Thing 2 in 23 Things @ NEFLIN consisted of a viewing a YouTube video, a blogpost, and an online journal article, plus several extras (a series of five journal articles, another video, and a Wikipedia article).
It took me about five hours to complete: 3.5 for the reading / viewing and 1.5 for the blogpost.
I can see that if the time commitment is similar for future elements in 23 Things, I'm going to have to do them all at home on my own time. There just isn't going to be time at work. I find this troubling.
Now for my reactions:
The Stephen Abrams Kicks Off 23 Things at Murdoch University Library Video
I was interested to hear about all the new technologies Mr. Abrams is already incorporating into his life. He must be rich and have oodles of free available time.
When the interviewer asked Mr. Abrams how a 23 Things participant might find time to explore the various technologies, he mentioned having previously smoked three packs of cigarettes a day before quitting.
A pack of cigarettes contains 20 cigarettes. Three packs contain 60 cigarettes total. If Mr. Abrams did indeed, as he stated, find 7 - 15 minutes per cigarette, that totals 7 - 15 hours per day spent smoking.
Mr. Abrams implied that all of us have hours and hours of time in our daily lives similarly devoted to unproductive pursuits that, if redirected to 23 Things, could enable us to participate without too much inconvenience.
I must protest. I don't doubt Mr. Abrams' statement that he smoked three packs a day. I'm sure he did. But smoking is an activity that can be conducted while doing something else. One can smoke while one works, while one drives, while one eats, etc.
If one gives up smoking, one still has to work, drive, eat, etc. So the question becomes, if one gives up smoking, can one participate in 23 Things while still working, driving, eating, etc.?
I venture to say no. 23 Things is something to which one must give one's full attention. So what exactly am I supposed to give up to make time for 23 Things?
My private life contains almost no discretionary time as it is. If there's no time at work, I may not be able to finish the course. This realization bothers me.
John Blyberg's BlogPost about the Library 2.0 Debate
The main questions seem to be: Is Library 2.0 real? Is it a big deal? Is it inevitable?
I confess I don't quite see what the debate's about. Web 2.0 is happening all around us. If libraries don't adopt current trends in technology and adapt themselves to social expectations, we'll become irrelevant. Nobody will use us. What's to debate?
What I found even more interesting than the blogpost itself was reading through all the commentary at the end. Interesting, but time-consuming. Again, I find my thoughts turning to whether or not I'm going to have time to devote to 23 Things.
"The Ongoing Web Revolution" an unattributed article from Library Technology Report 43.5 (Sep - Oct 2007 issue)
I thought this article stated the case for Library 2.0 pretty clearly.
The two most interesting aspects for me were:
(1) The video entitled "Web 2.0 . . . The Machine is Us/ing Us" by Michael Wesch, which I thought demonstrated the new accessibility and link-ability of information via the Web wonderfully well in contrast with the constraints of traditional print technology; and
(2) The mention of Gene Smith's "Social Software Building Blocks" (identity, presence, relationships, conversations, groups, reputation, and sharing) along with the fundamental question, "How can library systems and library Web sites include these building blocks?"
These seven factors are just exactly what our users want, need, and expect. It seems to me that our job is to figure out how to revamp library services to deliver them.
"Web 2.0: Where Will the Next Generation of the Web Take Libraries?" in Next Space: The OCLC Newsletter, No. 2, 2006 issue.
A. "Away from Icebergs" by Rick Anderson
I like the three icebergs Mr. Anderson mentions:
(1) Traditional print collections at the expense of other, newer types of collections. I agree that libraries don't need as many books as they once did. Other collections need funding, too.
(2) Librarians as teachers. Again, I agree that library staff don't have time to give the public in-depth, one-on-one tutoring on how to use library resources. We need to choose resources that are self-explanatory and very easy to use so as to maximize both our own and our patrons' time.
(3) The traditional "Come to Us" model of library service. Again, I'm in complete agreement here. Libraries no longer exercise the information monopoly they once did. Our customers don't have to use us. It would behoove libraries to make our services as inviting as possible and position them where potential patrons are most likely to encounter them and use us. (Remember the old adage, "Location, location, location"? Right now, that location is online.)
B. "Into the New World of Librarianship" by Michael Stephens
Mr. Michaels's new world of librarianship sounds like a utopian ideal in an Obama-esque, "Yes, We Can" watershed era of dramatic change. I'd love to work in a library such as the one he describes!
Empowered staff. Progressive change. Fiscal responsibility (as opposed to the unbridled consumerism of "technolust"). Transparency. Accountability. Sounds good!
Unfortunately, I wonder if the higher-ups at most libraries trust staff enough or give them sufficient credit to allow this to happen.
My unhappy impression of many other libraries, garnered from a few conversations and limited reading, is that most managers and administrators instruct their (often very bright, energetic and motivated) staff to shut up, do as they're told, and stop making suggestions.
Strangling feedback has, in my observation, been the first act of many new managers and administrators. I think that's a pity.
C. "To More Powerful Ways to Cooperate" by Chip Nilges.
This article advocates boldly for "Harnessing collective intelligence" for collaborative revision of libraries' missions and services. I'm all for it.
I've heard this sentiment expressed elsewhere as, "None of us is smarter than all of us." I have a little bit of trouble parsing that, so I like to reword it as, "No one among us is smarter than all of us working together."
I also love the idea of networking all libraries into a searchable WorldCat with no authorization required. Resource sharing is so much more efficient than separate collections.
Ditto the idea of allowing users (not just library professionals) to collaborate in the library community cooperative. Yes!
Mr. Nilges's third and fourth points ("release lightweight services" and "build better data") didn't resonate with me as immediately as did his earlier points. But maybe I was just getting tired.
D. "To Better Bibliographic Services" by John J. Riemer
This article was all about the need for federated searching to access all the many sorts of databases (a.k.a. information storage systems or "silos") in order to:
(1) Make their data more efficiently available;
(2) Make it available in nontraditional (nonlibrary) settings;
(3) Incorporate Amazon.com and Google features (e.g., reviews, tagging, etc.) that users want / need / expect;
(4) Simplify the creation of metadata; and
(5) Eliminate reduplication of effort.
To all these points, I say, "Rock on!"
E. "To a Temporary Place in Time" by Dr. Wendy Schultz
Dr. Schultz asserts that Library 2.0, like all trends, is transitory.
According to her, Library 1.0 offered books as commodity.
Library 2.0 seeks to package the commodity (meaning information / books) into product with librarians cast into the role of "experienced tour guides."
Library 3.0, she predicts, will offer service via Web 3D (virtual world technology) with librarians as VR information coaches. These avatars will have the potential to become celebrity "superstars" based on the quality of their service. That's a neat thought.
Another key point Dr. Schultz made is that despite the rise of virtual reality, bricks-and-mortar storefronts will continue to exist "if they offer a compelling experience." (I.e., one that is authentic, humane, experiential, impassioned, relevant, and participatory.)
I found this point fascinating, because the litany of the seven attributes of a compelling library experience echoed eerily a list of personal core values I came up with in a recent library-related workshop I attended. These are just the things a job needs to have in order for me to find it satisfying!
Finally, Dr. Schultz postulates that Library 4.0 will offer experience, becoming a sort of art salon, aesthetic environment, dream society, gymnasium of the mind, idea lab, and / or knowledge spa that will absorb and incorporate all previous library incarnations.
I loved all those descriptions and found her vision extremely exciting. It's along the lines (though much more complete and better articulated) of something I--and I'm sure many others--have been thinking over for some time now.
Why does the library have to change (become something wholly other than what it already is)? Why can't it simply grow?
As a child matures, does he metamorphose into an entirely new and alien being? No, he's still recognizably who he always was, there's just more to him now than there used to be.
When the electric light bulb was invented, did candles suddenly (or even eventually) cease to be? No, they're still around. They work fine. They're still good, and we still use them.
I like the idea of the library growing, becoming more complex, more varied, more user friendly. I think that's a lot more accurate description than the more abstract and rather sweeping descriptor change.
Change can mean a lot of things, not all of them good. I think growth has a much more positive connotation.
"Library 2.0" in Wikipedia
This article speaks of Library 2.0 as featuring user-centered and participatory library services, where information flows back from users to the library instead of using the old uni-directional information flow of previous models of library service. (I.e., Library 1.0.)
I agree that this is one of the hallmarks of Library 2.0 and also one of its most positive characteristics.
However, I'd also like to see more information flowing from staff and increased participation by staff as well as by users. By virtue of their unique experience, staff are ideally positioned to give very valuable input into the transformation process libraries are currently undergoing.
In order to be able to do this, however, staff will have to be enabled to participate: not only encouraged to do so, but given time to do so. Inviting staff to participate in 23 Things or Library 2.0 is exciting, but even more important is allotting them time to participate.
Right now it looks like I'll be doing 23 Things entirely on my days off from work. Oh, well. Who needs family interaction, personal hygiene, or sleep? The Internet calls.
