Library 2.0 – Reflection Post #3
Last night, I went to the movies with a group of girlfriends and saw “He’s Just Not That Into You.” In one of the scenes, a single girl, played by Drew Barrymore, is perplexed at how the dating scene has changed. As she points out, if a guy wants to reach you he can do so via e-mail (home and work accounts), voicemail (home and cell phones), Myspace, text (cell phone or Blackberry) and so on. When he does finally get a hold of you to set up a date, you communicate via webcam, Myspace (again) and so on. So her question is, “What ever happened to the old fashion way of doing things?” By this she means, the one on one contact with the guy (meeting for coffee – in person), him reaching you via telephone and leaving ONE message in ONE portal (the answering machine) and not three or five! As I watched this scene unfold I thought, “This is happening in libraries too!” As librarians, is our new focus on the relationship with technological tools and not the patron? Has Library 2.0 made us lose that focus? In order to answer that question I ventured out into the blogosphere.
Up until now, the majority of information I had read and heard (during class lectures) about this topic has been positive and I figured that most of the information I would find on this topic would be exclusively positive, but I was wrong. Although these blogs did not totally trash Library 2.0, they did provide a different perspective. One in particular is a blog entry by Meredith Farkas, “The essences of Library 2.0?” (http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/2008/01/24/the-essence-of-library-20/). According to her own assessment on distance learners she found that these patrons were not really interested in the library’s blog, Myspace page or other technological features, but instead were primarily concerned with having online access to full-text articles and that’s it! She also points out that assessments should be done not to see what new technological tools can be implemented in a library, but to address the needs of the patron.
Another blog entry, “Library 2.0 debased”, by John Blyberg (http://www.blyberg.net/2008/01/17/library-20-debased/) follows the same lines as that of Farkas’ blog, but Blyberg makes an interesting point:
“… when we use technology, it should be transparent, intuitive, and a natural extension of the patron experience. If it can’t be transparent, then it should be so overwhelmingly beneficial to the user that it is canonized not by the techies, but the users themselves.
Although, both blog entries were very interesting and provided me with a new prospective on the issue, I came to the conclusion that, as librarians, we will always be on a quest for finding better ways to serve the patron. It is true that, today, more people want to be self-sufficient when trying to access information and that the new technological tools have truly made information access much easier, but we cannot forget nor ignore that that one on one interaction with the patron is vital. This is vital in that it helps establish and reinforce our relationship between the library, librarian and the patron.