« Impact Factors For Library Literature | Main | Which Country Am I Living In? »

June 19, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c225453ef00e5537af4b98834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Saying What You Mean:

Comments

walt crawford

An eloquent post. I should read it once a week and try to improve my own sentences. Thanks.

Mark

From one who is struggling horribly lately, thank you!

Mark Funk

While I absolutely agree with you on the importance of good sentences, I have never understood your objections to the vagueness of the phrase "Library 2.0." You seem to want Library 2.0 to be a well written book. As an author progresses from sentence to paragraph to chapter to book -- each has been (or should have been) carefully considered, crafted for clarity, tone, and voice. The author wants the reader to have a very precise understanding of the concept or action being conveyed. For the most part, the author has one chance to get this right; after it is printed, there are no corrections, additions or subtractions. (I'm ignoring revised editions, but you get the idea.)

Contrast this finished, authored piece with the concept called "Library 2.0." First off, there are no authors, no committee writing standards; just people writing and talking about it. It's a movement, a new idea -- still growing, still evolving, changing even as its environment changes almost daily. To object to the concept as you have done previously because it contains elements currently practiced is one thing, but to demand precision and definitions is to deny its very nature. It's an organic meme, and it not only has different meanings to different people today, it will probably have different meanings to those same people next month. You may as well object to a jazz piece played differently by different artists.

If Library 2.0 could speak, it might well echo Whitman:
"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"

T Scott

http://www.sundials.org/about/humpty.htm

If I thought that people who used the term were simply playing jazz with language I'd have no problem with it. But most people using it seemed to think that it actually means something -- there just hasn't been any agreement about what that is. I'm okay with words & terms having incomplete, fuzzy, somewhat ambiguous, context-based meanings. But when a word means whatever someone wants it to mean and that can change day by day, then it doesn't enhance communication, it interferes with it.

Maybe the situation is changing and now people are just using "Library 2.0" as a poetic shorthand way of referring to a desire to embrace change and do good and explore new communication tools and reach out to our communities. That's fine. But it's pretty clear that's not what was intended by the people who first started using it, and who believed that it defined a substantially new way of thinking about libraries. When people say we must embrace Library 2.0, but then can't tell me what that actually means and why it is different from what we've done in the past, then I think they're being incoherent.

Marcus

I'm with Mark on this one. It doesn't bother me that "Library 2.0" is undefined and ever-shifting, because that's the stage it is in right now (with the legitimate caveat that a lot of "1.0" is still in "2.0"). In ten years this vagueness would be disconcerting, but right now I just say, "roll with it."

This isn't to say that precision and careful crafting aren't still valuable. Right now I'm working on an essay, off-blog, the old-fashioned way: in fits and starts; with many drafts. Hopefully it is clear and compelling by the time I am through.

For my own blog posts, I have a different standard. I strive not to spout off gibberish, but more casualness feels OK. If somebody uses their blog to "think out loud" and states as much, what's wrong with that? As long as you know their intent, you know how to read it.

T Scott

"Casualness" is great. I'm all for it. And certainly one of the great things about blogs is that you can use them in whatever way you want -- including "thinking out loud". But then people should not be surprised if they're misunderstood or if someone challenges them on the grounds of what they actually said, as opposed to what they think they thought they were trying to say.

T Scott

And I guess I have to say that I still have trouble with phrases like, "because that's the stage it is in right now."

What is "it"?

Mark Funk

Hmmm, a battle between Lewis Carroll and Walt Whitman...

T Scott

I'll bet Walt loved Jabberwocky.

Marcus

"It" = "Library 2.0" in that sentence.

I agree that if definitions change too frequently that's a sign of incoherence; and that blog posters who are "thinking out loud" should be prepared to face some criticisms.

But as long as the definition of Library 2.0 is relatively stable, I'm fine with some fuzziness about it. "Relatively" is the operative word here, I know. But asking for totally precise definitions at this stage of the game seems premature to me.

OK--It's time to read Jabberwocky while strolling leaves of grass.

I guess I am

T Scott

Yes, I know that "it" refers to "Library 2.0", but that doesn't tell me what it is. If, as you say, the definition is "relatively stable", can you tell me what that definition is? And do you have some confidence that the majority of people who use the term would agree? Give me a definition and some evidence that it is a shared definition among the people who use it and I'll shut up about it.

Marcus Banks

My sense of the shared definition of Library 2.0 is: Using tools like blogs, wikis and social bookmarks to deliver library resources and facilitate collaboration. Whether this is what libraries have always done is another question--this is simply my sense of what the definition is.

Will take a bit longer for me to look into whether there is truly a shared definition, but that seems like a fun weekend project. But even if there's not a shared definition yet, I think that's OK because the entire "2.0" concept is still new.

Here's a thought experiment: Does everyone mean the same thing by "interlibrary loan?" Sure--it seems to mean loans between libraries. But in Library A that could mean between any library in the world; in Library B it might be restricted to libraries within a consortial system.

Another example: "Circulation desk" means the place where you check out books at Library A; at Library B it's the place where you check out books and also get technical help for logging onto the campus wireless network.

So, even with very established terms there is some fuzziness based on local context. This is why I am not worried that Library 2.0 is not well defined yet; I think it's too early to expect that.

T Scott

In their article in Library Journal (http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html) Casey (who is credited with first use of the term) and Savastinuk explicitly reject the notion the Library 2.0 refers simply to the use of certain tools -- they make a far broader claim.

David Lee King recounts an anecdote (http://www.davidleeking.com/2008/03/25/above-and-beyond-customer-service/) in which a particular customer service episode which has nothing to do with social networking is held up as a primary example of Library 2.0.

Blyberg suggests that "The true pursuit of Library 2.0 involves a thorough recalibration of process, policy, physical spaces, staffing, and technology so that any hand-offs in the patron’s library experience are truly seamless." (http://www.blyberg.net/2008/01/17/library-20-debased/)

If there was a consensus that "Library2.0" simply referred to the use of "tools like blogs, wikis and social bookmarks to deliver library resources and facilitate collaboration" I'd have less trouble with it, but the claims of the most prominent and prolific bloggers on the topic have been much broader, and it is in their attempt to claim some kind of paradigm shift that I believe they fall into incoherence.

Your thought experiment fails in that there is no ambiguity about the fact that ILL refers to the exchange of materials between libraries -- that there are numerous ways in which that service might be implemented doesn't shake the shared understanding that it involves a transfer of materials between libraries.

Marcus Banks

There seems to be a "messianic" stage whenever anything "new" comes along (new in quotes because whether Library 2.0 is totally different than 1.0 is another question.)

This messianic stage was certainly part of the open access debate--it still is today, but at much less of a fever pitch. These days more people recognize that we need to work with publishers as the scholarly communications system evolves, rather than always vilifying them.

So I think the same thing is happening with Library 2.0--sweeping claims at first; wild over-reach next; then a settling down into a shared understanding.

Maybe we should establish a rule of thumb: Don't take any of the blog posts or articles that appear in the first six months (maybe a year?) of a movement too seriously. That cmprises the infancy and adolescent stages.

OK--Everybody knows what ILL is. But circ desks fill different functions depending on library. I bet that circ. assistants from different places would need to define terms at the beginning of a meeting about circulation. Might only take 30 seconds, much less time than it would take to define Library 2.0. My point is that there is always a little fuzziness, even with tried-and-true terms.

Dean Giustini

Marcus (and Mark)

You are both sensible chaps. I also like Scott's point about the shifting definition of Library 2.0, and that it can be used as a kind of shorthand.

I'm with Mark too about the 'foofarah' about the use of web 2.0 - what's the problem? as long as we don't misuse/abuse it, it's helpful.

Dean

Russell

When we nail this one down, can we please set to work on "informatics"....

Thanks,
Russell

walt crawford

Boy, this thread brings back memories...of trying to figure out what Library 2.0 meant back when it really was claimed to be a movement, and after much research and a 32-page special issue of Cites & Insights (http://citesandinsights.info/civ6i2.pdf)--well, still not knowing what "it" is. (Marcus: It ain't a fun weekend project. Trust me on this one. Adding 28 months more data to what I did then won't help.)

Has the situation improved since early 2006? Certainly not in terms of a clearer definition or a stable meaning.

As for "Web 2.0," that's simple: It's a trademark for a series of conferences held by O'Reilly. In other words, it's a brand name.

Marcus

So true Walt! As soon as I wrote those words I realized the folly of my ambitions!

The comments to this entry are closed.