I’ve been biding my time–both here and at Cites & Insights–about discussing “Library 2.0.”
There are several reasons for that, and those reasons have shifted in the past few days, where I’ve seen several thoughtful posts about Library 2.0 from people other than Library 2.0 Advocates. (Apologies to all those I didn’t link to: This is just a tiny convenient selection.) (Many of the posts from Library 2.0 Advocates and advocates–there’s a difference, which I won’t get into here–are also eloquent, thoughtful, worth reading–but they’re not hard to find, and I’m not much of a linker in general. TTW would be one of several places to start…)
On one hand, I don’t really enjoy being called a naysayer, I don’t really enjoy confrontation, and I have no desire to discourage enthusiasm for new ideas and services.
On the other hand, I am seeing a certain degree of “or thinking” going on, and the term itself draws a circle: This is Library 2.0, and everything else is Old Hat Library 1.0. Since I firmly believe this is all a continuum, and I’m not that fond of disruptive thinking and the ease with which people can be labeled as Luddite/old and ready to be put out to pasture/whatever, this is troublesome. I continue to believe that words and names matter, and wonder whether the rallying virtues of “Library 2.0” outweigh the confrontational drawbacks. “Wonder” in this case really does mean “don’t yet have any firm opinion but am continuing to read, explore, and think”
On the gripping hand, I see a growing number of explicit “middle people” getting involved, trying to make sense of all this from an and, not or perspective, and am encouraged by this–and wonder whether it doesn’t make sense for an “accidental elder” like me to just stay out of the discussion for the moment.
So that’s what I’ll do for now. Some day soon, maybe, I’ll have something semi-coherent to add to the discussion, and will do so either here or in my primary outlet.