Facilitators: Scott Nicholson, Kat Buturla
Scribe: Maureen Southorn

A few key issues
- How in the world should we adapt our role to a public that wants to develop and create their own products?
- Should we let patrons tag our catalog?
- Is 2.0 subversive? Perhaps... this is really an issue of intellectual access.

2.0: a bridge to wherever the change will take us
- How can we be the wave machine, rather than just swept up in the tide? What is 3.0, and how can we drive this?
- Artifical dichotomy of an argument: a few guys say, hey, let's use wikis and blogs. A few other guys say, they're useless to us, just a fad, and if you're not for us than you must be against us.
*10 years ago, this thing called web searching came along, and as a field we decided not to get in on this.
*We have a opportunity here to look at this fundamental issue where the question is

Users as key
We really need to figure out what the users want
The recent Frontline program on Growing Up Online really tackled this issue: the current generation's idea of information access.
- Re: the teens today. The youth today may change. They may not hold onto this instant gratification need for accessing info. Those of us who were teens in the 1960s have certainly changed!
- 7 years ago, every one of our classes in library school were focused on info access. Now, the focus is NOT on the collection. Everything is about service, service, service -- how to help the user.
- Sometimes, serving the user best might actually draw work away from physical collections.
- During a grant process a few years back, we had to apply for funding to support either the collection or the services. This is ridiculous. Both arelinked. Intellectual access is a true service. Providing organization is a true service. Providing reference is service. It's silly to think that anything in a library is NOT related to serving the user.
- Designing library space often causes a fight between "I want a beautiful space" vs. "I need more room for my collection." Neither of these sides really targets what the users really want. The community's needs and desires should really be driving a re-design!
- Imagine your collection as something beyond what is just physically located in your own little library. Little rural libraries don't have a lot of materials, and they've "trained" their users to become very savvy at placing holds, etc.
- Years ago, there was a library in Vermont that lent out tools. There are small libraries here that loan out puppets along with those books and DVDs. These libraries have really figured out what their patrons want and need, and are serving them well!

Using 2.0 tools for current functions
*2.0 can allow libraries to grow andpublicize existing ideas*
- Librarians' role changing from gatekeeper to facilitator... without backing away from becoming active voices. Patrons may _want_ us to have an opinion, to offer a conversation or advice.
- Blog as a news page: the blog automatically archives everything, time stamps it, and lets us update in real time what we want to share about the library. This is a great approach.
- Netflix follows our model. They send you things, so do we. In a way they are using many warehouses that send out "ILL requests" to a national user base.
- Recommendation systems are an area where we could really expand. Link: The Netflix contest to create a better recommendation software.
- Subscription systems -- that is, RSS feeds -- are great for us. Patrons can subscribe to feeds about new releases, new items, etc.
- Providing print-on-demand vs. keeping a verticle file. We all know that the paperless world seems to be using up more paper... we have people reprinting and reprinting the same info to use for a short time.
- Making the bulletin board available everywhere
- Capturing one-time events as perpetual products (podcasts or webcasts of live events, storytelling sessions, databases of past library programming)

Using 2.0 tools for new functions
- Local "publishing" of stories or music written by community members
- Moving away from user base to user-maintained collections. Giving each patron their own "stack".

Small steps in 2.0: How do you start? What can you implement first?
- Users may not want 2.0. A wiki can provide one spot where a bunch of people can read up on a topic and add their own ideas, but there are many people who are adverse to the very idea of using this type of application. They'd rather email back and forth.
- Teach the teachers! Get parents to buy in! Suggest tools for people in leadership positions or schools to use them. Educate people on how these tools can be used safely and effectively.
Featured link: 30 positive use for social networking
- Obstacles: filters in schools block web 2.0 applications... even though teachers may want to use them.
- Obstacles: backlash from teachers, students. Ex: if computer space is limited, students who need to do work grow irritated if they can't get a terminal because other students are on Facebook.
- 80/20 rule. There is not much more "evil" out there caused by social networking sites.... for instance, cyberbullying was preceded by regular, live bullying. We should educate others about this to reduce fear at adopting a 2.0 service.
- We must combat the fear of "letting the bad stuff in". When we do this, we also keep the good stuff out... and lose the opportunity to teach others to learn the valuable lesson of how to tell good from bad.

Takeaways:
- Libraries are a service to the community. 2.0 is just a tool to do this.
- Education is key to allow us to meet 2.0 headon. By learning about a technology we are less scared to accept it and use it instead of filtering it out.
- 2.0 allows us to be visible in our service to our community, as key players who can guide, create a conversation. Libraries are very well poised to guide "distributed expertise" since we are trained to answer the idea of what a "good" or "bad" resource is. We can approach a wild, chaotic world and make sense of it for a specific need.
- Convergance: "2.0 thought" is a way to share, consolidate, archive, and collaborate in a way that is inclusive, yet centralized.