Following on from my last post, I’ll point to some of the different reactions to John Blyberg’s post on the debasement of Library 2.0.
Annoyed Librarian has the sort of post you’d expect, full of talk of bandwagons and twopointopians. It’s worth a read, including the comments. I’d say it is especially worth a read if you think you will disagree with AL. Why? Well, we know that groupthink is bad. Only listening to people who are already inclined to share your point of view is a way to make bad decisions. That’s incredibly well documented in the psychological literature. For those with a more contemporary focus, it’s also mentioned in The Wisdom of Crowds. Having more information improves decision making.
Secondly, it’s worth reading the comments. It’s clear that many of AL’s readers see Library 2.0 as a technology focused movement, maybe even as the victim of hype/technolust. That’s not how Library 2.0 advocates see themselves or the movement (LibraryCrunch). But plainly, the message they are trying to convey hasn’t got through to AL’s readers. “We” (meaning all of us) don’t all know what Library 2.0 is. I’d love to see more people reading posts from the other side of the discussion.
I’m going to run out of time here, so I’ll just link to some thoughtful follow-ups to Blyberg’s post: they respond to each other, so read them in order:
The posts also provide support for my argument that “we” don’t have a clear definition of Library 2.0 – they approach the topic from quite different perspectives.