I asked folks doing the RSS module of our Learning 2.0 experiment to reflect on how this model of information delivery might impact libraries. I'm going to take a few lines to reflect on that very question myself.
I think our patrons are demanding that services be delivered to them, whether it be news via RSS, books shipped to their local branch or instruction conveyed through a web tutorial. I really liked the analogy made in the little video that I linked to the RSS module - RSS is like Netflix; instead of going to your local video store & picking from what they have, you tell the service what you want & it's delivered. On the one hand, this model is great: the consumer determines what they want/need and then has myriad options for configuring how it gets to them. For example, I love the fact that I can not only have New York Times stories constantly flowing to my aggregator, but I can specify that I only want stories that deal with Europe. Or hip librarians. Or whatever.
But there's also something disturbingly insular about this mode of information delivery, as well. I think it restricts the amount of "information encountering" that one might experience - that sort of serendipitous stumbling upon an interesting counterpoint or seemingly random fact from a different discipline or subject area. From a liberal arts education point of view, that's a loss. There's also a loss of community when everyone simply stays parked behind their computers & has everything delivered (this goes beyond the library, obviously and extends into the world of commerce & civic participation. You don't even want to get me started on voting by mail...). Are we destined to become a society of isolated, narrowly informed hermits? Or is that what we've already become?
In any case, I'm not giving up my Netflix membership.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment