I decided to post with this image as a counter-argument to Mr. Anderson's University of Nevada perspective. While I appreciate his forward-thinking take, I would argue that technology is on a balancing post, fulcrum in the middle. His "users" are probably all pretty highly educated and media-saavy folk. I don't think his librarians on staff get too many "I've never used a computer before but I just need to type up a quick resume...." questions. So my argument would be that we need to preserve the boat while we grab the paddle, lest we find ourselves up a creek with just a paddle (in fairness, he makes a pretty balanced argument at the end of his article). So going back to the balancing idea, as users are more and more 2.0-oriented, it makes sense to shift more and more resources into that arena. But we must also preserve the library as a fundamental institution as well. There are plenty of areas where people can go to experience Web 2.0. Many people still come in to the library to experience a library. My guess is that as time goes by, more and more people will be expressing an interest in a 2.0 direction. So I would begin modestly in with various 2.0 experiments across the system, and perhaps more aggressively make changes only in branches or areas where patrons express the most interest. As the balance shifts, we can shift our services more and more, but never at the expense of the library as a library.

A co-worker was vacationing in France a few years ago and ventured into a public library there. She asked for DVD's (non), and then music CD's (non), and then something else... The response was "Madam, this is a library!"

I wouldn't argue to get rid of DVD's or CD's, but the point is that we need to remain a library while we gradually add 2.0 services. Try some out - if they are useful, keep them. If not, try something else. I think adding a tagging feature (that doesn't override our cataloging system) is a great idea, for example.

I was glad to see someone warning against "technolust" - seems like a good idea. And I also appreciated the futurist who reminded us that Web 2.0 is just a baby step in the Web trail. The Chip Nilges piece was interesting as a primer on OCLC's newest projects but I didn't see too much in there that would apply to the public library setting. Maybe it's just 'big vision' stuff that went over my head, though.