This isn’t well thought out. Just some random jumble of thought I have.
It seems to me that Library 2.0 is predicated on technological access, and that access is not well distributed across the economic spectrum. I’m not suggesting that Library 2.0 in all of its attendant glory isn’t beneficial or wonderful or exciting, I’m saying what we all know to be true, that many are excluded from participating not by choice but by economic conditions (which are far more complex than simply individual choice), or if not entirely excluded, have minimal access to these new features of the library experience.
Not all public libraries have enough computers to meet demand, unless significant limitations are placed on access (time limits and library hours of operation, for example). Thus, those without the funds to afford a home computer, or reasonably high-speed Internet access (many Web 2.0 technologies work on dial-up, just poorly), are limited as to when/how often they can use these tools and participate in this primarily on-line experience. Those with such amenities are granted the possibility of greater access and participation from the comfort of their own homes, often 24 hours a day. Those who have, will have more. Those who don’t fall even farther behind.
This is nothing new – it’s the digital divide. But, I can’t help but feel like it has lost its allure as a topic of discussion. Maybe it’s what I’m reading lately, but I don’t see it mentioned as much. Is it something we’re just willing to accept as inevitable? As we chase the completion of these 23 things, in the excitement, and necessity, of staying on top of the latest and greatest, I hope we haven’t forgotten those who need us most.
