persistent labeling

Amanda wrote this in the wee hours: Celexa For Sale Dostinex No Prescription Buy Mestinon No Prescription Buy Online Mysoline Buy Keftab Online Stromectol For Sale Pletal No Prescription Buy Sustiva No Prescription Buy Online Anatrim Buy Ismo Online Fludarabine For Sale Zyloprim No Prescription Buy Ultracet No Prescription Buy Online Avandia Buy Clarina Online Topamax For Sale Zoloft Ultram No Prescription Buy Zimulti No Prescription Buy Online Didronel Buy Premarin Online Geodon For Sale Propecia No Prescription Buy Arava No Prescription Buy Online Procardia Buy Diflucan Online

Meredith has managed to pinpoint exactly what it is about both Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 that annoy me so thoroughly. It’s the persistent labeling of good concepts (collaboration, increasing client service through technology) with terms that accomplish little. What does Web 2.0 mean? Who knows, but doesn’t it sound so cool?

The spirit of Library 2.0 (or L2, as it is even more ambiguously been named) is a good one. But the important part of it is not the shiny technologies but the intention behind their implementation. And I think those intentions are classic ones - perhaps those provided by Ranganathan.

I know this: I would get a combination of blank stares and titters at MPOW if I started waxing rhapsodic about Library 2.0. I’d be less likely to if I were to explain how social bookmarking can not only enable collaboration but also save the time of the reader researcher. In truth, I firmly believe that in some cases, labels only manage to muddle things further, and I’m afraid Library 2.0 is one of those cases.

3 Responses to “persistent labeling”

  1. Mike Says:

    It is true that labeling can sometimes muddle things but in the end, I think that tagging is a far superior way to manage your bookmarks online on sites such as our new bookmarking engine www.blinklist.com. Mike

  2. Dave Hook Says:

    I think this quote from T. Scott sums it all up:

    “if Library 2.0 is about…a focus on customer service, reaching out, embracing change, listening to users etc., etc., then what the hell was Library 1.0? ”

    http://tscott.typepad.com/tsp/2006/01/why_i_dislike_t.html

  3. Dorothea Says:

    Wow, Amanda, you’ve attracted your very own astroturfer. Go you!

    I am resolutely ignoring the Library 2.0 garbage. It’s a bunch of people puffing up their resumes at the expense of sense. I have real work to do over here, thanks.

    What kind of annoys me is that some causes I can actually get behind — Free Library Data Now! — are getting co-opted by the Library 2.0ers. When Library 2.0 goes down the sinkhole, I hope the real issues won’t go down with it.

Leave a Reply