Laura,

First, I'm not sure why you comment didn't post--please try again and see if it behaves for you.

Second, thanks so much for reading and responding to my posts! I was hoping to get a conversation going, whether or not I'm right or wrong on all my points! :-)

To take your post from the top...

"(the "dark side")has absolutely nothing to do with Library 2.0, and everything to do with poor planning, assessment, support, infrastructure, etc."

I agree--mostly. perhaps a better title for my thread would have been been "The dark side of Library 2.0 fanatics"? That wouldn't have been as catchy a title though--but I digress :-). However, I think there are things inherent to this trend, meme, movement, whatever you want to call it that make it ripe both for passionate fandom (and I AM a 2.0 supporter, don't get me wrong), and for oversimplification. What Library 2.0 began as, and still is where it's being done right, is a paradigm where we engage deeply with our users, understand what they want (not what we think they should want), and use these wonderful new tools to give those things to them. However...somewhere along the way it seems like the emphasis among some 2.0 proponents (not all by any stretch) has shifted from the user to the tools. And that trend away from the spirit of Library 2.0 and toward the trappings, is what bothers me and what inspired part one of my series. If a library's blog updates and nobody reads it...did it happen?

"There's nothing like an innovative example to get the wheels turning, and there are librarians who are justifiably proud of their achievements. I can't agree with Sarah that these people are "babbling bibliopundits," unless she would rather her library be an island and not look to other institutions for inspiration."

On the contrary. As is coming up in part 3, I feel that I've done a lot at my library in opening up the staff to new ideas. (I suspect I'm driving them all insane, but we'll get to that in part three!)On the inspiration of other 2.0 types, I and/or my library:

*Started a blog
*Created a facebook profile for the library
*beta-tested IM reference
*is planning a major website overhaul for this summer, complete with web-based tutorials, a blog, and other appropriate additions
*plans to replace the current share drive-based "junk drawer" with a wiki-based intranet
*has coerced IT into letting us buy a new ILS, install wifi, and radically simplify the off-campus VPN login process

I don't mean to be testy here, but when I came to my library, it was far more of an island than it is now, I and my friends here have spent considerable time, energy, and political capital to make the changes we have made. We have overcome personal fears of obsolescence and change, resistance from other areas of campus, and the not inconsequential hurdle of the budget. THESE are the true hurdles in implementing library 2.0, and I see them too-often ignored or minimized in the pressing debates of World of Warcraft versus Second Life as a reference desk location. If I or my colleagues were interested in being an island, you wouldn't be seeing this post.

"she also dislikes feeling under pressure from those bibliopundits - who, I'd like to note, presumably have had legitimate reasons for doing what they've done."

Dislike is perhaps a strong word--I really could care less what people think of the choices we're making at my institution, unless they are users or prospective users. I like to think we're making our own way at our own pace. But these questions of "what 2.0 initiatives have you implemented?", with the expected response being the rattling off of a series of IM usernames, web addresses, and software packages have gotten under my skin a little bit, I guess. We're just trying to get IT to give us the right to edit our own websites and to upgrade to an evil, proprietary OPAC that at least will allow boolean searching and won't crash twice a week. We're doing those from the same motivations as the flashier 2.0 initiatives, and I guess I will admit it has rankled from time to time that some might see us as less responsive to our patrons, simply because we haven't even gotten to the point that we could contemplate setting up a library blog!

"I also wonder if Sarah's library would be willing to assess itself in terms of the types of positions it hires for when lines become available, skill sets it expects of current and new hires, staff training programs it might implement, and the duties that can be set aside to make room for new goals."

That would be me. I am the "edgy, nextgen change agent" who was brought in to stir up the place. the next youngest staffer is 20 years older than me. (out of courtesy I'll not say my age, but I was in Junior high when the berlin wall fell.)My director is very change-friendly, and the paraprofessional I snagged from my I-school when I was promoted has a similar philosophy. We're trying to cook up a good job description for him when he gets promoted to full librarian. But that said, there are only 5 of us--6 if you count our MLIS-degreed paraprofessional we're trying to get promoted. I alone handle circulation, reserves, supply purchasing, archives, distance learning, all off-campus library instruction, marketing, troubleshoot computers, pinch-hit on cataloging when they're swamped, and also all that "newfangled 2.0 stuff" in the hours of spare time i have. And my workload pales compared to others on our staff. We're working on getting more staff--but when we can "get the job done" with current staff levels, it's a challenge making the case. I doubt we're the only library in this boat.

"Nobody would argue with her that poor technological implementations, or implmentations that are barriers rather than assets, are a problem when they occur. But this would be the case with any technology, not just technologies popularly associated with Library 2.0."

Again, I think we agree in principle, just not in our emphasis (and I never thought I'd be accused of being a pessimist!) I've just seen institutions jump willy-nilly into web 2.0 adventures when they haven't even gotten web 1.0 sorted out yet! So, when the inevitable problems or low popularity come along, the baby gets tossed out with the bathwater, and it's that much harder to overcome institutional resistance when a good, well-thought-out innovation rolls along. And you're right. this cycle has repeated many a time in human history, as i mentioned in my allusion to the dot com boom. But just because a mistake has been made once does not mean it can't be made again, and my goals for these posts are to warn small libraries from making the same mistakes that were made in the dot com boom, not to throw out the notion of library 2.0 (good Lord, what would i have left to pester people about at staff meetings?!) with the tools that may not be right for their situation.

And to end on one last area where we agree...

"The challenge is huge, but necessary, if academic libraries are to retain their positions on campus."

It is huge, it is neccessary, and it is doable, even for places like mine. I'm not a coder, or an innovator, just a librarian with a knack for time management who probably talks too much. :-) In part three, I will be discussing a way forward for small libraries overwhelmed with a lot of options and not many resources--a way illuminated by our wonderful veteran colleagues and their attitudes and experiences. Your post has me thinking I need to post an explanation of where I'm going with this--which I plan to do now that I've filled up your comments page! I believe in the future of Academic libraries, and i believe in the core concepts of Library 2.0 as a means of securing that future. Maybe I'm a Cassandra, maybe this post was an overreaction, and maybe it's just that I'm a technologist by training but a philosopher by inclination. For whatever reason, I worry sometimes about the signal of the Library 2.0 mission getting lost in the noise of the press reviews for Library 2.0 technology. I wanted to say these things in a manner that would be heard, and debated, and perhaps disproved. But the conversation is taking place now, and that makes me quite happy. :-)

Sarah,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

I wish you had titled your series something along the lines of "The dark side of Library 2.0 fanatics for small libraries." It may not be terribly catchy, but based on what you're telling me now, this is your true theme. As your first two Dark Side posts are written, and titled, you come down very hard on Library 2.0 for reasons that did not seem logical to me.

Maybe it would be useful to differentiate between the vision of Library 2.0 on the one hand, and its tool-based advocacy on the part of some librarians on the other. Then it would make sense (at least to me) when you address the challenges that this differentiation poses to small libraries. If some librarians have shifted the discussion of Library 2.0 away from the user to the tools, then this is an interesting basis for conversation, just as you say. Bring it on!

Laura,

Thanks for your thoughts! I think it was one of those cases where i started writing this series, and what I was getting at began changing as I wrote (you know what i mean?). In a nusthell I see three problems with Library 2.0--not the concept itself, but how it's being implemented or promoted in some quarters--the emphasis of tools over service, the silent assumption among some that the digital divide has been "fixed" because it doesn't happen to be the trendy topic any more, and the vast amount of institutional knowledge that is about to retire without being fully understood by us nextgen types. It's about more than the tools vs. users false dichotomy, and it's about more than small libraries. But those things are important parts of the conversation, and those are the areas where I feel semi-qualifies to rant--er, write.

Seriously--thank you for your thoughtful critique of what I've done so far--responding to your comments has taught me more about library 2.0 and about writing than any 20 "you rock!" responses.

Thanks, Sarah! The process of writing is fascinating and can lead in unexpected directions. We're writing about complex issues, too, and this increases the challenge. Just as you say, having these conversations can help develop our ideas. Works for me, too!