Library2.0 and KM

The library 2.0 (L2) movement shares many interesting activities with KM as I understand it.

Library 2.0 covers a wide field, from tagging OPAC, IM at the reference desk, to forming virtual communities and encouraging participation in content development, policy formation and asset selection & management.

Library2.0 meme    Library 2.0 in wikipedia   Library2.0 tag in Del.icio.us

The L2 has been branded a 'movement' and passing 'fad' by some of the more traditionalists, but I believe the pioneers like Michael Casey,  Ed Vielmetti and Michael Stephens are bringing a form of knowledge ecology to the library world and doing real world KM stuff.

Here are some of the L2 heresies:

• Users can modify library services, content and policy
• Participation is more than a book on loan
• Libraries should be open source
• L2 changes, authority, strategies, orientation and mission - it is disruptive
• L2 encourages library - library collaboration, co-operation and activities - moving beyond inter-library loans

Libraries need to pay attention to ephemeral content, provide blogs and virtual community, annotation affordances, move into myspace, encourage community and conversation, move into gaming, IM and more.... oh such horror!

What comes next? Recommender systems, Amazon feeds, iPod downloads.....????

If L2 is all about participation, collaboration, community, creative content, changing the context and bringing more people into the conversation - that is core KM stuff. I see the SLA has recently started a new KM division (about time!) and hope they will be embracing much of this L2 excitement.

Do you any L2 thoughts to share?

Comments

[Steven Kaye]

One thing I've been trying to understand is how much takeup Library 2.0 has among corporate librarians - it seems to be largely discussed by academic and public librarians, from what I can tell.

[David Locke]

Instead of some new web technology, lets say that a new type of nail was invented. Suddenly, libraries thought that they could be better libraries if they used this new type of nail. That's how this argument runs that a library 2.0 would be better than library 1.0. A library 2.0 is a B&N or a Borders, an no loud music doesn't help.

[David Locke]

As if open source is a good thing? If it were open source, there would be no content at all.

[Michael Casey]

You are correct when you say that so much of L2 is KM. I would love for more libraries to be discussing KM. I tried to hit on it a bit in a post I made several months back but I have yet to see much written on integrating KM into librarian's daily lives.

http://www.librarycrunch.com/2006/05/managing_our_expertise.html