Week 6, Exercise 15

Dispensing with physical reference collections if electronic alternatives exist makes a lot of sense. Print reference is often out-of-date before it hits the floor. But don't take away physical books that are primarily for leisure use; i.e., novels or coffee table books. After spending 99% of my working day staring at a computer and encurring the resulting eye fatigue, the last thing I want to do is go home and attempt to read the latest mystery novel from a PDA with bleary eyes. Extend the number of copies and expand access through electronic alternatives, but don't get rid of print altogether.

I like the self-empowerment that 2.0 has enabled. Considering myself reasonably intelligent, I much prefer to find and evaluate information under my own steam, much as I prefer to shop without a hovering sales clerk asking if I'm finding what I need. Nothing irritates me more; unless of course, there's no one around to ask when I DO want assistance. But generally speaking, if I want help I'll ask for it; until then, leave me alone.

From a public relations perspective, it makes a lot of sense to offer customers ways to interact and take ownership of their libraries. Offer staff-selected reader's advisory lists to those who want them. But many of us are just as interested in what our peers find interesting, so by all means, offer a forum for users to share their reviews of books.

Not sure I get the point of Library 3.0 --- virtual libraries with avatars. On the face of it, it seems somewhat frivolous, seemingly catering to people who can't deal with the impersonality of web-based customer service and need a visual substitute for their neighborhood librarian; turning information seeking into a video game created on the fly. But I'll admit, my personal experience of it is limited so I'm willing to explore it further.

What is Library 2.0 to me? It's a new way of conceptualizing library service, spurred by new technologies; a replacement of the library storehouse model, governed by an intimidating expert with a living, breathing institution that relies as much on the user to define what it is and should be as it does on its staff.