Talis’ paper is more an advocacy for than a research on Library 2.0. It lacks pros & cons analysis and feasibility analysis we expect to find for a new model proposal. Given the fact that Talis is a vendor on Integrated Library System(ILS), you won’t be surprised that the authors take one-sided attitude. The large population underprivileged inDigital Divide, is totally forgotten by Chad and Miller; Amazon and Google are portrayed as the direction for libraries to follow. You may find the truth is, Amazon cataloguers and customer service people are heavily exploited. They are loaded and work on very low salary. Our future librarians certainly do not like our employers to follow THAT direction, do we?
However, the paper turns out to be a good entry for constructive discussions in library society.
Two papers that assess Library 2.0 are particularly recommendable:
Crawford W.(2006), Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0”, Cites and insights, Midwinter 2006, 6(2).
Crawford M.R.(2006) Library 2.0: A summary of what's been said so far, Retrieved on Oct.13, 2007. http://neoarch.files.wordpress.com/2006/03/Library_2.0_Summary.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think we've all come to the same conclusions, including myself, that companies such as Talis are self promoting the framework of Library 2.0. It sounds too good to be true! Can any platform really cater to all differ types of needs by various users? What are the limitations? I can't seem to find any downsides to it in this article.
Wendy, I agree with you. Chad and Miller only provide a vision that is favorable to their products. I remember that one of their proposals is to create a single, global, and free card catalogue. It seems to be an excellent idea. But how? ILS produced by Talis? They build their vision but do not mention how they pave the way towards it.
One thing I forgot to say. We should not complain to much. It is a "white paper" anyway.
Hello Wendy,
I had the sense that Chad & Miller stayed up late (as students do) to get that paper done in time for a conference. I give them credit at least for looking for changes on the horizon and hastily getting their name associated with the "movement." I guess one thing I would like to see in library catalogues is not "available for purchase at amazon", but more detail like you get on the online bookseller sites. I often find I go back and forth from the OPAC to amazon or chapters because there is not enough info about books for me in the OPAC. I like that the Library 2.0 discussions in the biblioblogosphere, (such as Jenny Levine's blog at www.theshiftedlibrarian.com) are generating some interesting ideas. Sorry, I haven't figured out yet how to make html links in a comment. I'll work on that.
Post a Comment