Web 2.0 : Bride of Web - The Revenge...

Tabbing back to quote exactly who said what seems like a bit of a chore right now, so I'll paraphrase my way through this. I read through all the articles, and watched the video, along with one other related video from you tube. I think the exponents of web 2.0 technology have some very valid points as to how it can help us to give the customers a greater pool of resources to work from, but I also find I have to agree with some of the criticisms of potentially tangled networks, stemming from the random nature of the tags that will inevitably accompany the customers departure from the reliance of traditional library cataloguing terminology. Fine to let each customer alter their own version of things, but care will be needed to ensure that customer interaction remains within well defined limits. Tags should be able to help customers search using lay terms, but they should never override the work that has been done over generations. As an example, a customer I was serving a few weeks ago wanted to find books on using a hot wire to burn patterns or text into wood, which he was adamant was to be found under the keywords "poker burning." I myself didn't know the official term, so started off with pokerwork, then, at his constant behest, poker burning, but came up with nothing but books about card games and cd burning. Next I tried wood burning, amongst which results was the book that ended up being what he wanted, although we weren't to know this for another 15 minutes, as it was in stack. In the meantime, I had to repeat the process of showing him where "poker burning" got us, before he would accept that perhaps it wasn't the term. In the end, when we looked in the item arrived from stack, and found it was the correct book, we then scanned it in and checked the related subject links, where we found its official term was "pyrography." Granted, we neither of us had it right. From the customers perspective, the tag "poker burning" could have saved time and effort. But from a librarians perspective, were we to lose the accuracy of a system that has been so carefully constructed, to the whims of a rapidly evolving technology that may turn in any given direction at any time, then rather than helping the customer, we would be letting them down by failing to be consistent. I guess I see it like the tower of Babel. We know that we can't impose a single universal language and expect it to be understood by all. But also, we know how difficult it can be to define something when everyone has a different word for it. The "customer is always right" ideology might be all the reason some need to propose a dismantling of the existing tower, but when the pieces fall, who will be left putting them back into some sense of order? And who will be able to translate what follows? This technology is fantastic in its potential, but it's still just one part of what we have to offer. I think, along with whomever said it in the articles, that web 2.0 needs to be viewed strictly as an addition to existing sources, and most certainly not as a replacement. As long as no existing structures are weakened in the process, or foregone in it's name, web 2.0 has an amzing potential in libraries.