While the article provides a good outline of the research on Library 2.0 and its reception in the fields of library and information studies, how we view Library 2.0 is probably no longer a moot point. Whether we see it as evolutionary, revolutionary, neither, or even both, as many of my fellow bloggers have already suggested; one thing is certain, it is here and it is now.
At this point, I tend to see Library 2.0 as evolutionary. Libraries and librarians maintain the same missions and the same services; they just use different tools in different ways. On the other hand, as Kwanya (et al.) point out, there is one particular library service that is facing a “deviation from the old order of things:” the catalog. If you ask a cataloger if open access catalogs are revolutionary, I suspect many might say a resounding, “Yes!” (some happily, some sadly, but most with some degree of trepidation.) After all, the catalog, which makes it all possible, is pretty sacred to many. In fact, remember when libraries removed—GASP!—their card catalogs? But I digress, and this topic will be addressed in March…
In short, while the notion that “any service, physical or virtual, that successfully reaches its users, is evaluated frequently, and makes use of customer input” is certainly not revolutionary (Kwanya); it is nice to think that there might always be fresh approaches to services, especially library services.
