Jumping in with 2.0 feet first :)

Ok, just because I'm always in for some good dialogue, I decided to post my response to David King's call for some examples or definitions of Library 2.0 newness here, instead of in his comments.

David, This is what I enjoy about reading you- you’re always interested in creating dialogue.

For me the root of the moniker of 2.0 (whether it be Library 2.0, Museum 2.0, Business 2.0, etc) has nothing to do with the tools, embracing change or being user-focused. The root of 2.0 is merely an acknowledgement that a fundamental shift is occurring in the information-power landscape and that our customers are no longer largely just “consumers of information” whose consumption needs we provide services for; they now have the power to equally (& extremely easily I might add) “contribute” and be “actively engaged” in the creation of information and add “value” to the global knowledge database.

This acknowledgement affects everything, especially the way we develop and deliver library services. And if we don’t position ourselves (and our services) well to adjust to this information evolution, we’ll soon loose our value to our ever-changing communities.

So to answer your question about "newness", I don't think that it's as easy as identifying qualifiers like "user-centered" and "embracing change". Instead I'd have to say that the "newness" is found in how we evolve and redefine our services to reflect and accomondate this shift.

1 comment:

jdscott50 said...

I'll vote for your definition. Just recognizing things are changing and that the way users look at things are changing.