Comments on Library Talk: The Divide that Keeps on Giving

waltc: viz. Lutheranism...maybe this is AL's 95 (g...

2007-08-22T05:14:53.089-04:00

waltc: viz. Lutheranism...maybe this is AL's 95 (give or take a few) Theses.

Wow, looks like my "writing clearly" skills need t...

2007-08-21T10:21:45.860-04:00

Wow, looks like my "writing clearly" skills need to be dusted off....

I'm still not sure why people seem to think I am in favor of the divide we have going on right now. My initial post does nothing more than state that there IS a divide, and the characterizations that I used for the "sides" come directly from the Annoyed Librarian's initial post and the ensuing comments. And if you read the latest bunch of comments over at AL, you'll see exactly what I mean.

I think that one of the most "important" - for lack of a better word - discussions that can come from a post like AL's is, "What is a library?" in today's world. AL and the majority of the commenters seem to take exception to most of the "2.0 movement" because they do not really believe that a library should be user-centered. So maybe the "fight" isn't about technology at all - maybe it's about being seeing the role of the library in today's society differently. AL is pretty clear (I think): s/he thinks that libraries are becoming too much like community service centers, and are no longer about books (and by extension, intellectualism) _ "Why don't we just abandon the library all together? After all, even having books on shelves is just those mean old librarians making people see things in their terms. Why not just toss the books into a big pile in the basement since no one will read them anyway."

OK, so what about that? Have the "2.0" librarians "hijacked" the library? Are we offering services that our patrons do not want or need to serve our own interests? I ask myself that everytime I post to the library blog that no one reads (there's more to that, but maybe I'll do a post over at CL on it).

Or, is it that AL simply thinks (his/her) patrons are morons: "I've already covered this one. Go where the users go! That's what I always say. Just be sure to wash your hands afterwards." and "I don't want anyone contributing any content in order to enhance their "learning experience." If they want to contribute content, they can get their own website. Or better yet, a blog. Any moron can start a blog. (No wisecracks!)" and "Let's take a bunch of students who don't know anything and cater to their ignorant expectations." and "What if my users are complete idiots? What if their "information culture" consists of staring at the television 10 hours a day watching game shows? Should I then make the library more like a game show? "Come on down, Luella! You've just won yourself a free library card!""

Maybe what we can't agree on is what a library is "supposed" to do, and just who a library is "supposed" to serve.

Sigh.AL's post made the hair on my neck rise in pr...

2007-08-21T09:16:33.157-04:00

Sigh.
AL's post made the hair on my neck rise in protest for two reasons: a) that someone could hate the direction of their profession and carry such disdain for their patrons and their colleagues but still go to work; b) that 2.0 is being so misunderstood.

I agree that we need to think about the technologies we use, purport and incorporate into our users' experience. At the same time, if we aren't going to be innovative or experiment, then why are you a librarian in the first place? There are some things I question about 2.0 and technology in general. I discuss and attempt to dissect my experiences with them regularly on my blog. And there are some things that I simply don't use and don't encourage my library to use, Facebook and Second Life are perfect examples. There are other technologies that have to work on me and it is not until I've played with them a bunch or I've thought about them away from my computer that I realize that they are really useful and fun: blogging, Feevy, and wikis are good examples.

While AL might have a point that the language of the manifesto is a bit sugary sweet, I applaud ALA for encouraging librarians to stop ranting about how difficult technology is, how it is not their job, etc and embrace it. To my mind, the manifesto is not for the likes of us, per se, but for the ALA crowd that does not hang out on their blogs or Library Talk thinking, talking, and sharing technology and abilities to use that technology in the library with their patrons.

It's a lot like Harry Potter: many people might not like it or think it is literature but it sure does get a bunch of TV watching kids into a book.

Actually, t scott, she doesn't say that. She says ...

2007-08-21T09:12:33.036-04:00

Actually, t scott, she doesn't say that. She says "pro 2.0" librarians are "frustrated with those who are unwilling, or unable, to acknowledge a changing profession and the changing needs of patrons" and says "anti 2.0" librarians are frustrated with "pro 2.0" rhetoric. But she doesn't say the people "pro 2.0" librarians are frustrated with are "anti 2.0" librarians. I can see how one could conclude that she equates "anti 2.0" with "those who are unwilling, or unable, to acknowledge a changing profession and the changing needs of patrons," but that isn't what she said.

Jessica's initial post equates "anti-2.0 librarian...

2007-08-21T07:35:18.646-04:00

Jessica's initial post equates "anti-2.0 librarians" with "those who are unwilling, or unable, to acknowledge a changing profession and the changing needs of patrons." In her first comment, she identifies the "anti-2.0 camp" with those who "wish all this 'tech nonsense' would go away."

I've always thought that most of the 2.0 rhetoric was overblown and leads to a vague and historically inaccurate view of the profession. But no one could possibly identify me as a "traditional librarian". For over two decades I've not only spoken and written about the changes that we're facing, I've been a leader in my libraries and in my professional organizations in making change happen. So which side of the "divide" am I on?

We don't take ourselves seriously. We may take lib...

2007-08-20T19:45:35.753-04:00

We don't take ourselves seriously. We may take library issues seriously, because this is our profession, and we care deeply about it. But anyone who knows anything about the people who regularly post here knows that we absolutely don't take ourselves seriously.

But if a blog post is meant as a comedic piece, that doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing. And if a blog post is meant to be a comedic piece, it sure as hell better be funny. AL's post isn't funny, unless it's meant to be a sarcastic take off of people who claim to like libraries and librarianship but seem to despise their enthusiastic coworkers, their patrons, library management, and new information-communication technologies. If AL's post is meant to be read as mocking "anti-Library 2.0" sentiments...well, I still don't find it all that funny, but different strokes and all that.

I don't see why we are taking ourselves so serious...

2007-08-20T17:54:58.296-04:00

I don't see why we are taking ourselves so seriously. I thought her post was hillarious! AL's ability to make light on a profession that too often takes itself too seriously is good for us.

Walt, who's saying there can't be a middle ground?...

2007-08-20T16:59:47.482-04:00

Walt, who's saying there can't be a middle ground? I'm not seeing it, except maybe in AL's original post.

And, the DIVIDE I refer to in the title IS the div...

2007-08-20T15:48:18.030-04:00

And, the DIVIDE I refer to in the title IS the divide between 2.0 and not 2.0. I don't think you need to be one or the other, but plenty of other people do (which is why I brought this up here).

I think there should be a middle ground - certainl...

2007-08-20T15:46:12.246-04:00

I think there should be a middle ground - certainly. My leadoff post is merely a reflection of the vitriol that continues to surround this issue. And, in fact, if you read my post about the divide on my other blog, I think that speaks pretty clearly to my desire for some understanding and moderation when discussing this.

I've made no secret that I think there should be some sort of recertification process in our profession. I am continually frustrated by co-workers who make buttloads of money because they've "been here forever" but yet they do not know how to access the databases we subscribe to - and WORSE - they don't want to LEARN how. Yes, this drives me nuts. Yes, I am tired of the "can't do, won't learn" mentality that surrounds ME, at MY workplace.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that I don't value the "traditional" way of doing some things. It doesn't mean I don't value my colleagues' opinions (my problem is that they often don't have any). It doesn't mean that I think we should do away with books or scholarly pursuits (far from it, as I sit and ponder whether or not I can afford a PhD - and the answer is, "no"). I do reader's advisory, I help teens, college students, grad students, and professionals with research. I do programming based around books.

And I also manage the library's blogs, MySpace page, and public access computers.

If ANYTHING, I have found that it is the "anti 2.0" camp that wishes all this "tech nonsense" would go away, and not techie librarians wishing books would go away.

I'm not here to defend AL or to attack the affirma...

2007-08-20T14:56:25.798-04:00

I'm not here to defend AL or to attack the affirmation that Laura persists in calling a manifesto.

I'm a little taken aback by the leadoff post for this conversation. Isn't there a middle ground between resisting all change and being a 2.0 Librarian? Or is that another Divide, where you must be one or the other?

It's really tempting to give the Annoyed Librarian...

2007-08-20T14:04:15.037-04:00

It's really tempting to give the Annoyed Librarian's post the same treatment AL gives the "Library 2.0 Manifesto" (which I'll admit I haven't seen), and if really prompted or dared, I may still yet. But basically, I think that post is one of the best collections of logical fallacies I've seen in quite a while. AL jumps to outrageous conclusions, attacks straw men, portrays enthusiasm as something inherently brainless and uncritical--the post isn't an argument by any stretch. It's a temper tantrum. I can't really argue with it because there's nothing there but AL's emotional outburst, and you can't debate an emotional outburst.

Now, the bits that AL quotes from the "manifesto" can seem a bit simplistic or overly general, sure. And I can understand not wanting to be preached at or talked down to. Otherwise, I'm at a loss as to what the big deal is with the "manifesto" or a general enthusiasm for change, new technologies, and new ways of interacting with patrons.