Talk:Library 2.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on November 22, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

I think we've been "Colbert"ed. There's a "Librarians are hiding something" in the key principles, and I'm going to go ahead and remove it. --KylaSedai

Surely it should say "Companies wanting to do business with public or academic libraries should not be creating proprietary software", not hardware. Helperzoom 19:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. NickW 09:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Library 2.0 is as much, if not more, of an offshoot of Business 2.0 (which came long before Web 2.0) thinking as it is with Web 2.0. I disagree with the suggestion that this entry be merged with Web 2.0 memes. Mecasey 26 August 2006

Library 2.0 appears to offer school organisations a way to capture and develop their own knowledge in a way currently not possible with existing proprietary software. kezg

Can anybody explain why has the article been proposed for deletion? It's fine and informative, leaving much to develop though, but what's so wrong with it that it's been proposed for deletion?

From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Library_2.0 - "Yet Another Web Neologism. From the article: The term "Library 2.0" was coined by Michael Casey on his blog. Says it all, really. A neologism coined by a blogger and used by bloggers, not notable". Go to that discussion page to add your two cents (after reading Wikipedia:Deletion_policy) 68.97.208.222 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because Casey coined the term on his blog instead of in a scholarly article does not mean that it isn't taken seriously by the profession. Are you a librarian, 68.97.208.222? I suspect not, given your ignorance about the place that Library 2.0 now has in professional discussions and literature. Library 2.0 might have started as a neologism, but it has since moved on to become something that is likely to change the way librarians think about the profession. Eclecticlibrarian 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, with the proliferation of lectures and articles that discuss Library 2.0, I think the request for article deletion should be retracted. kosboot 19:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buzzword

I had not checked the article in a few weeks, and now I see there is a new category, "Buzzword" added. Personally, I find this a neutral term. However, Wikipedia appears to give this word a negative connotation, associating it with neologism. To me that strongly suggests that some person wants to remove the Library 2.0 article. A look at other topics in the buzzword category shows a variety of terms that good-meaning Wikipedians (ignorant of the library or other field) might want to eventually delete or merge.

At this point in time, I would say "Library 2.0" is far, far more than a negatively-intended buzzword, and would suggest the category be deleted in order to protect the article. kosboot (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a great question for this guy. -- Swerdnaneb 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much. "Library 2.0" has been up for deletion before, and it would easily survive another challenge if need be. A category won't change that. Rl (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)