library school invades

Conclusion to a review of this article.

Although Crawford fails to distinguish for the reader a discernable difference between Library 2.0, and “Library 2.0”, the article was useful in continuing the debate. In the months following the publication and into the present, several articles have been published in journals by his peers.

Some attention has been paid as well to some of the deficiencies in Crawford’s approach, as discussed above. One blog post in particular raises

doubts about the name, the bandwagon, the universal applicability of the concepts, the need to drop those dangerous old ideas and focus on “Library 2.0,” the extent to which the term was being used in a confrontational manner…and other doubts.

Interestingly, this post, entitled “Library 2.0” - an apology, was made by Crawford himself. It is, in fact, rather an exaggeration to call the post an apology, as Crawford drops his truculent tone for only a moment before resuming again with “For those who interpret this post as another attack on Library 2.0: I can’t control your interpretations, although you’re dead wrong” and other such words of kindness. We see here nonetheless some acceptance by Crawford that his approach may be seen by others—even if these others are “dead wrong”—as excessively tendentious, and even, perhaps, rather manipulative.

Crawford does offer, in response to his critics who, though perhaps “dead wrong,” have felt themselves maligned in his writings, that in future articles where his research consists primarily of information taken from weblogs, bloggers will have the option to not to be included. This, quite frankly, seems rather an unnecessary step on Crawford’s part. Anything published on a blog should be fair game for citation in academic and professional papers. If Crawford really wishes to prevent people from feeling that he has treated them unfairly, then he does not need to stop citing them—he simply needs to treat them fairly when he does. There is, indisputably, an excellent and important argument to be had on Library 2.0 (or even, perhaps, “Library 2.0”) and its correct role in the library’s future. But Crawford’s approach does little to illuminate—and much to obscure—the open and thoughtful discussion that the subject deserves.