Librarian 2.0 – Are You One?
I did a Google search of the term “2.0”, and in the first five pages of results, I found the following:
- Web 2.0
- HTML 2.0
- RSS 2.0
- Health 2.0
- Classroom 2.0
- Museum 2.0
- Where 2.0
- Efficiency 2.0
- Life 2.0
- Enterprise 2.0
- Data 2.0
- Women 2.0
- Nerds 2.0.1
- StrengthsFinder 2.0
- Wisdom 2.0
- Identity 2.0
- Publishing 2.0
- Government 2.0
- Art Education 2.0
I found the term “Women 2.0” a bit disturbing and wondered if I am one, or whether I’m a plain old “Woman 1.0.” “Women 2.0” does sound vaguely fembot-ish, so perhaps I will upgrade myself.
I was also oddly pleased that the Nerds saw fit to extend their designation to “2.0.1.”
In the library community, I have found that the “2.0” designation generally refers to adding/integrating some sort of interactive online/social media component to whatever it is you’re discussing. However, as in many industries, some library folk use “2.0” to convey a general sense of hey, we’re cutting-edge, technologically savvy hipster types who just might have a tattoo somewhere interesting, without any real definition of what that might mean, in a concrete way, to an actual library patron.
David Lee King, the Digital Branch & Services Manager of Topeka & Shawnee County Public Library, has a list of what a “Librarian 2.0” should be able to do. The “most important, big-picture” skill he lists is “the ability to tell the library’s story, through various media – writing, photography, audio, and video.” If that is what’s most important, then the point of Library 2.0 is to promote and advocate the library and/or the librarian (and we are two different things – perhaps the subject of a later post), as opposed to serving the library’s patrons.
Is King right? Is Library 2.0 really all about us, the information professionals? Or is it (or should it be) about the people we’re trying to serve?
July 20th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Rachel, thanks for sharing all of your 2.0 findings!
In response to your question, I don’t see a divisive line between librarians and patrons. I think Library 2.0 is about both professionals AND patrons. Such an environment (2.0) would not exist if it were not in demand by our patrons and community. As well, are not most, if not all information professionals information patrons, too?
July 20th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
From cruising the Internet for the suffix 2.0 it seems to me to mean social connectivity.I’ve seen it defined as empowering exhibitionism (finding one’s online identity). From these perspectives I think it is all about “self”, but when using it in a professional way I think our “self” has to get out of the way. It’s then all about engagement. I think David Lee King’s expectations of what a librarian should be able to do are 2 dimensional. The well-rounded information professional will introduce that 3rd dimension which fosters participation.
July 20th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
I think the suffix “2.0” is especially significant for Librarians, who are in a field which is changing at an increasingly rapid pace, as Casey and Savastinuk point out. I do love this list of 2.0 capabilities, though, and I am excited to note how much more aware of these skills I am now taking this course. I can’t say I can add the code to embed a flickr photo to a blog post, but I’ll get there!