There is a great deal to think about in the interview with S. Abram, J. Blyberg's blog (could anyone with that last name NOT be a natural blogger?!) and the other articles for suggested reading in Thing 2. And I will still be thinking about them for some time to come.
The range of opinions and reactions to Blyberg's blog is wide, as seen by comments recently posted to it. The courtesy of the exchange is encouraging; we librarians tend to be a respectful bunch. But I still find the prevalence of an all-or-nothing attitude disturbingly present in so much of what I read and hear about Library 2.0, or however we chose to characterize our current, and future working environment.
I'm also feeling a wee bit guilty about the tone of my last couple postings, ( although every girl does need a good rant once in awhile.) What I find so discouraging about the current political climate is really the same sort of thing that bothers me about so many of the most vocal proponants of a Library 2.0 vision: this either/or concept of "traditional library" vs. "21st century library," and the idea that we have to abandon one to embrace the other.
I prefer synthesis to revolution, and am happy to work for a library system that I believe is seeking to strike a balance between what has made public libraries such a valuable social institution from America's earliest beginnings (OK, sometimes revolution can be a good thing) and new technologies and trends that can support and enhance what libraries are and do for their communities, and ALL its members, now and in the future.
I've checked off all the tasks for Thing 2, so why I don't feel like I'm done with it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I don't think we can be "done" with the conversation about Library 2.0--too many variables, definitions, levels of interest/experience and all the issues you bring up. Thanks for posting these.
Hope you enjoy the rest fo the Things.
Post a Comment