Comments on: 2.0 Too Faddish For Libraries? http://acrlog.org/2007/03/22/20-too-faddish-for-libraries/ Blogging by and for academic and research librarians Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:32:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: SIG-III Blog » Blog Archive » Why should we talk about (international) social networking? http://acrlog.org/2007/03/22/20-too-faddish-for-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-34582 SIG-III Blog » Blog Archive » Why should we talk about (international) social networking? Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:15:18 +0000 http://acrlblog.org/2007/03/22/20-too-faddish-for-libraries/#comment-34582 [...] The single most significant expression I’ve seen of this outstanding question comes from a discussion on the ACRLog, the blog of the Association of College and Research Libraries. In discussing David Bickford’s assertion in this thread that the 1970s notion of library service done over CB radio was a passing fad, Marc Meola asks if Web 2.0 services such as social networking are a fad or something that is here to stay. Two people responded that certain aspects of Web 2.0 are fads while other aspects will stick around. But a recently minted librarian named Michael C. Habib commented that [...] [...] The single most significant expression I’ve seen of this outstanding question comes from a discussion on the ACRLog, the blog of the Association of College and Research Libraries. In discussing David Bickford’s assertion in this thread that the 1970s notion of library service done over CB radio was a passing fad, Marc Meola asks if Web 2.0 services such as social networking are a fad or something that is here to stay. Two people responded that certain aspects of Web 2.0 are fads while other aspects will stick around. But a recently minted librarian named Michael C. Habib commented that [...]

]]> By: Aaron Bowen http://acrlog.org/2007/03/22/20-too-faddish-for-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-26484 Aaron Bowen Sat, 07 Apr 2007 02:43:22 +0000 http://acrlblog.org/2007/03/22/20-too-faddish-for-libraries/#comment-26484 I couldn't have said it any better Michael. As the introduction of the Internet to a mass audience in the 1990s showed, it is in a library's interest to pay attention to disruptive technologies. I would rather be guilty of paying attention to a fad than missing out on the "next big thing" -- and 2.0 continues to demonstrate day by day that it is anything but a passing fad. I couldn’t have said it any better Michael. As the introduction of the Internet to a mass audience in the 1990s showed, it is in a library’s interest to pay attention to disruptive technologies. I would rather be guilty of paying attention to a fad than missing out on the “next big thing” — and 2.0 continues to demonstrate day by day that it is anything but a passing fad.

]]> By: Michael C. Habib http://acrlog.org/2007/03/22/20-too-faddish-for-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-25920 Michael C. Habib Sat, 24 Mar 2007 01:03:02 +0000 http://acrlblog.org/2007/03/22/20-too-faddish-for-libraries/#comment-25920 MySpace and Facebook are 2.0 as it gets and it would be hard to argue that they have only been picked up by tech geeks. Those services also incorporate blogging, commenting, and photo sharing. Wikipedia, E-Bay, and Craigslist are also 2.0 as it gets. These are just a couple of examples, but the idea is that 2.0 is already mainstream and well entrenched in peoples daily use of the internet. Sites like Flickr might point to a newer breed of 2.0 technologies, but 2.0 is here to stay. MySpace and Facebook are 2.0 as it gets and it would be hard to argue that they have only been picked up by tech geeks. Those services also incorporate blogging, commenting, and photo sharing. Wikipedia, E-Bay, and Craigslist are also 2.0 as it gets. These are just a couple of examples, but the idea is that 2.0 is already mainstream and well entrenched in peoples daily use of the internet. Sites like Flickr might point to a newer breed of 2.0 technologies, but 2.0 is here to stay.

]]> By: Jason http://acrlog.org/2007/03/22/20-too-faddish-for-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-25888 Jason Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:19:31 +0000 http://acrlblog.org/2007/03/22/20-too-faddish-for-libraries/#comment-25888 Walt's opinion makes sense to me. Unfortunately, based on my perusings of various blogs, overzealousness on the part of "2.0" enthusiasts in Libraryland has alienated those with more traditional leanings. Of course, the notion of people using a "2.0" tool to criticize "2.0" (or at least the more uncritical advocates thereof) is loaded with some irony. It also underscores how the <i>use</i> of those technologies has a lot more significance than some blanket label that tempts us to make broad generalizations. Walt’s opinion makes sense to me. Unfortunately, based on my perusings of various blogs, overzealousness on the part of “2.0″ enthusiasts in Libraryland has alienated those with more traditional leanings. Of course, the notion of people using a “2.0″ tool to criticize “2.0″ (or at least the more uncritical advocates thereof) is loaded with some irony. It also underscores how the use of those technologies has a lot more significance than some blanket label that tempts us to make broad generalizations.

]]> By: walt http://acrlog.org/2007/03/22/20-too-faddish-for-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-25886 walt Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:02:46 +0000 http://acrlblog.org/2007/03/22/20-too-faddish-for-libraries/#comment-25886 Yes to the second question. Portions of "2.0" (however you define it) are either only for geeks or fast-passing fads, or both. Portions of "2.0" will become more widely accepted or already have. The trick is figuring out which is which. If I knew how, I'd set up as a consultant... Yes to the second question.

Portions of “2.0″ (however you define it) are either only for geeks or fast-passing fads, or both. Portions of “2.0″ will become more widely accepted or already have.

The trick is figuring out which is which. If I knew how, I’d set up as a consultant…

]]>