The social interactivity that defines all things "2.0" has already become such a well-worn and fully-integrated aspect of how we experience the web. It's no longer a new thing to me and it's no longer a new thing to many libraries (most libraries? I hope it's most libraries). It's just part of how I operate when using the web, and it's part of how libraries reach their user base.
Tagging has the potential to really change cataloging and searching (to some extent already has, certainly in web-specific realms (Flickr, etc)).
Wikipedia, while by no means perfect, has shown that an information hub created and rigorously edited and critiqued by its own users can result in a resource as authoritative as its old-timey counterparts.
Creative Commons licenses appear to have greatly increased due in part to the free-sharing attitudes of the "2.0" web, changing the way media is produced and consumed.
In general I think libraries are in a great position to sort of harness the huge participatory aspects of the 2.0-iverse, to heed the input of the public but to temper it with expertise, research, a critical eye, and create a positive information feedback loop. Does that make sense?
I'll talk about RSS later...
I couldn't tell you what's next, or what to call the next thing. "3.0," "Semantic Web," "Skynet," whatever. It's important to try to be aware of what's coming around the bend, no question. How is HTML5 going to impact things? I hardly know what it is but it's coming. Mobile access is just going to increase. And so on. It is as silly to try and predict a sort of "information movement" as it is to label it as soon as its clearly shown itself and then shout about it as much as you can. Does having the label change how you integrate the technology into your life or work? I don't think it should, but maybe having the stability of an obvious umbrella term lets us know what our pushing-off point to the next thing is.
No comments:
Post a Comment