Library = Coffee + Food + WiFi (Books Optional)?
I ran across two posts today that demonstrate the transition that the physical space a library occupies is going through right now. Betsy McKenzie at Out of the Jungle Blog had a follow-up post on the Cushing Academy’s (private school in Massachusetts) ditched all of the books in its library and created a “digital library” with the focus on making the library more about “service” than about books. Apparently, the success of this transition is so popular that the headmaster has gone “from pariah to prophet.”
The other post was in the Columbia Spectator (Columbia University newspaper) about a (what I assume is an undergrad) student who found her way into the law library and was sorely disappointed in what she found:
- Books
- Quiet
- Lots of room to spread out and study
- No food or coffee
- No decent WiFi
- No cell phone reception
From this student’s point of view, the law library at Columbia Law School was so restricted that “the library feels vaguely like a maze of finding what you can and cannot do. Figuring out what you’re allowed to do will be harder than any work you bring.”
The student wasn’t completely negative in what she found in the law library. For example, the service she received from the law librarians and staff was “exceptionally helpful and friendly.” Hmmm… there’s that word again… “service.”
We’ve argued in the past that the library is not a place which only houses books, but rather is a place that serves its community and provides it with a place for that community to come (physically or virtually) to access the information that community requires. To equate a library as a place to find books is as short-sighted as equating it as a place to get coffee. Libraries serve their community. In serving the community, the library may offer coffee… bagels… rest rooms… WiFi… and even a book or two. All of these things are important, but they are secondary to the overall service that is provided to the community.
The "Thumbs-Up" and the "Thumbs-Down" of News+Web 2.0
I received a call on Monday afternoon telling me that a friend of the family had been killed while crossing a busy intersection near my house. I tried to find out what happened through the local media, but all I could find from the reporters was a statement that a woman was struck and killed by a garbage truck and no other information was available pending notification of the family.
After checking back an hour later, I did something that I really didn’t want to do… I checked the “comments” section below the online story. What I found showed the power of web 2.0, and both the good and the bad that comes with that power.
From the comments I learned that she was on a bicycle, in the bicycle lane at a red light. She went straight, while the garbage truck made a wide right-hand turn and didn’t see her in the bike lane. Although the results of the accident were tragic, through the comments, the reported story, and from my own personal knowledge, I now had enough information to piece together what had happened. That was the “good” part of Web 2.0 – people on the scene giving accounts of an awful event.
Then came the “bad” part of Web 2.0.
One of the reasons that I hesitate to read comments on news stories like these is that people with no relationship to the story, hiding behind anonymous screen names, decide that what this story needs is their opinion to be heard. To make it worse, their is almost a competition between commenters of who can get the most “thumbs-up” or “thumbs-down” on their comments from other readers – the more “opinionated” the comment, the more “thumbs-up” or “thumbs-down” they receive.
A “savvy bicyclist” decided that this was a “teachable moment” and explained that what she should have done was put her bike half-way into the car lane instead of staying in the bike lane. This caused a reaction from another commenter to state how they’ve seen a bunch of “local apartment dwellers” on bikes carelessly cross that intersection and they are not surprised that this happened at all. Quickly followed up by another commenter that said that idiotic pedestrians are crossing against the red light all the time, and this is probably what happened (although they had no idea if that was true.)
So there I was… facing the “good” and the “bad” of news + Web 2.0. I got a better understanding of what happened – and that was good. I also saw the contempt of the community toward something that they had no understanding of, but still held out their opinions as though they did – and that was bad.
None of the commenters knew that if the young mother of two had made it across that intersection that she would have reported for her first day at a new job. None of those commenting knew that it was her son’s birthday. None of those commenting had to come home tonight and tell their children that their friend’s mom died today. None of those commenting had to watch their own children Facebook chat with a grieving friend who said that she’d be out of school for a while until after her mom’s funeral.
In a Web 2.0 world, everyone has the ability to share their comments with the world. Most of the time I would give it a thumbs-up… but I have to admit that I don’t feel as good about it right now.
Why Lawyers Don’t Do Social Media …
I think I have finally figured out why lawyers don’t like social media. Typing.Yes, typing. Many of the lawyers of a certain generation are used to handing over dictaphone tapes, orating from behind podiums or simply taking handwritten notes on a legal pad. They can’t be bothered to type.Now, with the “burgeoning” of technology into all kinds of platforms that require hen-pecking, these lawyers are at a loss and “can’t be bothered.” These are the same attorneys who don’t know the difference between Outlook and Internet Explorer.I’m so glad my dad made me take typing classes.During that pro-feminist era, I scoffed at what I thought was his preparing me for a future as a secretary. Little did I realize that my dad was one of the first computer administrators of his generation—he got his Masters in Mathematics back in 1960. I have a hard time of conceiving of a Masters degree in Mathematics; pretty heady stuff. He saw where the world was going and he knew how important typing was going to become.He was ahead of his time.So programs like Skype or 8pen may offer the solution these attorneys need. But I don’t think so. I have found both of these programs to be a bit challenging.The best solution?Vlingo, a dictaphone app built for BlackBerry phones. It works across a number of platforms including text messages, Twitter, Facebook, BBM, Yahoo and Windows Live. Plus, it will read your incoming messages to you.So, see, you less tech-savvy lawyers can participate in social media too.Now we just need to teach them how to download an app …
Expect the Unexpected
A Modest Proposal on the Future of Legal Librarians
Law Firms: Should You be On Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn?
More than once I have been asked, “Where should law firms be in the social media landscape? Facebook or LinkedIn?” And, by coincidence, a colleague circulated a blog posting from Entrepreneur.com, “Thoughts on Twitter Versus Facebook for Business.” Which made me thing, “heck, I should write a post!” (Plus I ran into fellow Geeksters @gnawledge and @glambert; they hassled me about not posting anything lately.) So here are my thoughts: Facebook Every business that I have seen on Facebook is either for consumer goods that have masses of people from the general public going through their doors (i.e. restaurants, car dealerships and services, banks, food, gas stations, clothing stores) or seriously need to manage their brand (oil companies, government). The few professional services that I have seen on Facebook use it for either alumni or recruiting purposes–a capability that is easily duplicated on LinkedIn. Facebook has some interesting functionality: their new groups feature is nice. I was able to quickly create a private group where my friends and I can swap updates, photos and links. Very user-friendly. LinkedIn I see all kinds of businesses on LinkedIn: mom & pop companies, art galleries, professional services, manufacturers. With the new functionality that LinkedIn is beta-testing with companies, I think we can look forward to some very robust features in the near future. I have had the privilege of talking to a few of their reps a couple of times and I continue to keep an eye on their new offerings. Plus, you just can’t beat LinkedIn for offering a professional environment for posting your profile. No incongruous, dicey-looking ads run adjacent to my face offering to give me a “web analytics certificate”. At least LinkedIn’s ads are playing with the big boys, like Microsoft. Plus, they keep growing their profile features. I really like the new “Skills”, “Patents” and “Publications” sections. It’s a great place to showcase deeper skill sets. And LinkedIn’s Groups have been around for some time, while Facebook has just recently added this capability. LinkedIn’s group functionality is pretty robust. Facebook’s isn’t bad either. It’s just that LinkedIn’s is going to give you better access to the types of professionals that law firms are going to want to make contact with. Plus it has a daily or weekly digest e-mail–a feature that Facebook doesn’t have. Twitter Now Twitter is my drug of choice. I do the other two because, well, its my job. But Twitter? Twitter is amazing. I can find out the most obscure things I never would have found otherwise. I learn things faster. I see more. I meet more. And its just weird because, technically, it’s the least flexible. And, the other thing about Twitter is that nobody uses Twitter. We are all using one of the third-party apps like TweetDeck, Hootesuite and UberTwitter to access our accounts. I particularly like TweetDeck because I can set up customized columns to follow certain interests like News, Law or Ashton Kutcher (sorry, he has to be mentioned in some form on my posts). I was (and continue to be) really pleased that I was one of the first to bring our business into this particular sandbox. And we are still going strong. And I continue to be amazed as to who is interested in what we have to say. Twitter is viral marketing at warped speed. If your 140-character message is potent enough, it can go around the world in minutes–it can even cause a whale to fail. Law firms should look at Twitter as a branding tool. After measuring, posting and reading Twitter for over 3 years, what I have come to realize is that Twitter gets me out there into the collective conscience and in front of people that I normally would have never met. I have been recognized solely by my Twitter profile. Bottom Line Why not? Why not go ahead and post on all three? Sure, you got to be smart about it. Follow the rules, have a disclaimer, don’t misrepresent yourself or your firm. Just try it. Lawyers tell me all the time that they just don’t get it. And I have a hard time explaining it. Believe me, I was just as skeptical–I am a lawyer, after all. But after just a few weeks in every single one of these environments, I have been amazed at what I have received and learned. People are generous. People are kind. People want to connect. Sure, there are smarmy folks out there. Believe me, I see them every day. But I see smarmy folks all the time, every where, not just online. We have all learned to filter in real life. Now we just have to learn how to filter online. Come on; get out on the dance floor and dance. Don’t be one of those guys who stands against the wall, trying to look like they are too smart/cool/rich to dance. Because if you don’t dance, you will never get to meet that special someone. And they just might be that golden goose you’ve been looking for all this time …
"Which brings us to the Cylons"
I’m sitting in tomorrow on Rich Leiter’s Webinar/Podcast, where we’ll talk with Lawyer, Writer, Law Professor, and all a round deep-thinker, Richard Dooling.
Doolings’s latest book, Rapture of the Geeks: When AI Outsmarts IQ, discusses (and makes fun of) a number of scientists, technologists, and lawyers and he seems to be either a very smart person… or a complete lunatic. I’m hoping for a bit of both.
I had to laugh, though, when I was reading a 2008 review of his book in ARS Technica and the “two-page” review ended page one with this quote:
“Which brings us to the Cylons”
What a hook!! I had to go to page two to see how the Cylons came into play, and I decided right then and there that I needed to borrow that for a blog post title!
Within a few minutes, I read this review, had a long talk with my E-Discovery support person, and got the email from a friend about an xkcd.com cartoon and diagrams from This is Indexed (both of which are worthy of a spot in your RSS feed!!)
My brain immediately came up with this Venn diagram:
Elephant Post: What is something you can do immediately to be more productive?
Nobody Puts Knowledge Management In The Corner
Sometimes comments just need to be made into their own postings. Such is the case with Ayelette Robinson’s comment to my post earlier this week on my disappointment with the direction Knowledge Management has taken in law firms. Ayelette took my challenge of calling me an ignorant **** and telling me why my argument doesn’t hold water.
There are others out there telling me I’m wrong – not as bluntly as Ayelette, of course – such as Mark Gould and Ken Adams.
[Guest Blogger – Ayelette Robinson]
Greg, you ignorant ****. Being sad about KM practitioners using new tools to implement old ideas is like being sad about the advent of the web because we used to sit by the radio to listen to the news. Preparing forms might have been an appropriate first step for KM, but the KM industry should not be limited to form maintenance any more than information distribution should be limited to the radio. Identifying, centralizing, and re-purposing knowledge is what KM is about, and that extends to all information needed for the business and practice of law: documents, clients, matters, finances, expertise, budgets, trainings, wins, losses, successes, failures, relationships, behaviors, memberships, projects, teams, overhead, tools, processes……..
And KM is certainly not defined by its audience. If knowledge is being re-used to make a process more efficient, that’s KM, whether it’s an attorney at your firm re-using the knowledge or a client doing so.
Are there law firms who still perceive KM as only forms creation, or who misunderstand how librarians can help promote KM? I’m sure there are. But KM has grown far beyond its infancy, and we should be looking at the teenagers to get a sense of where we’re going, not the toddlers.
As a side note, I noticed the various Ark tweets asking/suggesting/pondering whether PM should be/is/will be part of KM, and I have to admit I was confused by those. The boundaries between a variety of departments gets fuzzier every day (marketing, library, km, competitive intelligence), but PM and KM – while absolutely complementary – seem quite distinct: the former manages behavior, and the latter manages knowledge. Yes, there are moments when they dovetail, but their fundamental missions are fundamentally different.









