Ross posted a neat link over on NEWLIB, Selections from A Portfolio of Carnegie Libraries, he wrote “One design element I found interesting in all of these buildings, however, is the fairly extensive use of closed stacks. I seem to recall these sort of design was fairly common unti the 1920’s or 30’s when open stacks became the norm? Considering issues of security and theft, I’m wondering if closed stacks–or at least more restrictions to access–is going to become more commonplace in public libraries again?”
This from a post Are closed stacks really “Library 1.0”?: “If providing patrons with quick, easy, and reliable access to library resources is Library 1.0, I’m not sure I want to be Library 2.0”
red state, blue state
This might be a good example of a metaphor that has gotten out of hand.
You could say that 1.0 and 2.0 are best left to presentations and tenure-sucking promotion articles that librarians have to write. And that determining the merit of services or the wisdom of policies is best left to non-buzzword driven deliberations.
Remember, nothing is really “Library 1.0” or “2.0”. Because those things aren’t real. Labels are only good when you are trying to organize something.
Library 2.0
I think in Library 2.0 we are going to browse and scan the content of books with a computer – then if we want the book a robot will fetch it from robot friendly shelves.