As I was cleaning off my desk this morning, I found one more loose piece about Library 2.0 which expresses some of my concerns. It was at Information Wants to Be Free by Meredith Farkas, the Distance Learning Librarian at Norwich University.
Meredith asks all the right questions...the questions which trouble me. She starts with the premise which seems to be ignored in some of the other pieces on Library 2.0, "Libraries around the world are in such different places--in terms of their technology, their population, and the needs of their population."
I'm open to suggestions for more to read about Library 2.0, but at the moment, I still think that all that Library 2.0 is about is customer service. Library 2.0 simply focuses on the technology end of customer service without any discussion of the other aspects of library work.
Here is a note from my friend Sue Kamm who could not post it:
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I've noticed in LibraryLand is that many people seem to race to embrace the latest fad (whatever it might be) without considering the consequences. Example: Remember when the Gates Foundation threw computers. peripherals, and software at public libraries? I wonder how many recipients of this largesse thought about what happens three or five years down the road when the workstations die or the software becomes obsolete?
The same is true of self-check. I use it at the branch of LAPL I visit, but it seems a tad unfriendly. As Karen said, the self-check machine can't deal with exceptions to the rules. I don't think it can be used for a-v media.
We don't have it (would you believe we're about to send out an RFP for an ILS? I feel faint just thinking about it [g]). It probably wouldn't affect AV (which is one of my responsibilities).
Your friendly CyberGoddess and Councilor-at-large,
Sue Kamm
Inglewood/Los Angeles, CA
Truest of the Blue, Los Angeles Dodgers Think Blue Week 2000
email: suekamm [at] mindspring.com
When you absolutely, positively HAVE to know, ASK A LIBRARIAN!