library 2.0, post 1.0

Library 2.0 -- the use of collaborative online techniques as applied to libraries -- is a rather large subject, and I may well come back to it in later posts, so I'll mention a couple of ideas that hit me as useful.

But first, having read widely about Web 2.0, I'd like to make an observation about the tone of some articles about this and other new technological phenomena. Why do we (the grand "we," i.e., as a society) feel a need to diss the past? So often when some new way of doing whatever is introduced, the old way is implied to be, or even outright labeled, "bad" or "stupid." This is plain ol' not true. Blogs do not make static web pages obsolete; Twittering doesn't make blogs obsolete. Faster (the "improvement" is often speed) is not necessarily better -- sometimes it's useful, but sometimes it blurs a deeper contemplation of the subject. The move away from authoritative systems to information anarchy can give voice to neglected points of view, but it can also cause confusion. There's a place for both the old and new. Respect temporal diversity.

Tagging the catalog: If the library catalog is set up such that patrons can tag books in their own words, the books can be marked by words that are more intuitive than the standard subject terms. Furthermore, non-subject tags can be added that some patrons might find useful, such as "oversized, blue cover" or "happy ending" (yes, I realize that spoilers are controversial; managing them is a separate question). However, since this is a sort of catch-as-catch-can approach, it would also be useful to keep the "stuffy old" method of standard subject headings, either as an alternative or as core tags.

Social bookmarking: In addition to a book catalog, a library might want to keep a list of bookmarks or links, perhaps through a service like Delicious, to which patrons can add websites they want to share. To prevent abuse, the library may have to keep the option to delete sites or even to approve additions, and allow patrons to only add sites and tags but not delete or edit. Such a list would be useful in that it would contain local information and reflect the interests of the community.

delicious

This is another one I'll have to live with awhile before I figure out its everyday impact for better or worse.

And, as with the blogs, I already have a system in place that works very well and is more colorful. On my hard drive I have several nested HTML pages of links on various topics. The arrangement is such that the links are easier to find (IMHO) than browser bookmarks.

So this feels sort of like re-doing the same work. However, having it online can be useful when I want to blow off time by surfing at work. (Just kidding!) On the other hand, it brings up another of those privacy issues. Like a list of books one reads, a list of websites one likes gives strangers clues to one's personality. But holding back on true favorite sites would make the list less useful to onesself. And making the list private would also limit it's usefulness; logging in every time would be a royal pain. So, o.k., here goes -- hey, world, I'm one mega nerd!

One minor complaint: sites that aren't shared by at least two people don't show up in a search. Yes, I know that's still a very low popularity threshhold, but one of the great strengths of the almost-infinite world of cyberspace is the "Long Tail." I don't want to know about some site that everybody else knows about. I want to find a site so esoteric that only one person has discovered it.

The main complaint is that tags are separated by spaces rather than commas, which means they must be only one single word. I want to be able to tag by phrases. This inability is especially limiting (or rather, not limiting enough) when the tag is a proper name.