goblin cartoons

Someone please, please make this shirt:

I was feeling a bit under the weather yesterday. I was not feeling up to writing about going to NEKLS Tech Day the day before. I’m feeling better now, thank’s for asking, and so, once more, here we go with…NEKLS Tech Day 2007.

The Good: I got to hang out with my witty, amusing coworkers. I got to see old friends. I got to hang out with Mr. Royce Kitts. I got to copresent with two of my teammates on developing our new websites and using paper prototyping and usability testing to get input and buy-in from staff and patrons.

The Not-As-Good: As always the NEKLS crew put on a great, educational, fun conference. But unlike the past two conferences, I didn’t leave feeling particularly inspired or enthusiastic. Maybe I’ve just been too preoccupied with our website redesign (with the rapidly approaching go-live date only two weeks away). Maybe the ground that was covered in the talks and presentations on technology and Library 2.0 ideas is ground that I’ve covered too many times already. Whatever the reasons, I had a good time at Tech Day this year, but I didn’t have a great time like I did the previous two years. So it goes.

Here’s an assumption of mine: the majority of library professionals expect that continuing education and professional development in the field will be done through formal classes, seminars, and conferences–which cost someone (the library professional or their place of employment) money and require face-to-face, in-person attendance.

Technology and society being what they are, this isn’t as necessary as I think our profession makes it out to be. I’ve blogged before about how important I think DIY library education and development is. So, I’m seriously, monumentally impressed with the announcement of the LITA BIGWIG Social Software Showcase, a non-conference to be held during ALA’s big damn annual conference. This is exactly the kind of inventive, daredevil, democratic thing I want to (and expect to) see more of. It’s free, it’s fun, it’s a group of smart people using available technology to throw together their own educational program. Fantastic! (Note: yes, I’m mentioned in at least one of the Social Software Showcase presentations. No, that’s not why I think it’s brilliant, although I’m tickled all kinds of colors that my name is there.)

And just as I (and everyone else) was so impressed with Helene Blowers’ Learning 2.0 program, I’m equally impressed with her Learning 2.1. This is a great thing.

The free sharing of information and development is embedded in the core philosophy of libraries, so it gladdens my heart and fires my brain to see us doing more of this with each other. You really can’t stop the signal.

I’m big on fostering and participating in communities of likeminded people, both in person and online. Have I established that well enough already? You all know that about me, right? Right. It’s why I immediately jumped on board when Jessica started the collaborative Library Talk blog and Library Links blogroll. Sadly, Library Talk hasn’t really taken off. (Library Links also seems to have stopped growing, but I have hopes that it’s only temporary and that more people will jump on board sooner or later.)

So, if I were wearing a cap right now, I would doff it to Bill Drew, who took advantage of the improved Ning to create a Library 2.0 social networking site that is growing quickly, and fun to boot!

If you haven’t already, I encourage you to join the Library 2.0 network. And when you get there, add me to your friend list. Here’s my personal page. The librarian party continues. First round is on me.

So, do I really think public libraries are doomed? No, not really. “Doomed” is too strong a word for it. Or to be more precise, if libraries don’t change with the changing times, I think they’re doomed, but I have every reason to believe they will change. But as both a library employee and a library patron, I don’t think my local libraries are changing fast enough. Hey, I fully admit that I’m an impatient so-and-so.

That being said, I do think that libraries need to fully realize and admit that there are services that compete with ours and that some services do what we do and they do them better. Obviously, I think public libraries are really, really important, offering all kinds of important social services. I’ve said as much on this blog, many times, and I wouldn’t be a librarian if I didn’t feel it in my bones. And no, I don’t think technological toys are the be-all and end-all of library progress. But information-communication technologies are changing the ways people connect to and interact with information and other people, and libraries have to deal with this change.

This all is a rambling preamble to me pointing to this David Rothman post and saying, “What he said.”

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. Looks like I’m not the only one. Maybe it’s a (dare I use the word?) zeitgeist thing*.

On the very same day, Skagirlie laments that her OPAC sucks because it doesn’t do what Amazon, iTunes and LibraryThing do and Libraryman wonders why libraries don’t do what Pandora does. In the comments of her post, Maire says, “It’s just a bummer that a 3rd party has to offer something that should be intuitive.” I absolutely agree, it’s a bummer. Heck, I think it’s even worse than that.

On YouTube, people can upload and share their own videos with others. They can also collect other people’s videos, catalog videos, rate videos, and comment on videos. On del.icio.us, people can collect web pages, catalog them, and share them with others. On LibraryThing, people can organize and catalog their libraries, share them with others, start and join book discussion groups, and get recommendations for other reads. These are all free to use…just like libraries.

I’m usually not much of an alarmist, and I really hate to sound like Chicken Little, but…if libraries aren’t asking themselves “What do we provide that these other services don’t?”, we’re just begging to be kicked in the Higher Power of Lucky. If people can create and organize their own libraries and share them with each other–and do all sorts of other things to boot!–then asking them to use sucky OPACs and expecting them to learn the Dewey Decimal System isn’t just mean, it’s shooting ourselves in the collective foot. If a library’s best bet is the digital divide (“Don’t have a computer? This is the place for you!”), then when the digital divide disappears (Think it won’t? How many people do you know who don’t have a telephone or a TV?), libraries will be screwed. It’s well past the time for libraries to be dipping their toes in the water. It’s high time we dove right into this stuff. When one joe in Maine starts a killer library site, that’s the sign that the time for exploratory committees has come and gone. It’s time for action. Let’s not waste any more time talking about the great services we could be providing for people, let’s actually provide them. Forget about jam tomorrow, I want my jam today.

* That one’s for Maire.

Michelle Boule brilliantly sums up Roy Tennant, John Blyberg, and Nicole Engard:

Lip service is not the same as service!

In other words, actions speak louder than words. Don’t talk the talk if you’re not willing to walk the walk.

And y’know, as far as I’m concerned, that goes for ILS vendors and libraries. It goes for the way you treat your customers and the way you treat your employees.

So, put that in your pipes and smoke it!

Q: Josh, why are you excited to start your new job?

A: Because, this is the kind of atmosphere I’ll be working in. How could I not be excited?

Ryan Deschamps’s very brainy “no-brainer” top-10 list of Library 2.0 applications should be required reading by…well, everyone in Libraryland. So, hop to it! And spread the word!

“If only every library had a John.” So said Sarah Houghton-Jan, talking about John Blyberg and the SOPAC features he designed for AADL. (Although it does sort of sound like she’s talking about something else, taken out of context. There are some days I wish my library had 4 or 5 johns. But no one consulted me when the building was being designed.)

Wouldn’t that be swell? I would love to have a John Blyberg at MPOW. But my library doesn’t have someone like him right now, and I don’t see us getting someone like that anytime soon. And what about those smaller libraries, with a staff of one? How are they supposed to get someone with John’s imagination and mad coding skillz?

John has made the source code for the SOPAC available, and I think this is really the most significant aspect of the AADL SOPAC. (Richard Wallis of Talis seems to agree.) Because not every library can have a John Blyberg, and every library shouldn’t have to hire a John Blyberg to get access to innovations like this. And we shouldn’t have to sit around and wait for ILS vendors to start releasing these kinds of innovations for free. Are we not librarians? Are we not all about the free flow of information? John giving out his source code for free shouldn’t be remarkable, because we librarians should be doing this all the time, as a matter of course. Isn’t sharing information and innovation the most cost-effective way of improving our systems and services? What do we have to lose?