2.0 Too Faddish For Libraries?
In the comments, one of our readers warned libraries of adopting the equivalent of CB radio and falling victim to fads.
This article–Some Traditional Sites, Aiming to be Hip, End Up the Opposite–expands on that point, giving as examples John Edwards use of Twitter, Netscape’s use of Digg-like features, and USA Today’s incorporation of comments on their stories. I kind of like the idea of comments on news articles–a kind of C-SPAN for newspapers–but apparently USA Today’s readers did not. Is there a lesson here for academic libraries? Is 2.0 just for tech geeks or is it just a matter of time before 2.0 features become more widely accepted?
Posted: March 22, 2007 by Marc Meola
in Technology Issues, Worth Reading.
Comments
Comment from Jason
Posted: March 22, 2007 at 10:19 pm
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.
Comment from Michael C. Habib
Posted: March 24, 2007 at 1:03 am
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.
Comment from Aaron Bowen
Posted: April 7, 2007 at 2:43 am
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.
Pingback from SIG-III Blog » Blog Archive » Why should we talk about (international) social networking?
Posted: August 8, 2007 at 7:15 pm
[...] 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 [...]
Comment from walt
Posted: March 22, 2007 at 10:02 pm
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…