T. Scott has a great post about the term Library 2.0. Like him, the term tends to send my set my teeth on edge. You might think that funny since I was one of the presenters for MLA's Emerging Technologies Webcast. What sets his teeth (and mine) grinding about the term is its definition in an article by Michael Casey and Laura C. Sevastinuk where they refer to "Library 2.0" as a "new model for library service." Also stating, "the heart of Library 2.0 is user-centered change." They define a Library 2.0 service as "Any service, physical or virtual, that successfully reaches users, is evaluated frequently, and makes use of customer input..."

It seems to me that this is a definition that is used by many of the Library 2.0 pundits. No wonder there are librarians whose ears start to bleed when they hear the term Library 2.0. Because according to that definition and the feeling I get from many of the pundits is that if you are not on the Library 2.0 train then you are not providing services to your patrons and you are opposed to reaching your users (and have been this way under whatever and whenever Library 1.0 was around). I have actually talked to other librarians who start to get angry when they hear the term Library 2.0. As one told me, "The Library 2.0 people talk about providing services like I have never been providing them in the past. To add insult to injury, if I am not providing every possible Web 2.0 service imaginable I get the feeling from them that I am a bad, bad librarian and should be put out to pasture."

Personally, I use the term Library 2.0 to mean that you are using Web 2.0 technologies to enhance your services. I don't think it is an entirely new way of thinking, I think librarians have always tried to provide services to our patrons using new tools. I really enjoyed reading Scott's post because I think it summarized (way better than I ever could) some of the thoughts of librarians about term Library 2.0.