Web 2.0 Commentary

I've just completed reading three articles that were found on the kcls27things blog. Before getting to the articles, I want to mention that I disagree with part of Sarah Houghton's definition of what web 2.0 means with regard to libraries. First of all, she does not simply supply a definition of web 2.0. Rather, she supplies the reader with a short definition and then adds editorial comment. She opines, "The basic drive is to get people back into the library by making the library relevant to what they want and need in their daily lives…to make the library a destination and not an afterthought."

This seems to be circular reasoning. Based on the quote above, libraries are relevant when they give patrons what they want and need in their day to day lives. How can a library possibly remain relevant by trying to accomplish such a huge goal? It also does not define which wants and needs are relevant to libraries. So hence the tautology that she seems to imply: Libraries are relevant by being relevant. What makes a library relevant is so much more complicated and delicate than she implies. She also seems to be stating that at this point in time, libraries are not giving patrons what they want and need, because they are not fully grasping web 2.0 tools, and if they were to do that, poof! patrons would have what they want.

I want to clarify that my understanding of public libraries is that they first develop a vision statement, goals and then objectives. They provide programs and services based on that vision statement. They don't simply give patrons what they want because they clamour for it. That would be a definition of a big box store. Public Libraries are not stores. They have limited budgets and need to necessarily limit what they do based on budgets, priorities and visions. Libraries are relevant because they do what they do better than any other agency, not because they give patrons everything they want and need, whatever that might be. An important point to consider and to remember is that public libraries are not businesses, they are government agencies that necessarily need to provide access to all who reside in a given community. Important questions to consider are, whose wants and needs are most important? How does one serve the under served if they don't clearly define their wants and needs? How do you provide for a community with diverse wants and needs when budgets are small? Properly answering those questions can be complicated and requires dedicated professionals to work through solutions to those questions.

If libraries are truly to remain relevant, they need to remember what it is that they have done well traditionally, and enhance that with web 2.0 tools. Collections have never been designed simply based on what patrons want. Yes, the patron's needs are relevant and it's important to survey patrons to ascertain what those needs and wants are that also fit in with a library's vision, but there may also be other outlets to satisfy some of those patron needs, and that's OK. The library will always be relevant if it continues to keep focused on top notch collections, great customer service and most important, facilitated access to credible information.


Web 2.0 tools should never drive visions and goals, rather, web 2.0 tools should be used to help libraries achieve their visions and goals, and this should be done very thoughtfully and carefully.