Theeng Too

I have been away on the tundra tending to my many duties. Yes, Dr. Bloggles makes house calls. Although they are really more like yurt calls. I like to say "show me where it yurts" when I arrive. It's good to see a toothless smile shining through a jaundiced face.


Anyhow, as I dry my reindeer chaps on a newsprint fire I have been pondering the nature of library 2.0 and how it will affect my library. Mine is a small branch, consisting of one staff member (me) so I'm very interested in connecting with the larger world out there. For example, I'm really curious about this Y2K thing...is that like Library 2.0?


I see lots to like in the potential of 2.0. I can imagine myself finding new sources for many things that are hard to get out here. If I could get, for example, an RSS feed notifying me when my favorite medieval medical supply website gets in the new leeches I would be happy as a rutting caribou. I also like the idea of tagging items so that I can, for example, let colleagues know how well the chakra magnets worked for that case of equine demonic possession (not at all! Should not have bought generic!) I am also interested in the idea of photo sharing...in my neighborhood Flicker is something you mostly do in mosquito season. But it would be nice to document the progressive and untreatable conditions that nearly all of my patients seem to have in order to protect myself from litigation.


I do worry, however, that we may be a bit paranoid about the application of this "new technology." I remember when they introduced new things in the past. Some, like antibiotics, were great but overhyped and overused. I've got a three-headed trout in my koi pond that is not responding to any antibiotics, go figure! Other new ideas (Bolshevism comes to mind) didn't seem to take. So I'm understandably skeptical. I remember long ago when the organic communal farm co-op (slave labor prison) tried to switch over to new Coke in the employee cafeteria. Morale plummeted and they were soon forced to return to Coke classic.


The thing is that they might have done better worrying about running an efficient work-labor camp. They could have worried more about having the latest and greatest in psychological torture methods instead of what kind of soda was in the vending machine. Their business was human deprivation, not beverages. So my argument is that the innovation needs to be focused in ways that make direct and practical sense instead of being merely part of a trend or a paranoia about being relevant. If they can learn to subjugate and torture in new and innovative ways, then by all means innovate. If they are worried that subjugation and torture are not in demand anymore, then it's time to go into a new business (consulting?) and the relevancy argument is already lost.

I feel my moment of clarity is on the wane...the shadows gather...what light through yonder window breaks, mommy....