OCLC and the Case of the Missing 2.0
OCLC recently released a report, Sharing, Privacy and Trust in Our Networked World. The report focuses on use of the social Web and related concerns about information privacy. Over 6,000 users in six countries and 382 U.S. library directors were surveyed. The report also includes conversations with fourteen information science professionals, including librarians.
The report is packed with facts and figures that confirm what most of us already know: that the social Web is big. Some of these facts are quite interesting - read the report and take your pick. Some are trivial, if not silly. Did you know that U.S. library directors are far less likely than the general public to identify their sexual preferences on social networking sites? A little too much information...
As I was reading through this extensive report, something felt like it was missing. I finally figured out what it was: OCLC doesn't use the term "2.0" anywhere. Not Web 2.0, Library 2.0 or just plain 2.0. Nada.
Sure, you can search the report and find mention of these terms. The terms trip off the tongues of the professionals in their conversations. They appear in the title of featured Web sites and in items in the bibliography. Both Library 2.0 and Web 2.0 are definited in the glossary. But in the body of the report, in OCLC's text, 2.0 and all of its variants are conspicuously absent.
Why? If the non-appearance of the term was inadvertent, somebody please tell me. I'll be glad to hear it - though disappointed by the oversight.
I hardly need to point out that 2.0 terminology is showing up all over the place, within and beyond our profession, in books, articles, Web sites, blog postings, teaching modules, conferences, conversations, you name it. So what is it with OCLC? I'd rather not think that their action, or inaction, is indicative of the library world's resistance to getting with it. OCLC is positioning itself to be our global innovator and standard-bearer. So why the missing terminology? "The next generation Web," and "the social Web" appear in the report, but not Web 2.0 and certainly not Library 2.0.
Maybe this shouldn't be bothering me. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. At the very least, let's say that I'm curious. I'm one of those people who believe that labels are important. No, they're not substitutes for understanding or action. But they can help to gather concepts into an identifiable unit. They can be a shortcut to certain assumptions, more or less agreed upon. When a term comes into common use, and you refer to it, you signal that you get it. And there's more: someone please explain to me how the OCLC report is not about Web 2.0 or Library 2.0.
The report might have tipped its hat to 2.0 terminology by including even this. My additional text is in italics.
The emergence of a new classification of “social” Web sites is changing the construction and culture of the Web. Some refer to this phenomenon as "Web 2.0."
I would have liked to see this.
Comments
As one of the authors of the OCLC Sharing report, I thought I might weigh in on your question/observation about the absence of the term “2.0” in the report.
This report is the third major market research study that OCLC has completed in the last few years. Our goal with these projects has been to try to provide members with a large body of data about their users’ views, attitudes and behaviors in the online world. We have intentionally not labeled these views or trends using specific terms or technologies - unless the survey respondents used these terms. We have found, not surprisingly, that the online world has evolved significantly in the time between reports, and in the time since the term Web 2.0 was first coined.
You are absolutely correct, 2.0 technologies and approaches have become incredibly relevant and important to the future of information sharing, community building and libraries. The report highlights just how important, and how urgent, we need to move to 2.0… and beyond. We look forward to the ongoing dialog about the report findings.
Posted by: Cathy De Rosa | November 29, 2007 08:38 AM
Cathy, I appreciate your explanation. Thank you very much.
I respect your methods, but obviously have a different point of view. This might be based on the fact that I'm a working librarian trying to achieve things on the ground.
I look at this type of (very valuable) report as something that can be used to help promote activities in libraries by those of us on the front lines. This is very hard work, and terminology helps. If my job is to create a coherent set of proposals, backed up by a logical set of supporting documentation, it is very helpful when the documentation is clear in labeling what it is about by using commonly recognizable terminology.
OCLC decided to produce a report on the "social" phenomenon for a reason. It strikes me as - I'm sorry to say - unhelpful to leave out, even in the peripheral way that I suggested, the most common labels of all, labels that would tie the thing together and potentially help those of us on the ground.
In any case, congratulations on a very intriguing report.
Posted by: Laura Cohen | November 29, 2007 09:47 AM