I have written the central portion of a probable C&I essay on Library 2.0. (The central portion excerpts a range of statements about the subject and adds my own commentary as appropriate.) Unfortunately, or fortunately, or whatever, what I hoped would be the core of a nice 3,500-word to 5,000-word (that is, 5- to 7-page in C&I’s PDF form) Perspective is currently at 14,000 words.

That omits the prefatory portions (which I suspect will be a series of one-liners of the “Library 2.0 is…” variety, based on statements within the core, and maybe several one-paragraph asserted definitions taken directly from the core excerpts) and the portions that attempt to provide some overall perspective and conclusions.

In one recent case, discussing the Open Content Alliance and Google Book Search, I separated the two–one front-page essay with my overall comments and a much longer core essay full of excerpts and comments. That might make sense here as well–but if I do that, or if I do the “usual,” then it comes out to a long issue’s worth of content unless I manage to slash at least one-third of what I have already. And I’m not that good a self-editor (as C&I readers know all too well).

So it’s possible–not probable yet, but possible–that I might put out an initial serious foray into this area a week or two before ALA Midwinter, as a special issue. (I’ve already made some promises that mean it can’t happen before January 8 or so.) As I said to a couple of other people, “Of course, that may mean I’ll have to wear Groucho glasses during Midwinter…” since a few Library 2.0 people may (or may not) be upset with the commentary.

Alternatively, if I can cut the heck out of the core section, it might be a major portion of the next C&I, which would probably come out a couple of days before Midwinter.

I’m hoping to firm up the first draft in the next day or two, let it sit while I move on to some other stuff (not all of it writing-related or work-related!), and come back to it fresh a few days later. Then we’ll see what happens.

It’s always possible that, after I go through all the notes, I’ll conclude that I don’t have much to add to the discussion (or that I’m not willing to deal with the ramifications, although that’s unlikely, as I’ve achieved a kind of Father William status–and if that reference doesn’t make sense, see Lewis Carroll). More likely, when I have a perspective ready, it will form one of the capstones of an issue that will be ready when the perspective is.

(I already see that a (C)4: Locking Down Technology perspective is needed soon, given that two congresscritters have introduced legislation to “close the analog hole.” So there’s two perspectives for a future issue right there…if/when I have time to deal with them.)

I want to dig a little at what I see being said and argued, the extent to which I think it’s really something new (and, to be sure, it may be important to say anew even if it’s not a new concept), and the whole set of issues surrounding balance, continuity, “disruptive change” vs. development, “and” vs. “or”…

What I do not want to do, and why I have avoided addressing the issue so far (other than this non-post), is to indulge in my own rhetorical excess. That’s one reason I’m holding off until I can put together some coherent thoughts, synthesize what I’m reading, and hopefully serve as a positive force in the set of discussion. I’m not much for bandwagons, but I also try to avoid putting things down for the sake of naysaying. (And I’m trying harder in that area as I grow–sorry, Steven C.–less young chronologically.)

This isn’t a battle. It’s not right against wrong. It’s a discussion about some of the ways in which things are changing inside and outside libraries, and the things that we can do to harness or manage those changes.

http://www.tametheweb.com

Thanks!