John Blyberg has a nice commentary up re Libber 2.0 stuff; some folk are recanting, some are stopping to question. I think Farkas hit the point well when she commented:

“When you have something as amorphous as Library 2.0, it can be interpreted in so many ways. Some people see it as being all about technology. Some see it more as a service philosophy. Others see it more about organizational change.”

It’s probably fair to say that a bunch of folk have got caught up on the tech toys side (nothing wrong with that, I love toys too) and not been so successful on fitting it in with their workflows, or their library structure. As I’ve occasionally commented, online and off, I still reckon the bookmobile remains one of the best examples of library 2.0 in action. It’s about connecting with your patrons, it’s about meeting them in their space. A thought I hadn’t considered before, the bookmobile is a thing where patrons invite it into their spaces, where the library says “Hi, we’ve got a book delivery service, would you like us to visit?”. Rather than the recent 2.0 approach of, “hey! We’re in your space, come talk to us”. I don’t know if that’s a fair or even accurate, representation.

There has been a sense in some areas, that library folk are jumping into various spaces like facebook, myspace, flickr, etc and going “we’re here…”. Yet at the same time I think it’s been useful for folk to gain experience in these things, to try them out, play with the levers and buttons. If, as a result, folk re-examine their workplace, think about why they do what they do, consider possibilities for improvement, then that strikes me as a good thing. I’ve been playing with 2.0ish stuff myself and it’s fun, similarly I used to be really active on usenet many years ago, and the occasional MUD, and IRC. These days, 2.0 stuff is similar but with pictures :-)