Note: I used MLA style for bibliography. When copying and pasting from Word to blog, I lost my underlining. Thank you - Kathy
Crawford, Walt. “Library 2.0 and ‘Library 2.0’.” Cites and Insights 6:2 (Midwinter
2006). 11 October 2008 http://citesandinsights.info/civ6i2.pdf
Taking a skeptical view of the 2.0 movement and Michael Casey, its self-proclaimed creator, Crawford asserts that any new technologies must serve a public library’s mission. Technologies should not be adopted arbitrarily and capriciously. This 32-page article concludes with diverse commentaries about Library 2.0 from more than 30 individuals – “movers and shakers” in the information science world (e.g., Jessamyn West of librarian.net, Roy Tennant, and Steven Bell).
Eisenberg, Mike. “The Parallel Information Universe.” Library Journal 133:8 (May
2008). ProQuest Research Library. 1 October 2008 http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=1473388691&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1223746025&clientId=3751
Eisenberg’s article is a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunity, threat) analysis of some of the current technologies available for users and libraries. He notes that libraries (particularly smaller, cash-strapped ones) need to consider whether the benefits of the technology outweigh the costs (staff training, implementation, etc). Eisenberg’s recommendation is to have an open, accepting attitude toward technology, and to think creatively.
Evans, Woody. “What Drives You?” Library Journal 132:20 (December 2007).
ProQuest Research Library. 24 October 2008 http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/pqdweb?index=54&did=1406859021&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1224872167&clientId=3751
The author asserts there are two great “drives” that motivate librarians: a desire to organize information (First Drive) and a need to offer patrons better access to information (Second Drive). The Library 2.0 movement is a “second drive” project; therefore, librarians should strive to guide patrons through information retrieval because librarians are experts, not gatekeepers. According to the author, the bottom line is not necessarily about embracing 2.0, but about making sure libraries (and librarians) remain relevant into the future.
Lankes, R. David, Joanne Silverstein, and Scott Nicholson. “Participatory Networks:
The Library as Conversation.” Information Technology and Libraries 26:4 (December 2007). Library Literature and Information Sciences Full Text.
11 October 2008 http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.20#record_49
This brief provides comprehensive information about participatory librarianship – both the conceptual framework and a glossary of terminology. The authors purport that without a sound conceptual background in Library 2.0, Library 2.0 functions in a library will be fragmented and disconnected. Furthermore, the authors assert that technologies like blogs and wikis will eventually fade, but the underlying concepts of participatory librarianship will remain durable.