Cites & Insights 6:2: A special issue

Cites & Insights 6:2, Midwinter 2006 is now available for downloading.

This is a special issue, 32 pages long in PDF form, consisting of one essay:

Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0”

Included are quotes and comments from some three dozen sources, some of them new to the discussion.

While the essay is also available in HTML form from the home page, please don’t use the HTML if you plan to print the issue–which, at 26,000 words, seems like a reasonable thing to do. The HTML version will take 42 pages to print (at least that’s what I see in Firefox “print preview”), as compared to the 32-page PDF. (Since there’s only one essay–albeit in five parts–there’s only one HTML file.)

A more typical (and shorter!) February Cites & Insights should be available near the end of January (not before January 27) or early in February.

Note: Roy Tennant has informed me that the link to the HTML version is wrong–it will get you the first essay in the January 2006 issue. I’ll fix that this evening (has to be done from home). Meanwhile, if you must download the 250K HTML file instead of the nice neat 32-page PDF, this will work. Fixed 1/9 p.m.

16 Responses to “Cites & Insights 6:2: A special issue”

  1. WoW!ter says:

    Thank you very much. A much needed overview. Glimpsing through I ‘d say you covered all aspects more than plenty. One quote I missed, which I like a lot, is a quote from Lorcan Dempsey. Making data work harder It is not labelled library 2.0 as such but, it relates to the subject quite a bit.
    But I will start reading this issue with care first, before I provide you with more feedback.

  2. this is really uncanny. i assigned the talis paper to my class last week and asked for reaction papers for the class today. i haven’t read their papers yet, but based on the rather stilted discussion we had, it seems they didn’t quite get it.

    and then i saw the latest issue of cites & insights. i haven’t read all of it yet, but from the little i’ve read, i guess there are more than a few from your side of the world who don’t get it either.

    thanks for this issue. i’m sure it will be very helpful when i meet my class again.

  3. Your columns on page 6 don’t align across the top. Wouldn’t have mentioned it, except that I know you care about such things. 🙂

  4. walt says:


    Thanks. On my final scan, I didn’t even notice that. And I do care about such things.

    Technically, the columns *do* align–but what’s aligning on the left is a paragraph consisting of a single space. Which, from an aesthetic viewpoint, is awful.

    No excuse, really, but I was evening up the final page (after copyfitting, I had 31.5 pages), and instead of doing it the *right* way–highlighting the seven definitions and adding space-above to the paragraphs–I did it the *easy* way–adding a blank line above each one. (Whereas for the 62 phrases, I *did* do it the right way, adding 3 points above each paragraph…now, why I wasn’t consistent can only be answered by…well, I just screwed up.)

    The problem is that the blank line will remain after a page break, while the space-above won’t.

    In the grand tradition of “it’s published, the goof remains public,” I won’t fix it. (I could say “Adobe screwed up,” but in this case it was the nut in front of the keyboard that came loose…)

    [Actually, the post-copyfitting exercise was revealing: I had just about one column of spare room. Changing all 32 of the subheadings in “Other Voices” from third-level headings (flush left, italic, very little space above and none below) to second-level heading (centered, larger type, space above and below) did surprisingly little to change that situation…I was afraid it would overflow back to p. 33. This is the first issue in which I’ve added space to even out the final page rather than cutting words back to the next even-numbered page.]

  5. Ruth Ellen says:

    You know, in my younger days I did layout and paste-up, both for a tabloid-sized newspaper and a shiny magazine. We used phototypeset and wax. Sure sounds to me like it’s HARDER online.

  6. walt says:

    Ruth Ellen: No, it’s actually much easier–indeed, with the right template (either in Word or in a proper page layout program), it’s pretty much automatic. (I’ve done it the old way as well…)

    After all, figure that the time I spent actually laying out the 32-page issue, as opposed to dealing with paragraph widows and orphans and otherwise copyfitting, was no more than an hour. Most issues it’s even less: I just cut words and modify phrases until things snap into place, and I’m done.

    I just goofed, pure and simple: I used a dumb approach instead of a smart approach, then didn’t recheck the results. This the first issue in 72 where I’ve deviated from defined styles; that frequently causes problems. (It’s also true that Word isn’t a layout program, although it does well enough that I don’t feel the need to buy and learn something better.)

  7. Ruth Ellen says:

    Hmmm… okay… and on top of that, you don’t risk slicing off the tips of your fingers with an X-acto (R) knife… I’m sold.

  8. Hot wax burns. I don’t miss those at all.

    And trying to get a tiny little rule to stick where you put it…

  9. Wow!ter – thanks for the kind comment. I think that quite a bit of what I write could be labelled ‘library 2.0’. This is whether you think of Library 2.0 in either the ‘library in the user environment’ or in the platform/api/web_services ways in which it tends to be used. However, because I haven’t generally used the term, my stuff doesn’t tend to be considered in this context. Which is, I think, one of the points that Walt was making.

  10. walt says:

    Always interesting to see where comment threads go–and I’m certainly not shutting this one down.

    By the way, there’s another slight ugliness in the special C&I, one that I couldn’t avoid. I’ll bet Dorothea spotted it but was kind enough not to mention it…

    Just to avoid suspense: Friz Quadrata does not come in an italic (or if it does, I don’t have it). Thus, the names of blogs in level-2 headings are in slanted roman type rather than italic type. (Of course, if I used quotes around blog names instead if italicizing them, the problem would go away…)

    Lower-case “a”s are the usual giveaway, at least in any serif or transitional type (is “transitional” the right word for Friz Quadrata’s semi-serif design?): If you look at Library crunch in the subheading, you’ll see that the “a” is just a slanted roman a, where in the paragraph that follows (in Berkeley Book, which most definitely does have a well-designed italic), it’s an italic a, an entirely different creature. (On the other hand, Berkeley Book has the little curiosity that there’s no bold. Rather than let Word “embolden,” I use “bold” as a character style, bringing up Berkeley Bold–not Berkeley Book Bold–and just have to remember never to use ctrl-b or the “b” button for boldface…”emboldened” type looks really bad when it’s in as elegant a setting as Berkeley Book!)

    Yes, I’m still a semi-recovering typeface geek. Anyone who knows that I spent serious money buying Berkeley Oldstyle and Berkeley Oldstyle Book typefaces when I already own 500+ professionally-designed typefaces (bless the old Bitstream CD!) would know that. Not that there was anything wrong with Arrus BT, which I used for the first 4 years of C&I, but Berkeley is just…well…I don’t think serif type gets any better.

  11. Mark says:

    Simpling amazing Walt! Thank you for doing this, thank you, thank you. I had read some of these, skimmed an even larger number, and had some amount tagged for reading which I never got around to because of the Movement feel behind them.

    You said pretty much everything I would’ve liked to if I had the gumption to undertake something like this. I, too, believe that some of the historical is coming out now as you said in response to my post. Certainly after this exercise on your part, it may well come to the fore. One can hope.

    Excellent overall, but the Epilogue was particularly wonderful. Thanks again!

  12. WoW!ter says:

    @Lorcan, yes uou’re right, that was also my impression, and I agree with the compliments Walt gives you for your writing style. I merely pointed out the headline of one of your blogposts since in my opinion it could have been view 63: “Library 2.0 is about making data work harder”. If I glimpse through your archives I would probably find more catchy views. Keep up the good work!

  13. See Also says:

    A Library 2.0 hangover

    Alternate titles for this post: There is no such thing as Library 2.0 and this is a blog post about it. (Apologies for bastardizing the first line of Steven Shapin’s book The Scientific Revolution.) How many angels can dance on…

  14. Laurie says:

    Thanks for this issue. I’ve been vaguely noticing the stir about “library 2.0” over the past couple of months and have been mostly annoyed about the prospect of taking a position on it. But, I think your summary is great. Your epilogue gets at exactly the tone I’d like to see when we talk about technology and change in libraries. Also, as is always the case with Cites & Insights, I laughed really hard through much of it.

    Mostly, thanks for making a couple of points that needed making:
    1. Libraries have been user-centered and changing for a very long time — that’s not new and it’s insulting to insist that it is.
    2. It is unrealistic to expect libraries to be the best way to get all information all the time. Libraries have never had that role, and the idea of aiming to be the best way to get all information is more frightening than it is desirable.

    At the same time as I object to the pretense that some new ideology should sweep through libraries, I’m really excited about the possibilities inherent in technologies that are labelled web 2.0. I was a booster of blogs and rss in my library, have recently become addicted to netvibes and writely, and spend lots of my time thinking about how we can make penntags (, our new social bookmarking tool, as useful as possible. Promoting these new technologies in my library would be a lot easier if there weren’t other technology boosters out there claiming that the smart, knowledgeable, savvy librarians I work with “don’t get it,” or that they never really cared about patrons and are against change.

  15. walt says:

    Thanks–and particularly for a note I didn’t think I’d hear about this difficult special issue: “as is always the case with Cites & Insights, I laughed really hard through much of it.”

    It will be interesting to see how you do with penntags; I (sincerely) wish you luck with it.

  16. Library 2.0: What’s in a Name?

    …It’s quite long, so if you’d like to print it out, please read Crawford’s advice regarding printing.