Let's ignore the Web and Library 2.0 labels for just a moment. If I think about the individual applications and services which tend to be associated with this technology, I can say that like Fiona on her Blisspix blog, I use a lot of them and generally appreciate what they can do.
My main issue is with the 2.0 labels themselves. Why is it necessary to lump all these disparate things together? After all many of them pre-date the popularity of the 2.0 labels and they did ok before this started. I think being labelled with a contrived 2.0 term actually detracts from what each one of these ideas has to offer.
What I really object to is the language suggesting that Web 2.0 (or Library 2.0) is a revolution which people must either believe in entirely or be a clueless luddite. No, I would rather pick and choose. After all, isn't that one of the common threads in all this technology - empowering people to pick and choose?
The interesting thing about the Web 2.0 backlash is that it's not coming so much from people like Michael Gorman. It's from people who know and use the technology, and are sick of the hype and enjoy a bit of a laugh. Will the backlash take hold? I'm doubting it because when evangelists and cynics clash, the evangelists eventually win because the cynics get bored and move on to question something else. But even so, Web 2.0 will eventually run its course. When it does, Library 2.0 is going to look ridiculously 2005 and librarians will look daggy (definition for people who aren't Australians) for embracing it. ~
Marketing libraries is important and necessary - but this Library 2.0 concept is the wrong message at the wrong time.
Just to make it absolutely clear, I don't hate all things associated with Library 2.0, just the term itself. When librarians implement things commonly under this banner, it is usually a good thing - for the library and its users. It's just got the wrong name - actually any name at all causes more harm than good.
Currently playing in iTunes: A punchup at a wedding by Radiohead