woosh

picnic tables at it again

Greenstone

Library school invades again. This time to talk about Greenstone. The photo above has nothing to with the software, but given the name, it reminded me of this. It was taken in Laos, near the Thailand border. It was the highlight in a sculpture park full of strange and interesting things. The mouth is actually the entrance to go inside.

"The decision of whether or not to adopt new technologies must always be weighed very carefully. Before implementing a new technology one must compare the added benefit to end users to the costs to the institution of implementation. Careful consideration is needed to prevent unnecessary disruption to the user (in learning how to use the new technology), time spent in training librarians and other staff and waste of limited financial resources.

The creation of a digital library with Greenstone software for the purpose of housing course readings would be of great benefit to information studies students. However, even if the added convenience for students were not deemed a compelling enough reason to proceed with the digitization of course readings, the future possibility of offering courses online should warrant the administration’s interest in the project. "

reach out and touch someone

a man, a horse, a mother, a child

Sometimes people don't get in the way.

library school invades

Conclusion to a review of this article.

Although Crawford fails to distinguish for the reader a discernable difference between Library 2.0, and “Library 2.0”, the article was useful in continuing the debate. In the months following the publication and into the present, several articles have been published in journals by his peers.

Some attention has been paid as well to some of the deficiencies in Crawford’s approach, as discussed above. One blog post in particular raises

doubts about the name, the bandwagon, the universal applicability of the concepts, the need to drop those dangerous old ideas and focus on “Library 2.0,” the extent to which the term was being used in a confrontational manner…and other doubts.

Interestingly, this post, entitled “Library 2.0” - an apology, was made by Crawford himself. It is, in fact, rather an exaggeration to call the post an apology, as Crawford drops his truculent tone for only a moment before resuming again with “For those who interpret this post as another attack on Library 2.0: I can’t control your interpretations, although you’re dead wrong” and other such words of kindness. We see here nonetheless some acceptance by Crawford that his approach may be seen by others—even if these others are “dead wrong”—as excessively tendentious, and even, perhaps, rather manipulative.

Crawford does offer, in response to his critics who, though perhaps “dead wrong,” have felt themselves maligned in his writings, that in future articles where his research consists primarily of information taken from weblogs, bloggers will have the option to not to be included. This, quite frankly, seems rather an unnecessary step on Crawford’s part. Anything published on a blog should be fair game for citation in academic and professional papers. If Crawford really wishes to prevent people from feeling that he has treated them unfairly, then he does not need to stop citing them—he simply needs to treat them fairly when he does. There is, indisputably, an excellent and important argument to be had on Library 2.0 (or even, perhaps, “Library 2.0”) and its correct role in the library’s future. But Crawford’s approach does little to illuminate—and much to obscure—the open and thoughtful discussion that the subject deserves.

welcome to the library

courtesy of a guest photographer: the boyfriend, using a Sony W7.