Shakespeare always says it better. This is the only time I will adress the issue of the “Library 2.0” name. A lot of people seems to react confrontational and negatively when they hear the words Library 2.0. And so far as I have gathered it is not about what Library 2.0 stands for, although there seems to be a lot of confusion about that as well, but merely the adding of “2.0” to the word “Library” seems to provoke some people. I think I can understand some of this. By collecting and naming a series of different ideas and trends as one “movement” there will be those who feel that the old has been rejected and judged failing. I do not think so, but I can see how this can be interpreted by anyone who does not feel comfortable with comparing their own experiences with the issues that Library 2.0 address. However, the name is a coincidence, it could just as well be called “the new librarianship” or “future libraries” or any other name that identifies these ideas and the discussion as different from what has gone before.
The general thing though, is that I refuse to waste any more effort on the debate over the name. Anybody who dislikes the name are free to find other names, ignore the debate, or just read and comment and discuss the ideas and underlying principlies instead of the name.
Some of us likes the name Library 2.0, which signifies an upgrade while still retaining the core of what came before. The Library 2.0 concept recognizes that we live in a time where the lifestyle of the people who use libraries are in a state of change and probably will remain so. By involving the people who use libraries in the creation and deliverance of our services we both enhance the quality of what we do, and we do a better job of fulfilling our mission.