I read this post this morning, and couldn’t help being a bit startled by this:
If youâ€™re on the wall about Library 2.0 then this is the post to read. Stephen makes some great points that (I hope) will shut the mouths of the people debunking Library 2.0 and make them go â€œhmmmmâ€.
I’d already read the Stephen Abram post in question. Abram wants to keep the “Library 2.0” bandwagon a bandwagon. That doesn’t surprise me; it’s entirely consistent. But, you know, Stephen Abram saying something doesn’t automatically make it true, any more (or any less) than Walt Crawford saying something makes it true.
What does surprise me is the stated desire (not Stephen’s!) for those who don’t agree to “shut [their] mouths.” Surely the person writing this post doesn’t believe that Abram is so utterly convincing that everyone who thinks “Library 2.0” is overrated as a term will suddenly realize they were wrong, wrong, wrong?
The post certainly made me go “hmm.” As in, hmm, always interesting to see a librarian who wants people who disagree with them to shut up and go away.
I wouldn’t post this here, but I made a similar (brief) comment at that blog. Apparently it was either trapped for moderation or rejected as spam.
Chalk this up as another example of why the whole “Library 2.0” situation couldn’t possibly be confrontational. Nope. No confrontations around here… (Actually, the post had the opposite of the desired effect. I had, in fact, been staying out of the “Library 2.0” discussion. But, hmm…)