goblin cartoons

I had a great time in Monterey at Internet Librarian this year, but boy, there sure were some aspects that I found frustrating and infuriating.

Let’s start with the internet access. Why am I blogging about the conference after the fact? Because I wasn’t able to access the free wifi at the conference, not once. Other attendees told me they also had a lot of trouble using the wifi. Apparently, the wifi couldn’t handle so many conference attendees using it at the same time. But I did see people online, and I could never get the wifi to work for me. Could it be because I was using an Ubuntu Linux-driven laptop? Maybe. But at an “Internet Librarian” conference, that shouldn’t be a reason. (Also, I was using my Ubuntu laptop last year and was able to use the conference wifi, as erratic a signal as it was.) Because I rely on my laptop to keep me connected, I missed a lot of opportunities for spontaneous socializing and conferencing; I couldn’t use Twitter, I couldn’t IM, I couldn’t keep up with other people’s blogs. The only internet access I could get around the conference area was in my hotel room (hi-speed cable access, for $10 a day), which was far from convenient and far from immediate. Frankly, I’m appalled at the internet access problems at a conference called “Internet Librarian.” It’s as if the conference organizers don’t take the name and focus of the conference seriously.

This flows nicely into my next point of frustration. Let me first say that I don’t want to harsh on the work the presenters put into their presentations. Some of the presenters are friends of mine, and all of the presenters I saw did at least a good job of presenting at a conference (and some did a great job). But…at a conference called Internet Librarian, I was surprised and frustrated at how many of the presentations were lectures based around offline Powerpoint slides. I’ve seen videos of TED presentations, and compared to that, Internet Librarian generally looks like Tinkertoys and Lincoln Logs. I appreciate that the library profession as a whole isn’t rolling in money like Scrooge McDuck, but as many of the presentations I attended pointed out, even on a shoestring budget, you can make dynamic, networked presentations. If I’m attending a conference called Internet Librarian, I don’t just want to talk about the internet, as if the internet were Shangri-La, I want the conference to be a part of the internet, a part of our everyday librarian lives.

So, while I had a great time and would go back to Monterey in a heartbeat to interact with these dynamic, inspirational librarians, I’m seriously on the fence about attending the conference again until Internet Librarian really starts living up to its name.

Did I have a good time at this year’s Internet Librarian conference? Boy, did I!

For one thing, I got to spend more quality time with some of my coworkers, who were at IL for the first time. We hit the aquarium, which was mindblowing. I think my jaw was in a state of perpetual droppedness as I took in the jellies, kelp forests, touch pools, and more. We ate some great food together (including a wild drive to Salinas to eat at In-N-Out Burger, which was even tastier than I dreamed it would be). And best of all, we had spirited conversations about what we love and hate about our profession and where we’re going as librarians.

Another great part was getting to see online friends again: Sarah Houghton-Jan, Meredith Farkas, Steven Cohen, Michelle Boulé, Jenny Levine, Michael Stephens, Michael Porter, Michael Sauers, Beth Hoffman, Rachel Singer Gordon, David Lee King, Tom Ipri, and Dave Free. As an added bonus, I got to hang out with one of my good friends from library school, Mandy Tuthill, who is one of the funniest people I’ve ever known. I also got to meet more online friends in person for the first time: Karen G. Schneider, Laura Carscaddon, Jenica Urbanek-Rogers, Cindi Trainor, Holly Blosser, Steven Kaye, Jason Griffey, Chrystie Hill, Ruth Kneale, Robin Hastings, and more people I’m probably leaving out (for which I apologize). Seriously, the social networking is one of the best aspects of conferences. I mean, that’s why we blog, IM, use Twitter and Flickr and Facebook and all that other jazz, right?

I attended some very good sessions, too. One of my favorites was Jenny Benevento’s snarky “How to Lose a Tech Librarian” and the companion presentation by Sarah Houghton-Jan and Michael Stephens onstaff technology training. I also liked Michelle Boulé and Karen Coombs’ presentation on free e-learning tools, not just because it was educational, but because Michelle and Karen present well together, like a classic stage duo. Paul Pival and Chad Boeninger are another great presenter pair who gave a great presentation on “Tech Tools for Library Outreach.” They threw out the Powerpoint, talked casually, and provided a Meebo room for backchat. Joe Janes’ Tuesday morning keynote speech was hilarious, thought-provoking, and inspiring. And the Tuesday night presentation by the Dutch “library boys” of the Shanachie Tour was so brilliant and joyful, I almost cried.

I left Monterey early (I mean, really bloody early) Thursday morning feeling energized, enthusiastic, and inspired to dig into more great library work with my brilliant fellow librarians. For all of that, Internet Librarian was a success.

I think this is my very favorite Unshelved of all time. It is so very full of win.

If you haven’t yet heard (which would surprise me, because I’m coming to this party a bit late), the Wyoming Libraries have started an advertising campaign to promote the auto repair database ChiltonLibrary.com. They created an image that references cheesecakey mudflaps often seen on trucks. I can’t say I’m outright offended by this, but I do think it’s very problematic, and the discussions I’ve seen and been a part of have so far been no less problematic.

First of all, I’m not writing this to say how I think other people should feel about the advertising campaign. This is purely about my reactions.

Secondly, let me say this: I’m a heterosexual American male. If I said I didn’t enjoy looking at images of objectified, sexualized women, I’d be lying. I don’t think objectification is inherently bad (although many forms of objectification are degrading and damaging), and I don’t think associating women with sex is inherently bad (although there are many ways that women are associated with sex that are degrading and damaging).

But here’s the thing: the cheesecake mudflap that adorns some trucks is loaded with context. It doesn’t exist in some idealized vacuum, and anything that references it is going to inherit that baggage. That doesn’t mean that the image can’t be appropriated and reconfigured, but I don’t think the Wyoming Libraries have done that.

“Oh, relax,” you might say, “it’s just meant humorously.” Which is a whole lot of bunk. There’s nothing “just” about humor. Humor is a powerful thing, and in the context of society, it’s very serious. Ask any writer or actor; humor is much harder to do well than drama is. And the point of humor is never “just to be funny,” in some kind of void where it’s removed from and immune to criticism or serious discussion. The point of humor is to hold a mirror up to society, to showcase our warts and neuroses, to spark serious contemplation and discussion. Do I think it’s possible to make fun of stereotypes successfully? Of course I do–look at The Office or Blazing Saddles for good examples of this. But I don’t think the Wyoming Libraries mudflap image pulls that kind of humor off.

Besides, the Wyoming Libraries mudflap image is advertising. Advertising may be humorous, but it’s never about humor or social critique, it’s about marketing, it’s about persuading people to use a particular product. Advertising can be fun and cheeky, but messing with offensive stereotypes is a tightrope walk, and it’s here that, for me, the Wyoming Libraries take a tumble.

As I said, there’s also a problem (which is no fault of the Wyoming Libraries’) with talking about the mudflap image. In the short time that this image has been shown around the internet, many of the discussions I’ve seen and been a part of have been troubled by behaviors that shut down intelligent and useful discussion, rather than facilitate it. I’ve seen accusations that people offended by the mudflap image are going out of their way to find something to be offended by. I’ve seen the suggestion that some people are “taking it too seriously,” as if “humorous” means “shallow” and “not worthy of serious discussion”–an insult to humorists everywhere. It seems to me the mature, constructive thing to do when someone voices offense over something you’re not offended by is to simply ask, “Why does it offend you?” and listen to the response with an open mind.

You can’t do anything in public without offending someone, and if the Wyoming Libraries are fine with some people being offended by their advertising…well, okay. And if you’re one of the people who aren’t offended, if you think the image is clever and funny…well, okay. I know the intent behind the advertising was good, but I think it misses the mark and gets tangled up in the issues it’s meant to poke fun at.

ADDENDUM: Karen G. Schneider asks more questions and points out more problems that were in my head but didn’t make it into this post, so please go read her post.

I haven’t done a formal count or anything, but my gut tells me (sotto voce) I posted more about the fun things I did on the job at my former place of employment than I post about the place I currently hang my derby. I’m not interested in posting all the gorey details of my job now, but I am happy about what I do (and still pleasantly amazed I get paid to do it), and I’d like to say a little something about some of the things I’ve done recently. Let’s have this post be something of an omnibus edition or highlights reel then, shall we?

Part of my original plan for JoCoKids was to have fun activities for kids on the site, including coloring sheets. The head of Youth Services doesn’t like coloring sheets. She doesn’t like them a whole lot, and I think she raises some good points: they generally aren’t all that educational or creative (the crayon equivalent of eating popcorn, you might say). My argument, however, is that children generally expect coloring sheets at the library, getting them from a friendly librarian creates a positive association with the library, and children will strike up conversations with other children around coloring sheets–it’s like a kiddies’ singles bar. I put forward this: if we’re going to give out coloring sheets anyway, why not give out original coloring sheets that tie in with our library and website? The Youth Services Manager saw my point. We discussed it further, and out of our conversations came another idea: I made some sketches of coloring sheets that invited people to add their own ideas, facilitating imagination as well as coloring inside the lines. I was given the go-ahead, so with the technical assitance of one of my teammates, I made “official JoCoKids” coloring sheets, some featuring the cartoons on the site and some featuring original drawings with blanks for kids to fill in, and posted them on our Fun Stuff page. I was working the Youth Services desk at one of our branches the other day and put out some of the new coloring sheets. Later that afternoon, I overheard a little girl say to her mother, “Look, Mommy, they have coloring sheets. Oh! They have really good coloring sheets!” I’ll fess up, I kvelled a little.

On Friday, I learned the author Madeleine L’Engle had died. Like many people, I love her Time Quartet. I also got to meet her and hear her talk when I was a freshman in college. I put forward the idea of writing a news item blog post and putting it on our main library website. Not only was I told it was okay, I was encouraged to make it a front page item. I quickly created a graphic I thought was suggestive of L’Engle’s most popular series (since I wasn’t sure I’d be able to quickly find an image of her unencumbered by copyright), wrote a personal post about her, her novels, and her death, and posted it to our site.

I’m really having the time of my life, and knock on wood, this is only a nibble of the nifty things I’ll get to do.

It’s a funny ol’ world, isn’t it? Just when you think an idea has run its course or become so commonplace that it’s nearly invisible, it comes back into the spotlight, like John Travolta.

There seems to have been a resurgence of blog posting and discussion on Library 2.0–what is it? is it meaningful or just empty rhetoric? is it a definitive state of being? do you have to be for it or against it? Don’t call it a comeback, but all this 2.0 cogitating has got me thinking, and if I’m going to discuss this elsewhere, I feel I need to set my thoughts down on the topic. Of course, I’ve posted some of my thoughts on Library 2.0 before, so some of this will be covering old ground–a review (or a relapse).

What is Library 2.0, Mr. Smartypants?

I’m going to go with Darlene Fichter’s Einsteinian equation: Library 2.0 = (books ‘n stuff + people + radical trust) x participation.

Does Library 2.0 involve new technologies? Y’know, like Web 2.0?

I don’t think so, no. I think a library can use new technologies and tools (like blogs, wikis, IM, SMS) to achieve “2.0-ness,” but only if those tools are the right tools for the job. The job being: incorporating the ideas and concepts behind Web 2.0: the library as an interactive, user-friendly platform; an architecture of participation that encourages users to add value to the library as they use it; social networking; perpetual beta.

But if Library 2.0 isn’t inherently about technology, isn’t it just a buzzword for what libraries have always done?

To a certain extent, yes.

Wait, let’s back up a bit. Have libraries always been user-centered, open, interactive, responsive? No, not at all. Libraries were traditionally about exclusivity, closed and guarded materials, librarian-centered collections. That’s why Andrew Carnegie started building his public libraries, to open library collections to all social and economic levels of the public and make libraries more democratic, more user-centered. Throughout the 20th century, libraries have become increasingly user-centered and responsive. So in that sense, yes, Library 2.0 isn’t new. Of course, Tim Berners-Lee has questioned the concept of Web 2.0, since he always intended the World Wide Web to be like this. “If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.” At the same time, I personally feel that using the Web in 2007 is different than using the Web in 1997. The basic principles haven’t changed, and the basic technologies and techniques are the same, but there are new features and new ways of using these technologies and techniques. (I’m typing this post on my laptop, which runs on Ubuntu 7.04. The browser I’m using is Swiftfox version 2.0.0.3. These aren’t radically different from previous versions, but there are noticible differences between the latest versions and the previous ones.)

Library 2.0 = (books ‘n stuff + people + radical trust) x participation, where the “books ‘n stuff” are different than they used to be, now including downloadable audiobooks, podcasts, online digital videos, video games, and more. The “people” are changing, too. We have new ways of interacting with each other, new ways of getting (and disseminating) information, new ways of using technologies both old and new. And “participation” is changing. The basic concept of modern libraries may not have changed, but there are noticible differences in the things that make up that concept. (If you don’t agree with me, keep in mind that you’re disagreeing with something I wrote and published in a way that wasn’t possible, and was scarcely imaginable, when I was a kid.) These changes are generally due, at least in large part, to changes in technology, so if people make Library 2.0 sound like it’s about technology, it’s maybe understandable, no? But I still think it’s entirely possible to have a library be about (books ‘n stuff + people + radical trust) x participation without using Web 2.0 technology.

Hey, wait! Earlier, you said “achieve ‘2.0-ness’”! Do you think Library 2.0 is some sort of “state of being” that one reaches?

No, I really don’t. It was just a convenient way for me to phrase what was in my head. Basically, I think Library 2.0 is what libraries have been for a while now, but acknowledging and being excited about the fact that the times they are a’changin’.

I don’t know if that’s all clearer to everyone else, but in the process of writing this post, I’ve made my own thoughts clearer to myself. I will now treat myself to an ice cream bar.

That’s all, folks!

It is a terrific bit of synchronicity that the same week MPOW has it’s big web launch, Unshelved features an hilarious storyline about redesigning the library website. I loved the entire week’s worth of strips.

Ladies and gentlemen, the day has arrived. May I humbly present to you the all-new, all-different…Johnson County Library website! (Humbly presented because I honestly had little to do with it besides giving a thumbs-up to various design factors and adding some content here and there. The lion’s share of the credit goes to the other brilliant and talented people in the Web Content Team bullpen.)

And may I not-so-humbly (because this one I had much, much more to do with, in terms of look, layout, and content) present the one, the only…JoCoKids, the Johnson County Library website just for kids! I’m very proud of this one, both for its look and its interactive features. Will kids actually leave comments on the site? Only time will tell, but I sure hope they do!

It’s been quite an exciting ride up to this point, and our work is far from over. We have a whole slew of “second phase” things we want to do with the sites, and we have other partnership sites we’ll be redesigning. But for just a minute, I will rest my figurative feet and take a little breather.

UPDATE: MPOW’s brilliant Communications Manager got the approval of our director to do some “guerrilla marketing.” She arranged to have teen volunteers go to all 13 of our libraries and use stencils and spray chalk paint to put graffiti all over the parking lots announcing our new website. I took a couple of pictures of their handiwork. The local news came ’round to cover this. How often does a library website launch get media coverage?

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.