For the longest time, there seemed to be many differing opinions as to what “Library 2.0” was all about.
So much so that I wrote an issue of Cites and Insights about it, an issue that was downloaded more than 15,000 times in PDF form (as of October 20) and another 15,000 times in HTML form (again as of October 1). For that matter, between September 1, 2007 and October 28, 2007, that issue was downloaded more often than any current issue. Apparently there are still people out there who think it’s unclear what it’s all about–lots of people.
So imagine my surprise at the title of this post: “We Know What Library 2.0 Is and Is Not.”
Wow. No ambiguity. No disagreements. Michael Casey and Laura Savastinuk know.
It’s an interesting post. Not quite as interesting as the sheer certainty of the title, though.
Steven Chabot isn’t wild about the certainty of the post title, even as he agrees (as do I) that empirical research makes sense–that offering “solutions” nobody’s really asking for is less than ideal.
Chabot “canâ€™t really stomach the opening statement” (the post title).
I don’t feel nearly as strongly. I think the absolute certainty of the title is amusing.
The post? Worth reading, as is Chabot’s.