately clear, except to say it doesn’t appear to be terrorist related or a denial-of-service attack. Early indications are that there has been a disruption or break in a fiber optic cable in the Atlantic. India’s economy is so heavily dependent on the Internet, as so much is outsourced to them. There is concern this could cost billions in lost revenue and an erosion of confidence by customers. Predictions are that it could take days to find the break and even more days to fix. The lesson: we must always keep in mind that the Internet (both computer operating systems and connectivity) is a house of cards. Is it really so forward-thinking to put all our eggs in one basket?

UPDATE Feb. 2, 2008
More details about the Internet cable problem from CNN/World. "(CNN) -- An undersea cable carrying Internet traffic was cut off the Persian Gulf emirate of Dubai, officials said Friday, the third loss of a line carrying Internet and telephone traffic in three days. " ... "repairs were expected to be completed by February 12. France Telecom, part owner of the other cable, said it was uncertain when repairs on it would be repaired."... "the cables off Egypt were likely damaged by ships' anchors." ... "snarled Internet and phone traffic from Egypt to India." ... "The Indian ISPs were still alerting customers to slowdowns over the next few days with service quality delays of 50 percent to 60 percent." ... "Most of the major Internet service providers in India, like Reliance and VSNL, were starting to use backup lines Friday, allowing service to slowly come back" ... "State-owned Dubai telecom provider Du and Kuwait's Ministry of Communications estimated Thursday that the problems might take two weeks to fix. "

The article also said that work-arounds are in process and preventive measures are being taken, but you get my point.