Category: 2.0

Originally posted on the Vista discussion board for LIBR 559M on July 21, 2011.

For my money, any jargon, such as the “2.0” suffix, is helpful when it successfully serves as shorthand for a more complicated concept, and becomes a hindrance when it is used erroneously or with an audience that isn’t privy to the jargon.

Medical terminology is a good example of this concept. Having worked with doctors and nurses in the field of medical publishing, I have been exposed to, and come to understand, a great deal of medical jargon, abbreviations, and acronyms. The first law of medical school appears to be, “Never use words when a string of letters will do.”

Take the sentence, “With GERD, we have to avoid NSAIDs. We’ll start with an OTC H2 antagonist and move up to a PPI if necessary.” If a doctor says that to a nurse, no problem. If a doctor says that to a patient and then walks out of the room with no further explanation, it’s potentially a serious problem.

(By the way, that sentence translates to: “With gastroesophageal reflux disease [i.e., heartburn], we have to avoid nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [e.g., aspirin, ibuprofen]. We’ll start with an over-the-counter [i.e., non-prescription] histamine antagonist [e.g., Tagamet] and move up to a proton-pump inhibitor [e.g., Prilosec] if necessary.”)

Here’s when I think it’s appropriate for information professionals to use the “2.0” suffix in describing their library’s programs or services:

1. With other members of staff if there have been previous discussions of what, specifically, the 2.0 suffix means for that library’s programs and services, and everyone has agreed to those definitions.
2. Never with patrons. There’s no way to establish with each patron that what you mean by “2.0” is what they understand by “2.0” – if they understand it at all. If you mean chat reference, say chat reference. If you want to say that the new online catalogue allows user tagging, say that. (And don’t call the catalogue an “OPAC,” either.) It’s possible that even these specific terms may need further explanation, depending on the patron. As information professionals, our job is to provide information, not to obfuscate it with jargon.

Here’s Balko’s First Law of Librarianship: Never use jargon with patrons when plain old English [or insert other culturally appropriate language here] will do. (By the way, that’s always.)

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?