I'm sorry for not replying earlier to the comments on my previous post. I've been wanting to, but then some other things happened. Enough time has passed and this comment has lengthened to the extent that it might as well be another post.
CW: I almost wrote something in my final paragraph about the presentation which you did last week. As an illustration of a good thing. People who are enthusiastic and try to educate and get people excited about using these services are of are absolutely vital to the profession. This opinion is so widespread amongst librarian bloggers that it barely needs saying, but I want to say it anyway. On the other hand, I'm more interested a point that is slightly more controversial. I think that we also need the contrary voices. It should be ok to be sceptical without being called obstructionist or luddite. It should be ok to say, "Yes, but what about this problem?" This dialogue can be extremely difficult, but it has to happen. I'm learning in my new job is that when implementing new technology in the workplace, the technology is the easier stuff (even when it's being very difficult). The harder stuff is working with people to accept and actually support the changes. A part of me would like to run ahead and be in the revolution, leaving these slow coaches behind - but that's neither possible nor desirable for me. So I decide that I might as well welcome this challenge, knowing that this collaboration will make the final result more solid and better supported in the workplace - and probably prevent me from making some dreadful mistakes.
Please excuse this American western pioneer analogy. Like an annoying song, it won't leave my head until I've written it down. There are some people are make good scouts, they're quick and they can explore these strange new lands we're heading into, understand what's going on and then communicate this to the rest of us. Other people are better at maintaining the wagons and the horses and keeping everything alive and moving - albeit much slower than the scouts. Others are more in touch with the past than the future - their role is to remind us of who we are and how we came to be in this situation. ((I wouldn't be able to say which I would be, maybe a hybrid, like a short-range scout)) Problems only happen when somebody decides that their role is the most important. At one extreme is deciding that the scouts should stop their scouting and be forced to do all their work around the camps, that the future doesn't matter any more. The other extreme is the scouts declaring that everybody should be just like them, ditch the wagons and sprint into the wilderness where the promised land awaits, ready to solve all their problems.
Angel: Like you, I never planned on writing another post about this, but it just happened. Your point about Generation X as a bridge generation was very well made. Of course, it's a given that any statement about generational differences involves over generalizations - but that doesn't mean the topic should be taboo. I had been wondering if this web 2.0 backlash might be more of a Generation X reaction - we were fairly cynical to start with. Then came the dot com bubble and crash - and we now we are seeing similarities between the hype from the late 1990s and Web 2.0, and this worries us.
Walt: Thanks for your comment. Speaking for myself, I think that my positions have become less confrontational as this discussion has continued here and in other places. From sarcastic satire, to a serious rant to why can't we all just get along? My views are often a moving target. That's why I'm better off blogging. I imagine if I wrote a book, my thoughts at the end of the process would be totally different from what I was thinking at the beginning.