I use the social software - this obviously, meebo, LibraryThing. A least two years ago I went to our first training on all this stuff when we discovered it was out there and thought there would be a plethora of ways libraries could use them to connect to patrons and, even, connect staff. It's been played with and it seems the jury is still out. With all of our other programs we do evaluations and maybe it's time to do some serious evaluation of what we are doing and where we think we should go with all of our online programs and services. (ie. spend money).
Not being negative - look at
this It's about making choices. It's about getting real about what works. It's about getting real about how much time we have. It's about it may be better to do a couple of things well and let the rest go because nothing is worse than "lonely" stuff. (see link above) Yes, we do need to experiment and keep up, but lets get real about what our patrons really want. Real patrons, the ones who come in weekly. I remember in library school a technology class professor told us libraries, especially public libraries, may not be the places to be early adaptors. We would be way ahead of the majority of our patrons. He was speaking of equipment and purchased programs when he said things filter out and get less expensive and public libraries are working with limited public funds so maybe it was in our best interest to wait. Similar thoughts should apply to what we choose to use and how much staff time we invest in them.
IM Reference is a good example. It was going to be the next big thing. All the teens were doing it so this would be how they would want to reach us. We had several branches pilot using it and it slowly became just a part of a centralized reference area and it seems to be fine there. It was difficult for those at desk in a branch to monitor when we are dealing with patrons, phones, planning programs, supervising teen volunteers and trying to decide when to ask a mother to take a screaming child outside. It seemed to filter out on it's own. Not the best use of staff time to have many people monitoring it for the amount of patron interactions we actually had.
Personally, I haven't found a good use for Wikis. It is still easier for me to use Word to create things like book lists and I don't need them to be portable because I don't work at home. And we have access to shared folders at work. One was used for system wide planning and it was a good way to see how the plan was progressing. Few staff comments were added, possibly because it is still work and you had to log in with your name. Not against owning up to what I think, but in writing, and possibly going against the grain at work. Get Real. (And speaking of that plan - remember
this. I had the space concept down a year ago.)
We also need to remember we all don't have the same learning styles, or work styles or personalities. It does seem though that there is a preferred way of thinking about these things and even ways to use them. One advantage is that you are able to organize information in ways that are meaningful to you. We are attempting a departmental del.icio.us and I am part of a branch LibraryThing for our storytime books. It is interesting to see other ideas of tags that encourage me to see things in a new way. But they are also becoming more than I want to weed through to find my favorites. I like my own stuff more organized and easier for
me to find. It was my idea to start the group LibraryThing and in many ways it works. We don't need the little pieces of paper anymore. But I have also found that there are ways I want to use it that don't conform to the group. And I'm experimenting with some things to see if they work before I try to explain or sell it to the rest of them. So I have my own storytime LibraryThing, too. I don't like to think of my way of wanting to organize things as an old way of thinking, but my preferred style. I need to use these programs in a way that is meaningful to me or what's the point. The new technologies should allow for more ways of use, open up new opportunities and allow for variations, not to make us think we have to conform to a new specific way of thinking or specific programs. That is 'old' as far as I'm concerned.