[Here you go, I can't look at this anymore]
Conclusions: The Past and the Future
As we can see from the above arguments, Crawford takes a necessarily balanced stance on Library 2.0, and rightly so. In situations were use of the term is beneficial and encourages debate and positive development, Crawford actively promotes its use. At the same time, those uses of the term which promote dissidence, extremism, and evangelism at the detriment of an entire class of library patrons, at the insult of generations of librarians who have promoted reform, and in ignorance of other mandates of the library as social institution, cannot be condoned. He writes that if you can agree that it is not the job of the library to be everything to everyone, at all times, in competition with information providers like Google, then you can be open to the possibility for discussion of the future of the library, and the future libraries needs, without labels and “bandwagons”: “I don’t believe [these] conversations are specific to Library 2.0 or ‘Library 2.0.’” In the end, his position is the most flexible, taking a “best of both worlds” approach to the debate surrounding L2, and in this way is quite forceful in its conclusions.
In the end, the name we give to our constant evolution is not important. Furthermore, those who push to have L2 a banner over all improvement and development, and would class librarians such as Walt Crawford as ridged, backward, outdated and “roadblocking” innovation, seem to forget the history of librarianship, and in two ways. The first Crawford has addressed, the ignorance of previous evolution of libraries. The second ignores the library as an institution of public memory. The beauty of the library is that it exists between two poles. The one has always adopted the newest technologies, from codices to card catalogues to OPACs. The other has always looked backwards to the past; much of our own practices have come down straight from the librarians in the Middle Ages and earlier. Loosing those practices would be loosing much of our definition of “Library”, regardless of the number affixed. The strength of Crawford’s position is that he successfully navigates between these two poles, calling for change as well as remembering the way we have came.
walt crawford | 18-Oct-06 at 3:16 pm | Permalink
Wow. I feel as though I should print that out and frame it. You read what I wrote, thought about it, and summarized it nicely. Thanks–it is, in fact, one of the nicest comments I’ve gotten about the piece.
I almost hate to pick one teeny-tiny nit: There is no set of “librarians such as Walt Crawford.” I lack the MLS, and class myself as a library professional but not a professional librarian. Some day I could conceivably correct the lack. (Some day pigs could fly, the way things are going.)
(No, I didn’t get here through some sort of ego search. I’e subscribed to subject/object for a while now.)
Library 2.0 Roundup « Life as I Know It | 19-Oct-06 at 9:51 pm | Permalink
[...] FIS1311 Assignment 4, Conclusion: Crawford’s “Library 2.0 and ‘Library 2.0′” – posted on October 18, 2006. [...]
Steven Chabot | 19-Oct-06 at 11:09 pm | Permalink
Walt,
I apologize for the mistake, but I am glad you appreciated my conclusion.
Despite your apologies in the piece for the mess of quotations, I found it quite easy to follow your various lines of thought. It was very engaging.
walt crawford | 20-Oct-06 at 10:52 am | Permalink
My wife tells me I should stop mentioning that I’m not a librarian (since most people assume that I am). If I wasn’t a long-time ALA member, I probably would stop. On the other hand, I managed to do an American Libraries article based on the situation (November 1999, “We call them libraries: What the ‘L’ word means to me.”)
Thanks for your additional comment. I tried hard to organize the mess of quotations and interspersed commentary in a way that made for a coherent narrative line. Apparently more than 19,000 people have read that issue (about 6 times my usual readership for C&I); I’d like to think I succeeded. You suggest that I did. Makes my day!
Vann-Ly Cheng | 07-Nov-06 at 11:11 pm | Permalink
Hey Steven,
I know it’s a bit late… but someone in class told me Walt Crawford responded to your conclusions about his paper… oh golly! You’re famous now! Your conclusions of his paper are very well written- I agree with you on your points and I could not have written a better conclusion myself!
See you in class! Good luck on your take-home exam. You’ll do great… I have faith in you!
The library: Where we’ve come from, where we are going, and what drives us :: Subject/Object :: S.G. Chabot | 12-Jul-07 at 3:42 pm | Permalink
[...] may have come to this discussion late (although I have studied closely Walt Crawford’s review article), however, I think that much discussion on the Internet lacks [...]
Library 2.0 Roundup - Redux « Life as I Know It | 05-Sep-07 at 8:57 am | Permalink
[...] FIS1311 Assignment 4, Conclusion: Crawford’s “Library 2.0 and ‘Library 2.0′&… – posted on October 18, 2006. [...]