Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow...

So, I read all the Library 2.0 articles, and it seems as if what we're trying to do here is to involve the patrons in our process, in our evaluation of items, and in our thought process. We want to allow people to get information where they want, when they want, and in a way that doesn't require that they learn complex procedures and jargon. We want them to be able to learn and grow without any hand-holding on our part. We want to grow and change constantly, so that libraries remain important and relavent in the digital world.

And I'm down with that. There's a point in the OCLC article about staying away from icebergs that mentions that we don't adopt technology simply because it's the NEW HOTNESS(tm), or because we want to keep up with some other organization. Simply throwing money at problems is unwise. Having a technology is one thing--being able to bring it to bear is something altogether different. We need to change our viewpoint as a library staff. This is probably more important than any single technical innovation. If we have the ability to approach our jobs, and the whole idea of libraries, in a different, open way, we'll be able to adopt the new technologies when they appear.

For me, the idea that I come back to is this: there's no reason to simply "not know". There's so much knowledge out there on the web. Some tech-savvy people are already aware of this, but here's my take on the situation: With a web browser and a dream, you can get almost anywhere. Using Search tools such as Ask.com, Google.com, and so on, you can come across so many interesting ideas that you may be "down the rabbit hole" for hours. The patrons are beginning to realize this, as well. We're no longer the gatekeepers to information. We need to be poised to help patrons with the information that's harder to find, the stuff that isn't in common circulation and on the first page of web hits. We need to know how to unleash the awesome and terrible power of the web--better than the patrons do. If we don't, I think that, in some way, we become obsolete.

It's the idea of the Long Tail--that you can succeed in the information world by collecting the rare, the unusual--all that stuff that isn't covered so well by the mainstream. There are always going to be points of interest that don't get well covered on the web, because not enough people are involved. I'm not saying books are a thing of the past--no, the written (or typed) word is still a great method of communication. There's probably more typing going on, per capita, right now, than any time in history. Still, we need to keep up with the times, and devise delivery methods that will allow us to cater to the "everything, all the time, any way I want it" generation of digital natives.

As for browsers: I have yet to find one that, day in and day out, can hang with Google. They're all interesting, and most of them have great features, but Google is the daddy-mac. If you have to be stuck on a desert browser with only one search tool, choose it. Plus--you could literally spend all your waking hours without exhausting all the neat, whiz-bang doo-dads that Google has invented.

...and I'm spent. Oh, and check the .gif on the top of the blog. It's all graphical-like in its representation of the Library 2.0 concept.