Dancing with the...Web 2.0?

My last two semesters have been full of discussion of Web 2.0, crowdsourcing, and similar ideas -- due in part to my coursework, and in part to the LibGuide I've been building on Digital Humanities (and a related column which my supervisor and I will eventually be putting out. Stay tuned). A large part of the discussion has been about the role of user-generated content -- tagging, natural-language subject headings, reviews, etc.--especially as applied to resource description. There is, of course, a pretty serious debate about this. Many people feel that libraries will survive only if they sacrifice their traditional organization for a more user-focused system. Others acknowledge that the current system is flawed but believe that abandoning traditional practice will seriously devalue the services we provide and ultimately be harmful to users (whether they realize it or not).

For me, this struggle between traditional and user-oriented is a bit like watching Dancing with the Stars.  I spent a year on my undergraduate college's competitive ballroom dance team, and while I would hardly call myself an "expert," after a while of taking lessons, as well as attending competitions and watching more-experienced dancers perform, you start to get a sense for how everything works. For those with ballroom expertise, DWTS can be difficult to watch. Non-professional competitors can try to choreograph a routine, but they don't usually get any choice or notice on the music. Many of the crowd-pleasing moves on DWTS are less-than-true to the dance and wouldn't be allowed in some levels of competition. Then there's the scoring. The judges have some say, of course--but anything resembling actual critique, especially coming from the (very traditional) Len Goodman, is usually boo-ed. And when it comes down to choosing finalists and awarding the mirror ball trophy, time and again audience votes have trumped the judges' professional assessment, although they do agree on occasion.

Here's the thing: ABC could redo DWTS, give the judges' scores more weight, and make sure the highest-quality dancing wins. Do the judges have expertise the audience doesn't?  Absolutely. But would people keep watching if they couldn't participate? Nope. First of all, if you don't dance (or if you dance but not well or often), most of what happens on that stage looks impressive, professional, and correct, even if it's not. Second of all, the audience doesn't always choose its favorites based on expertise -- sometimes their choices are more personal or 'fuzzy.' And thirdly, people like to participate. We're all used to being able to contribute our voice, and most of us aren't content to be passively entertained anymore. Interacting with the show, seeing their tweets up on the TV screen, being a part of the experience -- that's what keeps the audience engaged. That's what will bring them back for a 13th season this fall.

As librarians, we do have certain expertise that our users don't: that's why they come to us for help. But if we keep a tight hold on the library's narrative, so that it's all about how professional and expert we are, we won't keep our users interested. We can give them all kinds of reasons why we must organize resources strictly by this very particular system. But if  users  see other systems that seem to work just as well, if they don't like our system, if we shut them out -- they won't come to us. They will go to other places where their voice is welcome. We have to find a way to open up the story so that it is also about them, to continue to provide our services in a way that encourages user engagement and, well, use. How we can accomplish that, of course--well, that's a question for another day.  The first step is simply to recognize what is needed.