Week 1 Post 1-Library 2.0?
So I worked for over 14 years as a librarian. Somewhere in the middle there I started to first become aware of the term Web 2.0, mostly because there was the idea of Library 2.0 starting to go around, too. I'm not sure that it meant much to me on the frontlines in a public library branch, where I had to worry more about helping sign up for email accounts and getting kids their AR books. I figured I would become aware of it when it was time to, but that never really happened.
Understanding in class this week that Web 2.0 is more of a philosophy is eye opening. I was experiencing Web 2.0 without even knowing it, just in the different questions coming from my customers.
According to this wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_2.0) library 2.0 “attempts to harness the library user in the design and implementation of library services by encouraging feedback and participation.” That sounds great, but I’m not sure what is so 2.0 about that? Encouraging feedback and participation is great, but isn’t that something any credible library was doing from the beginning?
While I can appreciate that library 2.0 was trying to base some of its principles on Web 2.0, it mostly seems like a marketing-driven branding for a reinvention. A needed one, but it doesn’t seem to have much to do with Web 2.0, which is more about the empowering ability of users to generate their own content and create their own connections.
But it’s helpful to remember that the term Web 2.0 is also, in some respects, a branding term, one used to describe something that is happening, and not the driving force. I don’t think these technologies developed with their creators saying, “We are building Web 2.0”. What occurred is after the fact, various thinkers started to realize a whole new age of computing was occurring. Then Darcy DiNucci coined the term. It helped to quantify and define a movement that was already occuring, but it was not the driving factor.
Why does that matter? I was sort of pondering one of Prof Dennen’s discussion questions this week, while also thinking about the supposed Web 3.0 and 4.0 that are already occurring. I don’t think it matters if this stuff is caleld Web 2.0 or social media or whatever; It’s happening whatever we call it. And you could visit innumberable sites and get differing definitions about the whole thing, and when it started, and what or doesn’t qualify, but it doesn’t matter. Something irreversible, unprecedented, world changing started to occur about 20 years ago, that just mainstreamed something that had already been slowly building for 40 + years before that. It’s as monumental a culture change as something like the Renaissance or the Industrial Revolution. And it hasn’t stopped- it probably won’t.
Understanding in class this week that Web 2.0 is more of a philosophy is eye opening. I was experiencing Web 2.0 without even knowing it, just in the different questions coming from my customers.
According to this wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_2.0) library 2.0 “attempts to harness the library user in the design and implementation of library services by encouraging feedback and participation.” That sounds great, but I’m not sure what is so 2.0 about that? Encouraging feedback and participation is great, but isn’t that something any credible library was doing from the beginning?
While I can appreciate that library 2.0 was trying to base some of its principles on Web 2.0, it mostly seems like a marketing-driven branding for a reinvention. A needed one, but it doesn’t seem to have much to do with Web 2.0, which is more about the empowering ability of users to generate their own content and create their own connections.
But it’s helpful to remember that the term Web 2.0 is also, in some respects, a branding term, one used to describe something that is happening, and not the driving force. I don’t think these technologies developed with their creators saying, “We are building Web 2.0”. What occurred is after the fact, various thinkers started to realize a whole new age of computing was occurring. Then Darcy DiNucci coined the term. It helped to quantify and define a movement that was already occuring, but it was not the driving factor.
Why does that matter? I was sort of pondering one of Prof Dennen’s discussion questions this week, while also thinking about the supposed Web 3.0 and 4.0 that are already occurring. I don’t think it matters if this stuff is caleld Web 2.0 or social media or whatever; It’s happening whatever we call it. And you could visit innumberable sites and get differing definitions about the whole thing, and when it started, and what or doesn’t qualify, but it doesn’t matter. Something irreversible, unprecedented, world changing started to occur about 20 years ago, that just mainstreamed something that had already been slowly building for 40 + years before that. It’s as monumental a culture change as something like the Renaissance or the Industrial Revolution. And it hasn’t stopped- it probably won’t.
Yes! I am also a Librarian, and seeing that Web 2.0 is more of a philosophy has also been an eye-opening experience for me as well! It's focusing on the opportunity for interactivity instead of static content.
ReplyDelete