Library-chic

Libraries play a vital role in our educational development. Just as learning environments evolve to acknowledge different learning styles, so too should the library in order to provide access to information we have become accustomed to receiving through various channels. However, if the library exists to “democratize the exchange of information” as Matt points out, the channels, or at least the delivery of information has to remain objective.

Library 2.0 may mean the demise of shushing ladies and the dank smell, replaced by hipster information specialists toting digital readers. We should accept that people prefer to access information differently and promote innovative means of accessing it. To me, this means that the conventional book has just as significant a role in the library as the Kindle or the World Wide Web. Users must have a choice as to how to absorb information.

The library in its traditional context is symbolic in my mind. They reflect a global effort to promote education and enlightenment. I suppose I have always thought of libraries as information storage, but the reading and my research prove that information storage is not synonymous with information access.

As a symbol, I support the idea of a library being a community center where social interaction and information consumption can occur through coincidental exchanges. This symbol may take many forms for many uses, some of which are fitting and others, such as gaming rooms, are pushing the boundaries of what I would consider a library to provide. The major concern I have with the Library 2.0 evolution is the credibility of sources that libraries provide access to. My stance on information objectivity would qualify any source as viable. I will say though, I have always relied on the shushing ladies to guide me towards informational sources of value and substance. Can the tweeting information specialists provide the same level of service?