Comments on: Guest Post: Library 2.0: Pandemic or Panacea? by Anthony Andros http://tametheweb.com/2008/04/13/guest-post-library-20-pandemic-or-panacea-by-anthony-andros/ Libraries, Technology and People by Michael Stephens Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:29:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: stephanazs http://tametheweb.com/2008/04/13/guest-post-library-20-pandemic-or-panacea-by-anthony-andros/comment-page-1/#comment-6675 stephanazs Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:50:06 +0000 http://tametheweb.com/?p=2735#comment-6675 Interesting facts.I have bookmarked this site. stephanazs Interesting facts.I have bookmarked this site. stephanazs

]]> By: Kazellqf http://tametheweb.com/2008/04/13/guest-post-library-20-pandemic-or-panacea-by-anthony-andros/comment-page-1/#comment-5428 Kazellqf Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:36:36 +0000 http://tametheweb.com/?p=2735#comment-5428 Hi webmaster! Hi webmaster!

]]> By: walt crawford http://tametheweb.com/2008/04/13/guest-post-library-20-pandemic-or-panacea-by-anthony-andros/comment-page-1/#comment-1878 walt crawford Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:24:06 +0000 http://tametheweb.com/?p=2735#comment-1878 I was also struck by the sentence Dale Prince quotes (and eloquently discusses) above. Since "these critics" has no antecedent, I won't take it personally; certainly, I've never had people suggest that my work isn't "in the spirit of creativity and communication." So I guess "these critics" applies to people I'm not even aware of. This is an abbreviated version of a 2006 paper. Maybe the sense of dismissing any disagreement is the result of that abbreviation or age. Otherwise, I'll just say "What Dale Prince says." I was also struck by the sentence Dale Prince quotes (and eloquently discusses) above. Since “these critics” has no antecedent, I won’t take it personally; certainly, I’ve never had people suggest that my work isn’t “in the spirit of creativity and communication.” So I guess “these critics” applies to people I’m not even aware of.

This is an abbreviated version of a 2006 paper. Maybe the sense of dismissing any disagreement is the result of that abbreviation or age. Otherwise, I’ll just say “What Dale Prince says.”

]]> By: Dale Prince http://tametheweb.com/2008/04/13/guest-post-library-20-pandemic-or-panacea-by-anthony-andros/comment-page-1/#comment-1862 Dale Prince Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:49:43 +0000 http://tametheweb.com/?p=2735#comment-1862 One of the problems with this "Library 2.0" stance is that, to argue with it, to argue with the position or tactics of a 2.0 proponent is to quibble over language. To say: "It is unfortunate that these critics concern themselves with semantics, while those who are on the so-called bandwagon are working in the spirit of creativity and communication," is to foreclose discussion: if you argue, you are categorically <i>not</i> working in the spirit of creativity or communication--you are with me 100%, or you are against me. Very Bush 2.0. If Library 2.0 is an argument--and it is: a discussion with so-called traditional methodology--then Andros tries to make his case by shutting down his "opponents." This mode of discussion cannot help but create dissenters since even those who are healthily skeptical--those who say, "<i>prove</i> the efficacy, offer alternatives"--end up being lumped here. In this instance, and in others, Library 2.0 seems unable to countenance any dissent. Which could well doom it to the stagnation it has claimed for "traditional" libraries. I suggest that innovators should engage in active discussions with the people who question them and that they be prepared to defend themselves with more than "you just don't get it," "it's a generational thing," or "you are quibbling over semantics." All good arguments involve concrete examples and more than an emotional appeal to "this is what the users want." If the innovator can come up with nothing better, the innovator is merely pushing his or her own agenda. On the other hand, a substantial argument will help both groups to learn and grow. One of the problems with this “Library 2.0″ stance is that, to argue with it, to argue with the position or tactics of a 2.0 proponent is to quibble over language. To say: “It is unfortunate that these critics concern themselves with semantics, while those who are on the so-called bandwagon are working in the spirit of creativity and communication,” is to foreclose discussion: if you argue, you are categorically not working in the spirit of creativity or communication–you are with me 100%, or you are against me. Very Bush 2.0. If Library 2.0 is an argument–and it is: a discussion with so-called traditional methodology–then Andros tries to make his case by shutting down his “opponents.” This mode of discussion cannot help but create dissenters since even those who are healthily skeptical–those who say, “prove the efficacy, offer alternatives”–end up being lumped here.

In this instance, and in others, Library 2.0 seems unable to countenance any dissent. Which could well doom it to the stagnation it has claimed for “traditional” libraries. I suggest that innovators should engage in active discussions with the people who question them and that they be prepared to defend themselves with more than “you just don’t get it,” “it’s a generational thing,” or “you are quibbling over semantics.” All good arguments involve concrete examples and more than an emotional appeal to “this is what the users want.” If the innovator can come up with nothing better, the innovator is merely pushing his or her own agenda. On the other hand, a substantial argument will help both groups to learn and grow.

]]>