As described on the CILIP blog the draft council paper feels that:

It is important to take our message to (and glean our intelligence from) the channels that are actually being used, rather than expecting all members and stakeholders to bother to come to the services we provide.

In light of this:

• CILIP therefore needs to gain some basic practical knowledge of a minimum set of technologies which are currently used for such communication, including: blogs, communities, RSS, email discussion lists, wiki, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, CoverItLive (for conferences), Netvibes and Pipes.
• some channels will turn out not to work well for us: it is nevertheless important to be seen to try things out, and improve them in the light of experience and feedback – and if we can document why things fail, this information itself would be a service for members.

A further five bullet points where included in the conclusions. And these conclusions very much reflect the approaches suggested by myself and Phil Bradley when we spoke at the CILIP Open Meeting on use of Web 2.0 back in April.

The CILIP blog post concluded by saying that “As the premier UK body for Information Professionals, CILIP is well-placed to exploit the opportunities Web 2.0 offers. Already, CILIP in Scotland has already been an “early adopter” of many of these technologies“.

I would endorse this view. Indeed I spoke at the recent CILIP Wales and CILIP Scotland annual conferences and, as I described in my reports on the CILIP Wales and CILIP Scotland events, both events sought to be ‘amplified events’, making use of Twitter to engage a remote audience and, for the CILIP Scotland event,  I made use of Skype to demonstrate how it would be possible to bring a remote audience even closer to talks at conferences.  And the organisers of the CILIP Wales and CILIP Scotland were willing to share their experiences – along the lines described in the second bullet point given above.

We are now in a position in which the profession seems prepared to endorse a Web 2.0 approach for the information profession, which includes embracing the various tools (blogs, wikis, micro-blogs, etc.) which we are familiar with, the importance of the ‘network as the platform’  together with the softer Web 2.0 characteristics of  ‘always beta’ and a culture of openness and trusting the users.

But what next? The advocacy work which promoted the benefits of Web 2.0 for the information professional has succeeded in having a political impact on the CILIP organisation. And although there will still be a need to continue to promote the benefits which Web 2.0 can provide, the new challenge will be to embed Web 2.0 in the mainstream working practices of CILIP members. And this will involved acknowledged and addressed various risks and concerns such as the need for training and support and addressing organisational barriers, such as firewalls or policies which block access to Web 2.0 services.

We’ll be publishing a series of blog posts which will attempt to address these issues, which will be grouped together using the cilip2 category on this blog.

The report has received primarily positive feedback from the community. As one “humble CILIP member” puts it: “I have had more meaningful engagement with CILIP through social networking sites in the last 2 months than in the last 20 years!”

Phil Bradley, who has made calls for CILIP to embrace Web 2.0 in the past, commented on the report:

“This is a really positive and forward looking set of statements which should not only put CILIP onto a good footing for future development and use of Web 2.0 technologies, but should also help professional colleagues push the case for the use of these within their own organisations.“

In response to concerns that the move towards Web 2.0 technologies will disenfranchised some less knowledgeable members chrisinwales commented

“By embracing the new, CILIP is trying to demonstrate good practice and support its members in a variety of ways (old and new) so that each can select the best current awareness tool for his or her own needs. By NOT embracing them CILIP would be disenfranchising those members who prefer to receive updates by Web 2.0.“

The discussion on the report continues but one thing it does do is highlight the need for further Web 2.0 training my many library and information professionals.