Web 2.0, ur doin it wrong
(For anyone who doesn’t get the title, read up on your LOLcats)
The latest controversy to be all abuzz in the library blog world is Library Journal’s decision to hire the Annoyed Librarian, an anonymous snarky blogger mean-spirited blogger, to blog on its site. And I have to side with the respectable A-listers on this one. Not a good move. I don’t have anything against anonymity/pseudonymity per se, but to what end is it being employed? I also don’t have any problem with criticism. But a look at what exactly that criticism consists of in this case is not quite so great. For example, look at the comments in this post, in which the blogger replies to someone thusly:
“Here I thought”
That was definitely your first mistake. It’s best to know your limitations.
Oh dear. I certainly can’t talk to anyone like that at my job (and yes, it was before AL was hired, but it’s that kind of thing that she was hired for). I do recognize it as a fairly typical way to argue on the Internet, might have done it myself once or twice, but not in any sort of professional context.
So the larger point is this: Library 2.0 does not mean finding the hottest thing on the Internet and immediately buying it up and sticking it in. I’m sure Library Journal is getting way more hits to their site right now, but that doesn’t make it the right call any more than disallowing outside book drops to increase door count. It should first pass ethical scrutiny and really advance the cause of the organization.
You make such a good point, Chris, about the need for ethical scrutiny. I keep talking about my context book, Against the Machine, by Lee Siegel, but it really pointed out so many things that apply to some of our posts. I think that you are not a fan of Mr. Siegel’s, but you might agree with him in this particular case. In a section that Siegel writes about blogging, he talks about this “snarky” kind of reply that is prevalent in online conversations. He feels that mockery and sarcasm have replaced critical thinking on the web. He asks “What happens when the language of argument and the language of ridicule become the same?” You say that you think that LJ is probably getting more hits right now because of the Annoyed Librarian’s nasty replies, and this is another point, that we are letting go of standards that we probably need in certain business-type situations, just to be “more popular.” I don’t want my librarian to be mean. Opinionated, good. Strong-willed in her or his beliefs? Bring it on. Belittling and snotty? No thanks. How is this any more welcoming than the librarian in the ivory tower image that we are trying to get rid of?
rebmarch — October 20, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
Well I may have to try out his book. It’s true that I don’t start out his biggest fan, but I try to be open! I had a skeptical approach to Cult and it didn’t turn out all bad. I’m perfectly ok with Internet snark and I wouldn’t refuse to hire someone because s/he engaged in it in the past (with being properly reassured that the person understands when to be professional), but I wouldn’t someone BECAUSE of snark.
Chris O. — October 20, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
I totally agree with you Chris. I personnally find the Annoyed Librarian more annoying than anything else. I commented on them in my blog and I have to say that Library Journal has missed the boat on this one. In ‘The Cluetrain Manifesto’ #27 states “By speaking in language that is distant, uninviting, arrogant, they build walls to keep markets at bay.” So Library Journal, instead of making me feel like they’re hip and with it, I feel like questioning how the rest of the Journal is relevant in this day and age.
Kayjay — October 24, 2008 @ 10:49 am