I think many of us have different ideas about what "2.0" means, and some of us already include virtual reference in that category because it can make for a rich web experience. I generally don't lump VR with 2.0 though, for the reasons that Bill gives.
But does reference need to be something it's not already? I have absolutely no idea.
My fear, I think, is that someone else will take the idea of reference service and do a better job than libraries do.
Every day, less and less information is available only in libraries, and every day, search engines and collaborative tools get better at organizing and providing access to it.
Google Answers broke down, it's true, and I read nothing but negative things about ChaCha, but I don't see library reference services mattering to most people.
I think that virtual reference leverages this fact. People come to us second or third or fourth, when search engines and friend networks have failed. They are coming to us more and more (at least here), but I don't want to just sit back and watch - Webrary 2.0 tools, and whatever comes next after them, can potentially help us reach patrons on a grand scale.
My hope, I think, is that libraries be a democratizing force in our world. Reference plays an essential role in this activity, especially one-on-one service, but I also think that the more people that libraries serve, the stronger force we will be.
My apologies for not allowing a separate space for contact info this week. I'm soliciting patrons for public comments this week (www.oregonlibraries.net/tellus) and am trying to keep them anonymous, but had to apply the rules to everything on the CMS.
Is it really necessary to
What a great question!
I think many of us have different ideas about what "2.0" means, and some of us already include virtual reference in that category because it can make for a rich web experience. I generally don't lump VR with 2.0 though, for the reasons that Bill gives.
But does reference need to be something it's not already? I have absolutely no idea.
My fear, I think, is that someone else will take the idea of reference service and do a better job than libraries do.
Every day, less and less information is available only in libraries, and every day, search engines and collaborative tools get better at organizing and providing access to it.
Google Answers broke down, it's true, and I read nothing but negative things about ChaCha, but I don't see library reference services mattering to most people.
OCLC's 2005 (was it really?) Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources report quantifies what we've known all along, that people do not choose libraries as their primary source of information.
I think that virtual reference leverages this fact. People come to us second or third or fourth, when search engines and friend networks have failed. They are coming to us more and more (at least here), but I don't want to just sit back and watch - Webrary 2.0 tools, and whatever comes next after them, can potentially help us reach patrons on a grand scale.
My hope, I think, is that libraries be a democratizing force in our world. Reference plays an essential role in this activity, especially one-on-one service, but I also think that the more people that libraries serve, the stronger force we will be.
My apologies for not allowing a separate space for contact info this week. I'm soliciting patrons for public comments this week (www.oregonlibraries.net/tellus) and am trying to keep them anonymous, but had to apply the rules to everything on the CMS.