Here's a coincidence. Over the past couple of days, I've been mulling over the role of standards in our profession and coming to the conclusion that a) existing ACRL standards are inadequate, b) toothless standards are not standards at all, and c) exemplary standards might help put on some pressure to move us forward.

Then yesterday, along came a chapter proposal for the hybrid book/wiki publication that I'm editing, Library 2.0 Initiatives in Academic Libraries. The authors referred to a well-known ACRL standard and remarked that it is dated, so they went ahead and developed their own practices based on a Library 2.0 philosophy. What they describe convinces me that they've done just that.

So what can we say about the role of standards in a Library 2.0 world? First of all, we don't have them. ACRL, as our national body, has created a number of standards and guidelines, but they are rather generic. When I look at existing ACRL standards, I see good, basic concepts. This is their intention. For example, the Standards for Libraries in Higher Education (2004) states that its purpose is to "provide a comprehensive outline to methodically examine and analyze all library operations, services, and outcomes in the context of accreditation."

Accreditation tends to cover the basics but not much more. Here's an example of what I mean. Under the heading of Services, the Standards document states: "The library should establish, promote, maintain and evaluate a range of quality services that support the institution’s mission and goals." This makes sense in the context of accreditation, but doesn't necessarily speak to the leadership role that a library might play on campus. How about something like this: "The library should establish, promote, maintain and evaluate a range of quality services that support the institution’s mission and goals by positioning itself at the center of intellectual life and scholarly communication on campus and utilizing networked tools that are integral to its users' information culture." This kind of thing edges closer to a 2.0 standard.

Also consider the Guidelines for University Library Services to Undergraduate Students (2005). This document has good things to say about assessment, providing services that meet user needs, and fostering staff who show "flexibility and willingness to take risks." Without any kind of specificity, though, I'm wondering how this document helps to achieve these goals. For example, there might be many librarians who are convinced that their institutions are meeting user needs because the specificity of their vision has taken them only so far. You need to have some idea of what is possible and desirable in order to conduct useful assessment.

Having said all this, I find myself appreciating ACRL's efforts. These standards - and the guidelines that are more numerous - make sense as documents written on the cusp of accelerating change. The current versions are actually a little late for this, but I'll give ACRL some leeway given the long timelines for creating them. (What does this tell us?) So I ask myself, what difference would it make if ACRL updated its standards to become compelling 2.0 documents?

Actually, I think this might help. Right now, we're on our own. There will be those of us who will move ahead no matter what ACRL or another library body may develop and label a standard. But when I think of the chapter proposal I received, I can see the basics of an updated ACRL standard emerging from the described practice. This standard could be pretty exciting - or better yet, inspiring.

So why not have standards that point the way? I'd like to think of these as living standards. These types of standards would be open to widespread comment and under almost continual revision. What about trying this:

• Put drafts of standards documents in a content management system and allow for item-level comments by affiliated members.
• When comments are closed, revise the documents online so that revisions are visible.
• Frequently open the documents for renewed comments and revisions to keep them viable.

I'm not one to think that documents are prerequisites for prodding us along. But what appeals to me about living standards is what they'd say about our profession - our vision and our aspirations. If these documents could become standards to look up to, I'm all for it.