« What The iPod Shuffled Up On My Walk This Morning | Main | The Problem With Models »

November 29, 2006



I'd argue that Library 2.0 is "over-hyped" rather than "incoherent." The idea that we should use new technologies to reach users in new ways is both coherent and persuasive.

The problem is the straw man, that bad old Library 1.0 when nobody cared about their patron's needs. Obviously this is not the case, and hopefully no Library 2.0 advocate believes that it is. So I see the rhetoric as evidence of excessive fervor rather than incoherence.

T Scott

For "Library 2.0" to be coherent (particularly in the sense of the "Library 2.0 model"), it needs to clearly denote a concept or set of concepts that can be discretely defined and uniquely associated with the term. This simply isn't the case.

I agree that the "idea that we should use new technologies to reach users in new ways" is coherent, but that is very far from being a generally accepted definition of "Library 2.0".


It seems to me that some of the problems with Library 2.0 come from the idea that it's a new model. As you've pointed out, it's not really new. I think it is, however, an updated model. If Library 2.0 is positioned this way, as an update to Library 1.0, then I don't think there's the same dichotomy.

T Scott

Jaena -- that strikes me as a promising approach. How, then, would you characterize the essential features of the updated L2 model that differentiate it from the older L1 model?


I think users are at the center of both L1 and L2. The big difference with L2 is the technologies we're taking advantage of to serve those users. Also, (and I think this might be something from a talk you gave at MS State this summer) with L1, we brought all the society's knowledge/resources together under one roof, or at least tried to. With L2, it's more diffuse...we're working on sending those resources out to our users so they can get the information they need, oftentimes without even leaving their homes.
But that's not to say that the "library as place" isn't important in L2.


If librarians can use the L2 moniker as a tool for change, that's great! I am for anything that can get people to think differently! At the same time I do not care for the "point oh" labels since they force one to think in a linear progression. If the is an L2 there HAS to be an L3, L4, and so on. My position is that L2 happened a LONG time ago - back when they started to take chains off of books.

The comments to this entry are closed.