Low-tech library patron service ... or ... finally defining Library 2.0 for myself

I'm still studying Michelle Boule's links in 'What a long strange trip'.

-> The third thing she learned from the ALA TechSource Blog in the last year (... "that the unused technology potential in school libraries was huge") sent me to Michael Stephens' interview of Christopher Harris,
-> from which I chose to find out just what Christopher (at Infomancy) had to say about School Library 2.0.
-> While there I thought I'll take a quick look at Meredith Farkas' Label 2.0 post,
-> from which I took Meredith's advice to check out Laura’s very simple, but very brilliant, idea for reaching teens at her library.

• Laura wanted to interact with YA patrons and obstacles were:
• no dedicated YA space - 'just some bookshelves and a bulletin board'
• she works out of sign from YA shelves
  
• library doesn't allow IM
• many patrons don't have home internet access anyway
• So, Laura placed a suggestion envelop on an empty slot near the YA magazines
• "it's where the patrons are"
• and received suggestions
• it's as anonymous or open as patrons wish
• to which she posted responses.
• "it's interactive"
• it connects with YA patrons and hopefully helps them feel "connection with the library and with 'their' librarian."
  

And that's when I wanted to make notes I would share (thinking of fellow students)...

As definition of 'Library 2.0' as a label appears to be subjective, I've avoided exploring its origins or discussions surrounding definition or defining it out-loud for myself.

Yet, for my own purposes (limited, as a library student) I guess I have chosen my own definition ... when I del.icio.us tag "Library2.0" I'm specifically referencing discussions/examples about library use of Web2.0 social networking software for better practice. It seems to me that principles of quality, or best practice for libraries (having been around since the dawn of libraries) span too many issues for such a nifty label to remain relevant. Now that I've shown that to myself, I know why I was nodding in agreement sometime in the last 36 hours when I skimmed

Maness, J. (2006). "Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries". Webology, 3 (2), Article 25. Available at: http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html

So, Laura's strategy to solicit suggestions from YA patrons, act on those suggestions and communicate that action provides quality library service to her YA patrons. It is sound practice: an affordable, effective strategy. To my mind it isn't a Library 2.0 strategy, but quality library practice doesn't have to be Library 2.0.

My school (TAFE) library recently displayed at the inner door of the library responses to suggestions received (ie what was being done to fix problems). This was quality library patron service (ie not just acting, but communicating about the action). The complaints and responses also appeared on the Library's Feedback page ... Library 1.5?

In all my adoration of Library 2.0, I am conscious that one of the major values (to me) of libraries, particularly public libraries, is equitable access to human knowledge for all who might wish to educate themselves. That is, for me, Library = access to knowledge for all.

I believe that provision of adequate public access computers (PACs) is as vital to the goal of equitable access to knowledge as is a sound budget for ongoing collection development. (and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one).

However, even if PAC quality and quantity were adequate, quality library practice will not occur solely with Library 2.0 (ie web-based) strategies, because not all patrons choose to live 2.0.