more Annoyed

Just got finished reading Francine Fialkoff’s editorial in the latest issue of Library Journal. Interestingly, it’s making me think of one of the principle criteria of adding Web 2.0 tools to libraries. Evaluation. Evaluating which tool is right for your library, not simply throwing technology against the wall, seeing what sticks, and calling yourself 2.0. In the end, I think evaluation constant and careful evaluation may be the most important component for building a bridge between the technologies and relevancy and success. Which tools are working and which ones aren’t? What are your patrons saying about them? How are they being utilized? AND are they worth your investment in them or might something else work better?

Thereby, adding a derisive blog to LJ’s Web presence doesn’t really equate to ‘dislocating the expert’ by ‘publishing an anonymous author’. Fialkoff defends LJ’s decision to include the A*****d Librarian on their roster of outside bloggers. But I think her defense is as tepid as a library throwing up an external blog and setting up an Meebo account an’ calling itself technologically advanced. Adding a loud-mouthed, controversial voice to the conversation is fine, but considering LJ purports to be a PROFESSIONAL journal, only if that voice enriches the conversation and user/reader/subscriber experience. It must be (constantly) evaulauted before Editor-in-Chief Fialkoff can say “I hope that AL’s annoymus voice has a long run here”.