2.

Stephen Abram video:
The online video is another web tool that I am somewhat ambivalent about. I can't dispute that it is very useful and has enormous potential for libraries and archives. My problem is with these web cam videos that have proliferated in the past few years. I'm sorry Mr. Abram, but I don't really want to look at your bald head. It's distracting. At least he's talking about something interesting though, unlike the people on Youtube who post their own commentary on issues or film their reaction to ridiculous videos. Honestly, if it's just someone talking, I'd rather read it.

The point about finding the time really struck a chord with me. I could work on my 23 things at work. But, unfortunately blogger is a restricted site at OHS. Fantastic. Way to let our employees get involved with this interactive experience.

Abram's point about the "wall of books" is interesting. I agree that it would encourage browsing, which might otherwise be lost in the OPAC setting. However, that does raise the issue of a new technology merely emulating an existing information form, rather than being truly innovative. I don't know that there is a problem with that, as long as other technologies are being innovative. I certainly do enjoy browsing, but part of the browsing experience is the sensory experience of being in a library. That can't be replicated online, even if you add a "book smell" interface.

Blyberg's post raises some interesting points. I think it is unfortunate to think of things in terms of shifting funds from a reference librarian to a coder. In my opinion, the expertise of a reference librarian is greater than that of a coder in a library setting. A more useful approach would be to hire new candidates that have strengths in librarianship and coding. In an archives setting, someone who is entering metadata with a knowledge of the subjects in the collections would be much more effective than someone who was simply hired for their computer skills. The computer skills are still an important consideration, however.

I don't know that I would agree completely that library 2.0 is revolutionary. I don't think these technologies will turn libraries completely on their heads. I think that it is important for institutions to adopt library 2.0 technologies, but that doesn't mean they will lead to revolutionary change. For instance, 2.0 may keep libraries relevant with younger to middle aged patrons, but may alienate older patrons. For an archives that deals heavily with older genealogy patrons, this is an important consideration. A balanced approach is necessary.

I would say my knowledge of web 2.0 is intermediate. I am 22, so it is expected that I would have a decent knowledge of these things. I am a bit obstinate though, so I have resisted some or forsworn others (facebook).

I think as far as people at my archives (OHS), I have the best knowledge of anyone. This is kind of unfortunate, but hopefully working on this project will help me incorporate some web 2.0 technologies into our archives.