Talk:A call for OpenLibrarianship

From PLN

Interesting possibilities within a flawed framework -- Walt Crawford 13:06, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

NOTE: Based on Carl's response (below) and on his commentary (follow the link), I'm changing the article back to "OpenLibrarianship."

On one hand, I agree with Grant's belief that libraries can gain through--and need--more two-way involvement with their communities. Sometimes that notion goes under an existing name, "Library 2.0," and that's a version of Library 2.0 I heartily endorse. (Indeed, maybe "Library 2.0" is all the name we need for what Grant calls OpenLibrarianship. Odd to see myself writing that!)

On the other, I've long argued that "information" is a narrow and misleading term as the primary focus of librarianship, particularly for public libraries, and that the role of public libraries in organizing and providing stories (fiction and nonfiction) continues to be important. Longer stories still work best in book form, and the role of public libraries as places of books continues to be vital now and for the future, regardless of the growth of "digital content." I'm not ready to dismiss those roles or regard them as trivial compared to "information."

That said, some of Grant's suggestions are only feasible for relatively large libraries--and the community focus of smaller and rural libraries is a great strength of American libraries. But I think they're all worth discussing, even if I wouldn't get behind some of them.

I would also note that getting active community involvement isn't always easy, as the proprietors of library blogs and catalogs that invite patron reviews and tagging can attest.

Oh, and as for Maurice Line's gloomy forecast? Maybe it's worth noting that the article cited is a reprint of a talk Line gave...in 1983. (Thanks to Andrew Pace's post "An unerring eye for the inessential.")

OpenLibrarianship; A framework discussion -- [Carl Grant] 9:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I enjoyed your comments and have posted my rather long response back on my blog. (Please see it there: "OpenLibrarianship; A framework discussion.")

Editor's note: OpenLibrarianship: A framework discussion also appears in slightly different form here.

Carl's excellent response/refinement bears reading -- Walt Crawford 10:59, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I would urge those interested in the concepts of OpenLibrarianship or Librarian 2.0 to read OpenLibrarianship: A framework discussion, think about it, and respond. It's well thought out. If my little comment encouraged Carl to write this commentary (as I believe it did), then any apology for misinterpreting his original comments are tempered by the quality of the resulting post.

There's an interesting set of ideas and challenges here. What makes sense for your community?