I just worked through Thing 2, and it really got me to thinking. Each article/video offered a lot to ponder, but I'll limit my comments to a few points from the readings that really struck a proverbial chord:
- Teaching the Machine - Michael Wesch's video was well-done, but what really stuck with me was the idea of "teaching the machine". Being a sci-fi freak, I couldn't help but think of Skynet, the fictional computer system from the Terminator films that goes sentient and then decides humans are passé (HAL 9000, anyone?). Honestly, I'm not that worried about computers going A.I. and deciding to wipe humanity off the face of the planet (should I be). What I am worried about is rogue forces solidifying their grip on power. And that brings me to one thing that really concerns me when it comes to Web 2.0: privacy.
As we rush into the technological wonderland that interactive computing offers, are we failing to consider the consequences of documenting many/all of our thoughts, tastes, preferences, positions, opinions, likes, and dislikes online via text and images? I mean, Google is tracking what searches we make, our email providers are keeping logs of interpersonal communication, our blogs are out there for the whole world to see, there are pictures of us and digital recordings of phone conversation, and voice and facial recognition software, and closed circuit video cameras in buildings and on street corners and, well, the list goes on. How long will this information stay out there? Who or what is collecting this data? Are the companies that possess this data willing to pass it on to other corporations or the government? If not now, will they at a future date when these institutions are under new management/administration? How are these forces using this information and how might it be used for nefarious purposes in the future? Are we setting ourselves up? Are those who shout warnings in the wilderness regarding the emerging surveillance society crackpots or prophets? Should we be embracing Web 2.0 with much, much more caution given what I perceive to be well-founded arguments against trusting corporations and the government? Or am I simply a paranoiac given that participation is not necessarily mandatory? - Relevancy - John Blyberg's overview of Library 2.0 contained so much information that I wanted to stop after each paragraph and form a discussion group. Alas, I pushed through it instead--though I think it would be great to see a larger discussion of L2 at MCPL either as we all work through these "things" or after Round 1 ends.
One issue that Blyberg brought up that I feel compelled to address is how public libraries will continue to remain relevant. Yes, there will always be persons who simply want to checkout books and DVDs and use our toilets and computers, but I can't help but wonder if there's more we should be doing. Do we really need to provide a balanced and comprehensive print collection when so much information is available online? Should we focus more on making the library a community hub and not place so much emphasis on traditional ideas of what a library is? How can we reach out to demographics who have embraced Web 2.0? Why is the AS readers blog is not open to all staff and the public? Is there a way to allow patrons to leave comments in the PAC like patrons in Hennepin County are able to? Is there room for gaming in libraries programming? Should we shift monetary and staff resources devoted to traditional reference services to tech support and programming and the creation of tools that guide patrons in the use of the "online social library" of the future? Me thinks so. - (Books + People + Radical Trust) x Participation = Library 2.0 - While Blyberg's blog entry was the meatiest offering, there were a few points from the LTR article "The Ongoing Web Revolution that struck me. Of note is the equation in bold above. Yes, public libraries have books and people, and I don't think there's a single staff member at MCPL that isn't convinced that those two things are of crucial importance, but what about radical trust and participation? I'm not talking about task forces and committees and giving staff a voice in decision-making (regardless of whether its real, drawn only to bolster a pre-determined end, or illusory). I'm talking about Web 2.0 and the need for "radical" trust--allowing patrons to leave comments on the PAC, patron-driven blogs, a library Facebook/Flickr/MySpace page, et cetera. Again, this is why I think it's crucial that the discussion of Library 2.0 extend beyond the 23 Things initiative.
- Perpetual Beta - There were a lot of nifty ideas in the five essays I read on the OCLC.org site, but Michael Stephens' statement about not debating Web 2.0 endlessly before implementation but instead being in "perpetual beta" really resonated with me. I know we haven't gotten to these "things" per se, but why isn't MCPL using Delicious, Facebook, Library Thing, Blogger, IM, et cetera? I know we're very egalitarian and like to move forward from a position of consensus, but there are surely times when management has to prod and push to get tech-reluctant staff to give a new resource a shot. Hell, I'm as guilty of reluctance as the next guy, but I know that I've also learned to value things that it took tangible prodding to get me to use.
Anyway, I'm guessing that Thing 2 will be my favorite thing. I love ideas. For example, my love of science fiction stems directly from the fact that it's not formulaic drivel that sinks or swims on the ability of the author to create likable characters (and, to an even greater extent, on marketing pushes that attempt to convince that something that's total crap is actually the next big thing); it has to do with the fact that it's the genre of ideas and possibilities, of unrestrained conjecture and creativity. Anyway, Thing 2 is full of ideas. I worry that upcoming "things" will be less challenging intellectually and more focused on practical mastery of the tools. Alas!
