With the development of Web 2.0 capabilities and the popularity and sustainability of these new technologies, it is no wonder that their role in the library has come into question. For more background and information on Web 2.0 and the amorphous "Library 2.0," I read the articles "What is Library 2.0?" by Holmberg, et al. and "'All that Glisters is Not Gold'--Web 2.0 and the Librarian" by Paul Anderson. "What is Library 2.0" was an extremely informative and interesting article which searches for the definition of "Library 2.0." Holmberg, et al. acknowledge the changes in library technology, but maintain that although the methods for delivering library services has evolved over the years, the core values of libraries (to provide access to and facilitate the usage of information) has not changed. They also discuss Web 2.0, technologies that allow users to interact with and personalize their web experience, and how it has begun to infiltrate libraries and library services in the form of "Library 2.0."
Holmberg, et al. bemoan the fact that although the term is bandied about, there is no clear definition for "Library 2.0." The authors give some examples of the ways that librarians have attempted to categorize the term, but seem to have found them all to be too uninformed or vague, so they performed a study in order to come up with a better definition. The method of the study was to ask "What is Library 2.0?" to 29 librarians at a workshop on Library 2.0 that took place in Finland. The people asked were of all ages, stages in their careers, and were all at different kinds of libraries. The librarians were instructed to answer the question by writing their answer in five minutes with no discussion. Some wrote full sentences, others did bullet points, but all were able to express their thoughts. Then, the authors used co-word analysis to analyze the data. Co-word analysis uses the frequency of words in a given piece, then extracts connections between words and measures the strength of those connections. Using the librarians' responses to the question "What is Library 2.0," the Holmberg, et al. were able to extract key terms used and the relationships between them to create network maps that help visualize the definition. The authors found that the terms "interactivity" and "users" have the strongest connection, and the term "interactivity" was the most-used single term. Using the analysis, they created clusters of terms based on the concepts they represent, thus coming up with seven core components of Library 2.0: interactivity, users, participation, libraries and library services, web and web 2.0, social aspects, and technology and tools. Holmberg, et al. consider these seven facets to be the building blocks of Library 2.0, and allowed them to come up with a definition which is: "Library 2.0 is a change in interaction between users and libraries in a new culture of participation catalysed by social web technologies" (677). The authors believe that this is empirically the best of the definitions because it is able to encompass all seven facets that are the building blocks of libraries, while still remaining versatile enough so that different libraries can emphasize different aspects that relate more to them. This is meant to be a very fluid definition, and one that can be used to help facilitate further discussion of Library 2.0 and provide a framework for that discussion.
To supplement this reading and understanding of Library 2.0 and Web 2.0, I read "'All That Glisters is Not Gold'--Web 2.0 and the Librarian" by Paul Anderson which is an editorial discussing Web 2.0 and the ways that librarians could/should be involved in its development in order to make it a tool for libraries. Anderson argues that we need to create a framework in which we can discuss and understand Web 2.0, and his suggested framework has three aspects: understanding the software and services of Web 2.0, applying the "Six Big Ideas," and web technologies and standards that are evolving. In coming up with a framework in which to understand Web 2.0 in libraries, Anderson has noted some barriers that may come up in the discussion. One of these barriers is the speed at which technology advances, often evolving so quickly that it is financially and aesthetically impossible for libraries to keep up. However, Library 2.0 will continue to come, and so the author calls for action on the part of librarians--especially in this environment where copyright and privacy issues are bound to arise quickly, librarians need to make sure that they are part of the development process and that they are using their skills and taking risks to fully understand and develop Web 2.0 and its impact on libraries. At the end of the paper, Anderson sites O'Reilly's "Six Big Ideas" and adapts them into six key concepts which he believes help to form the framework of Web 2.0: individual production and user-generated content, harness the power of the crowd, data on an epic scale, architecture of participation, network effects, and openness. These six "ideas" are quite similar to those that are explored by Holmberg, et al., but it seems as though they focus more on the hard- and soft-ware of the technology, and less on the end user and the use of Library 2.0. The article written by Holmberg, et al. is a few years older than that written by Anderson, and I think that the conclusions of it make that clear, but both articles seem to understand the need for a framework and definition of Library 2.0 in order for libraries and librarians to completely develop and utilize the new technologies, but while Holmberg, et al. are focused on concept and social implications, it seems that Anderson is more focused on the harder science of it.
In reading these two articles, it becomes clear that as grand and wonderful as Library 2.0 may seem, there are certainly barriers that it will come up against, not the least of which is the lack of a true definition in order for all librarians to be on the same page when it comes to understanding the term. Although the Holmberg article did address this a little bit, I guess what my main problem was with these two articles was that I kept asking myself: what about the users? I understand the need to have a definition for Library 2.0 before really delving into its use and implications, but the user got only a passing glance in the Holmberg article and nothing really in Anderson's article. Shouldn't we be talking to users and seeing what they want Library 2.0 to mean before we come up with a definition that is defined by what librarians seem to think it might mean? Also, I understand that all libraries share a core value, but wouldn't a public library and a special library and an academic library all handle Library 2.0 differently? How does this notion represent itself in the discussion of Library 2.0? Holmberg, et al. mention the fluidity of their definition, allowing it to be grasped by all types of libraries, but after the definition is established and accepted, what are the implications for different types of libraries?
Works Cited:
Anderson, Paul. "'All that Glisters is Not Gold'--Web 2.0 and the Librarian." Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 39.4 (2007): 195-198.
Holmberg, et al. "What is Library 2.0?" Journal of Documentation 65.4 (2009): 668-681.
