I've been imagining the ideal 2.0 library. This would be one that (briefly stated) has determined to forge ahead in a way that works for that library, its local conditions, and its staff.

I'm sure we've all noticed that many libraries are ahead of their campus communities. For example, they've got their own blog and wiki programs while their campus has none. You can reach the library via IM, but not the campus IT help desk. Libraries are the unit on campus working with RSS feeds, creating Facebook applications, coming out with browser toolbars, and so on. Is this a good thing?

In a way, absolutely yes. It's heartening when libraries take on a leadership role and break new ground on campus. But this should be only part of the story, only step one. Ultimately, I think, there's a significant down side when libraries go it alone. In other words, the ideal 2.0 library in a vacuum is not the ideal 2.0 library.

Let me give an example to explain why. On my campus, the library has its own blog and (forthcoming) wiki program, while the campus is piloting its own. These have become separate, parallel programs. This is not how we in the library wanted it. We believed that the library should collaborate with campus IT to host these platforms. Scholarly communication is our realm, and we felt that we had a logical role to play in fostering, guiding, and empowering faculty and students to use the tools of the trade. We made various attempts, both formal and informal, to place the library at the center of these activities. Much to our regret, we failed. We got mixed messages: either campus administration didn't understand the importance of these platforms, or they wanted campus IT to host these platforms without our influence. Take your pick. In either case, the end result was a disjunction between the library and the campus. This was really disappointing.

Sure, there are advantages when libraries host their own projects. These include independence, control, relative lack of red tape, and implementation of their vision. Having experienced these benefits, I have lots of sympathy for this point of view. And certain things make sense for the library to do on its own.

When collaboration occurs these days, it isn't always for the right reason. For example, a number of libraries are worrying about their Web sites (as they should). Should they conform to the campus design template? Should they join up with the campus content management system? Should they let campus PR determine content elements on their sites?

Compared to the substantive issues we're facing, these issues are petty. They have little or nothing to do with serving users, and absolutely nothing to do with moving campus Web spaces into the next generation. I don't mean to imply that we can avoid these issues. We live in current times, and politics are politics. But someday, we'll look back on these tussles and realize that they were a waste of time.

Farther on down the line, both the campus and the library will be transforming themselves to deal with the revolution in the social Web in general, and social scholarship in particular. Trust me: sooner or later, these issues will be at the forefront of our concerns.

Librarians should be preparing for this now. Assuming that we've educated ourselves aggressively (major assumption), we should be carving out a plan. We should be identifying and making contact with scholars on our campuses who are early adopters. We need to be exploring how we can learn from and support these individuals. They'll have ideas, we'll have ideas. We need to be working together to forge the library's role in a scholarly world that will be changing our professional culture in the next decade.

We need to be working, relentlessly, with campus adminstration and IT units to convince them that our role in scholarly communication is real, practical, and potent. We need to demonstrate that we are more than just interested parties. Do they want to discuss the future of scholarship in the socially networked world? Do they want to collaborate with us in hosting social platforms for pedagogy and research? Do they want to put their heads together with us to build meaningful, participatory online communities for our users? Do they want to work with us to optimize the creative use of these platforms? Do they want our help in devising a plan for preserving the content produced in these environments? These are just a few of the questions we need to be asking.

The library and the campus might go their separate ways, and both be proud of their accomplishments. But I don't think this can go on much longer, not without too much lost opportunity.