Looks like I ruffled a few feathers with my most recent L2 post. The problem with communicating in this way (via the web) is that people don’t really know you, your personality, or your tones. First, I want to apologize for making people think I was telling them to “shut up” … in fact my mother would probably call me up to ground me right this second for even typing that … Steve Lawson (who commented on Walt’s thread) interpreted me correctly
I do not read that as “make them shut up and sit down” I read it as “make them stop ripping on Library 2.0 long enough to think about what Abram is saying.”
And I didn’t mean that just because Stephen Abram said something it must be true – I just meant that his post was really well written, made some excellent points, and had an impact on me.
I just wanted to add this postscript because I’ve been sitting here perplexed for the last hour or so – why is there any controversy at all surrounding such a little idea – the idea that it’s time for libraries to re-evaluate, learn new things and give the patrons more control? Is it the control issue? Is it the change issue? Is it the learning issue? I just don’t get it – and maybe that’s why I had such a “spunky” (to use Stephen Cohen’s word) post. Maybe the problem is because L2 has been used in conjunction with words like bandwagon – which I agree gives it a negative feel – but can’t we look past that and see that all we all want is to offer better services to our patrons? So what if I call it L2 and you don’t want to give it a label? I’d like to think we all want the same thing in the end.
Okay rant over – I’m done – for today