≡ Menu
David Lee King

The Annoyed Librarian is Annoyed With Me



{Coolness – I made the Annoyed Librarian blog! I must be doing something right!}

The Annoyed Librarian has been, well… annoyed lately. About Library 2.0. She doesn’t like the term, doesn’t like articles, videos and blog posts that claim to be manifestos, and she writes about it (on her 2.0 BLOG, complete with tags and blogroll… but then, that’s another story entirely).

And she quoted me yesterday. Here’s the back story: she recently wrote about Library 2.0, and I didn’t agree with her, so I left a couple of comments on her post.

So the Annoyed Librarian created another post, claiming “twopointopians” are “cultists who don’t like disagreement.”

That, to me, is hilarious in and of itself (hello! I disagreed with you and left a comment saying so!). I’m guessing she doesn’t read my blog… I always ask for comments, thoughts, other opinions, and sometimes even post those discussions. And I have disagreed with other twopointopians before, and have both posted my thoughts and have left comments on their blogs [and a quick aside - readers, feel free to disagree with me, and to post about it or comment on my posts - that's what blogs are for!].

But… back to the quotes… in a comment on her post on 2.0, she was complaining that she was “reading the barrage of 2.0 propaganda from you and others” and that it “gets tiresome to a lot of people.” So I suggested that she didn’t have to read my blog. Or that she could write something else.

So she answered back, saying “it turns out I did write something. And the twopointopians don’t like it because it’s critical.”

Did you catch that? Listen closely – First she says twopointopians are “cultists who don’t like disagreement” and then, when I disagree with her, she changes tactics and says “the twopointopians don’t like it [her blog post] because it’s critical.”

AL – you can’t have it both ways! Do you WANT to have disagreement and criticism, or not? Because I will most likely not be agreeing with your ideas about 2.0. And how will you know that if I don’t leave comments on your post, or post about it on my own blog?

{And did I mention that the Annoyed Librarian got annoyed with me? Woo Hoo!}

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Kathryn Greenhill

    Do.not.feed.the.troll.

  • http://librariansmatter/blog Kathryn Greenhill

    Do.not.feed.the.troll.

  • esseffen

    too self-absorbed. unsubscribing from your blog … now.

  • esseffen

    too self-absorbed. unsubscribing from your blog … now.

  • davidleeking

    esseffen – how does pointing out holes in an argument = being too self-absorbed?

  • davidleeking

    esseffen – how does pointing out holes in an argument = being too self-absorbed?

  • http://utopianlibrary.wordpress.com/ Ruth

    Congrats on shakin’ the cage! It’s good to be among the crazy ones, for we will change the world (http://utopianlibrary.wordpress.com/?s=crazy+ones)

  • http://utopianlibrary.wordpress.com Ruth

    Congrats on shakin’ the cage! It’s good to be among the crazy ones, for we will change the world (http://utopianlibrary.wordpress.com/?s=crazy+ones)

  • Mandy

    “pointing holes in an argument”

    Geez, have you lost your sense of humour chip.
    AL is meant to be funny, I’m embarrassed for you that you have even entered into a debate with her/him.

  • Mandy

    “pointing holes in an argument”

    Geez, have you lost your sense of humour chip.
    AL is meant to be funny, I’m embarrassed for you that you have even entered into a debate with her/him.

  • davidleeking

    Mandy, you’re right – AL is supposed to be funny. But did you read the comments real librarians left on her posts? Those were decidedly NOT funny. Sure, some of those people were just blowing off steam – but not all of them, I suspect.

    Some people really, truly believe what AL wrote… but in the meantime, if you find my chip, could you mail it back to me? Thanks :-)

  • davidleeking

    Mandy, you’re right – AL is supposed to be funny. But did you read the comments real librarians left on her posts? Those were decidedly NOT funny. Sure, some of those people were just blowing off steam – but not all of them, I suspect.

    Some people really, truly believe what AL wrote… but in the meantime, if you find my chip, could you mail it back to me? Thanks :-)

  • http://remnil.livejournal.com/ Buzzy

    I’m not really sure that I see how AL changed her tactics in response to your comment. She originally stated that twopointopians dislike disagreement. You rightfully pointed out her hyperbole. She continued to say that 2.0 doesn’t like disagreement. It seems like she’s retaining the same line of argument.

    But anyway, while I agree with your comments that she’s too reductionist, I also agree with her response that library 2.0 sometimes suggests that being “user-centered” is a new concept. But we all [should] know that it is not. I worked in a library in the middle of nowhere on a dialup connection, and we considered ourselves user-centered long before 2.0. I’m sure we weren’t alone, as Jessamyn can attest.

    But regardless, even AL herself admits that her blog is at least partially a facade. Sometimes criticism, however hyperbolic, forces us to clarify and reign in our own arguments.

  • http://remnil.livejournal.com Buzzy

    I’m not really sure that I see how AL changed her tactics in response to your comment. She originally stated that twopointopians dislike disagreement. You rightfully pointed out her hyperbole. She continued to say that 2.0 doesn’t like disagreement. It seems like she’s retaining the same line of argument.

    But anyway, while I agree with your comments that she’s too reductionist, I also agree with her response that library 2.0 sometimes suggests that being “user-centered” is a new concept. But we all [should] know that it is not. I worked in a library in the middle of nowhere on a dialup connection, and we considered ourselves user-centered long before 2.0. I’m sure we weren’t alone, as Jessamyn can attest.

    But regardless, even AL herself admits that her blog is at least partially a facade. Sometimes criticism, however hyperbolic, forces us to clarify and reign in our own arguments.

  • http://libraryrevolution.com/ EmilyC

    Yes, you are doing something right. I feel that way every time I get someone to disagree with me… critical responses are so great because that’s what really gets discussion going. And I don’t think that we can get anywhere without a good, healthy debate now and then. Keeps us all honest.

    Of course, we all like nice comments from time to time, too… :)

  • http://libraryrevolution.com EmilyC

    Yes, you are doing something right. I feel that way every time I get someone to disagree with me… critical responses are so great because that’s what really gets discussion going. And I don’t think that we can get anywhere without a good, healthy debate now and then. Keeps us all honest.

    Of course, we all like nice comments from time to time, too… :)

  • http://walt.lishost.org/ walt crawford

    Coming to this late (and reluctantly), I’m a little surprised by the first comment here. There has certainly been no lack of overstatement of an “L2 position” in the past. To label a fairly articulate and pretty clearly deliberately extreme “opposite” position as trolling is, I think, unfortunate.

    Now, some of the commenters on the AL post are, indeed, over the top–and I think their presence and vociferousness says something, something that maybe needs to be heard.

    The action lies somewhere in the middle. But then, I’ve been saying that for a long time now (even wrote a book about it recently), and continue to be met mostly with yawns. Maybe it’s time to trot out extreme aphorisms instead…

  • http://walt.lishost.org walt crawford

    Coming to this late (and reluctantly), I’m a little surprised by the first comment here. There has certainly been no lack of overstatement of an “L2 position” in the past. To label a fairly articulate and pretty clearly deliberately extreme “opposite” position as trolling is, I think, unfortunate.

    Now, some of the commenters on the AL post are, indeed, over the top–and I think their presence and vociferousness says something, something that maybe needs to be heard.

    The action lies somewhere in the middle. But then, I’ve been saying that for a long time now (even wrote a book about it recently), and continue to be met mostly with yawns. Maybe it’s time to trot out extreme aphorisms instead…

  • Kathryn Greenhill

    Walt, as the Annoyed Librarian said in the comments on her “Cult of Twopointopia” post, timestamped 6:30pm “I play Devil’s Advocate”. Maybe a little removed from trolling, I’d admit – but not so far.
    http://annoyedlibrarian.blogspot.com/2007/08/cult-of-twopointopia.html

    If AL’s point is to start people thinking and getting a debate going by stating an extreme position, then this is fine. I think that to then criticize someone who publishes a well thought out and extreme manifesto designed to do exactly the same thing – get people thinking and debating – is rather trollish…deliberately making mischief rather than aiming for harmony.

  • http://librariansmatter/blog Kathryn Greenhill

    Walt, as the Annoyed Librarian said in the comments on her “Cult of Twopointopia” post, timestamped 6:30pm “I play Devil’s Advocate”. Maybe a little removed from trolling, I’d admit – but not so far.
    http://annoyedlibrarian.blogspot.com/2007/08/cult-of-twopointopia.html

    If AL’s point is to start people thinking and getting a debate going by stating an extreme position, then this is fine. I think that to then criticize someone who publishes a well thought out and extreme manifesto designed to do exactly the same thing – get people thinking and debating – is rather trollish…deliberately making mischief rather than aiming for harmony.

  • http://walt.lishost.org/ walt crawford

    Fair enough–but I’ll assert that deliberately playing devil’s advocate is a *long* way from trolling.

  • http://walt.lishost.org walt crawford

    Fair enough–but I’ll assert that deliberately playing devil’s advocate is a *long* way from trolling.

  • Pingback: Librarians Matter » Blog Archive » Best workday ever.

  • http://stevelawson.name/seealso/ Steve Lawson

    I’m with Kathryn for the most part. One way of thinking of a troll is a person that once you start arguing with them you have already lost. With AL saying “If I engaged in rational debate, I might have to pull back on some of my assertions, and that wouldn’t be fun at all,” and others saying “AL is meant to be funny, I’m embarrassed for you that you have even entered into a debate with her/him,” it seems that to argue is to lose.

    It’s a short jump from that to yhbt yhl hand.

  • http://stevelawson.name/seealso/ Steve Lawson

    I’m with Kathryn for the most part. One way of thinking of a troll is a person that once you start arguing with them you have already lost. With AL saying “If I engaged in rational debate, I might have to pull back on some of my assertions, and that wouldn’t be fun at all,” and others saying “AL is meant to be funny, I’m embarrassed for you that you have even entered into a debate with her/him,” it seems that to argue is to lose.

    It’s a short jump from that to yhbt yhl hand.

  • http://www.goblin-cartoons.com/ joshua m. neff

    What Steve said. I’ve known plenty of people like AL on the internet. They need two things: a group of people they’ve identified as “not like me” to be always angry with them, and a group of people who identify the writer as “the voice of me” to adore them. They don’t want everyone to get along because they only know how to express themselves in outrage and disdain, and you can’t do that if the people you’ve tagged as “not like me” are being reasonable and trying to find common ground with you. They move the goalposts from “why aren’t you listening to me?” to “why are you arguing with me? I’m just speaking hyperbole for effect” as it suits them. You can’t win.

  • http://www.goblin-cartoons.com joshua m. neff

    What Steve said. I’ve known plenty of people like AL on the internet. They need two things: a group of people they’ve identified as “not like me” to be always angry with them, and a group of people who identify the writer as “the voice of me” to adore them. They don’t want everyone to get along because they only know how to express themselves in outrage and disdain, and you can’t do that if the people you’ve tagged as “not like me” are being reasonable and trying to find common ground with you. They move the goalposts from “why aren’t you listening to me?” to “why are you arguing with me? I’m just speaking hyperbole for effect” as it suits them. You can’t win.

  • http://waltcrawford.name/ Walt Crawford

    I’m reluctant to disagree with Kathryn, Steve and Joshua all at once, so maybe I’m just wrong here. I would suggest that moving the goalposts isn’t unique to AL or to “that side” of the discussion, or at least hasn’t been over the last couple of years. The ever-morphing definition of Library 2.0 is one example…

    But, of course, two wrongs still don’t make a right. And I certainly don’t feel it’s my role to defend AL or any other pseudonymous blogger, particularly since I’ve argued that pseudonymy is usually a losing game in the long run (and one I won’t play). If y’all think that AL is a troll and that this means you can simply dismiss what she’s saying (and the responses she’s getting), that’s your privilege. Maybe you’re right.

  • http://waltcrawford.name Walt Crawford

    I’m reluctant to disagree with Kathryn, Steve and Joshua all at once, so maybe I’m just wrong here. I would suggest that moving the goalposts isn’t unique to AL or to “that side” of the discussion, or at least hasn’t been over the last couple of years. The ever-morphing definition of Library 2.0 is one example…

    But, of course, two wrongs still don’t make a right. And I certainly don’t feel it’s my role to defend AL or any other pseudonymous blogger, particularly since I’ve argued that pseudonymy is usually a losing game in the long run (and one I won’t play). If y’all think that AL is a troll and that this means you can simply dismiss what she’s saying (and the responses she’s getting), that’s your privilege. Maybe you’re right.

  • http://stevelawson.name/seealso/ Steve Lawson

    Walt, I agree that AL isn’t alone in sometimes “moving the goalposts,” and, while I don’t usually read AL, I think I have read enough to agree that he/she isn’t just a troll.

    However, the rhetorical moves being made here by AL and the Annoyed Posse are what make me think that the only winning move is not to play, or, to put it another way, “don’t feed the trolls.”

  • http://stevelawson.name/seealso/ Steve Lawson

    Walt, I agree that AL isn’t alone in sometimes “moving the goalposts,” and, while I don’t usually read AL, I think I have read enough to agree that he/she isn’t just a troll.

    However, the rhetorical moves being made here by AL and the Annoyed Posse are what make me think that the only winning move is not to play, or, to put it another way, “don’t feed the trolls.”

  • Kathryn Greenhill

    Hi Walt, Steve, Josh…anyone else in the comments..even David..(whose blog this is :))

    I love the way that this discussion is a chance to explore differences respectfully and try to see each other’s point of view. It shows to me the best bits about the library blogosphere.

    I don’t think that AL is just a troll, nor do I think that her rhetoric is reason to ignore the message she is trying to get across. I do, however think that in this case, to ty to argue against the specific hyperbolic and exaggerated arguments (rather than the intent) of the message is wasting energy that would be better used finding another way to bridge the gap.

    By the way, I was wondering whether I’ve made it clear enough that I really admire David’s approach to disagreement and criticism in his blog? I’m not criticising you or calling you self absorbed because of the way you are responding to this. I just don’t want you to spend too much energy hanging out with the Strawmen.

    What’s a really intersting discussion is: what gulf/chasm was the unfortunately expressed post revealing, is there a way to bridge it and is there enough of a common purpose (eg. we are all technically competent and love libraries) to work together?

    Personally, I find AL just plain rude often, sometimes snarkily funny, but maybe she’s right – I just don’t relate to the culture of people who disagree in the way she does. I get intimidated by that kind of argumentativeness, or mightily pissed off when I read a lot of the responses on her blog – and scared or angry people don’t usually make good listeners.

    I’m still not convinced that the mob she identifies as twopointopians are getting agreement to what they are saying via intimidation and blind faith. She criticises twopointopians for not presenting evidence and then makes unsupported assertions like that? Has she considered that it’s possibly because other librarains are beginning to try these tools, examine the new attitudes they bring and – just maybe – agreeing?

    Ooops. Maybe that last paragraph just slipped the troll a couple of choccie bikkies – damn but it’s easy to do.

  • http://librariansmatter/blog Kathryn Greenhill

    Hi Walt, Steve, Josh…anyone else in the comments..even David..(whose blog this is :))

    I love the way that this discussion is a chance to explore differences respectfully and try to see each other’s point of view. It shows to me the best bits about the library blogosphere.

    I don’t think that AL is just a troll, nor do I think that her rhetoric is reason to ignore the message she is trying to get across. I do, however think that in this case, to ty to argue against the specific hyperbolic and exaggerated arguments (rather than the intent) of the message is wasting energy that would be better used finding another way to bridge the gap.

    By the way, I was wondering whether I’ve made it clear enough that I really admire David’s approach to disagreement and criticism in his blog? I’m not criticising you or calling you self absorbed because of the way you are responding to this. I just don’t want you to spend too much energy hanging out with the Strawmen.

    What’s a really intersting discussion is: what gulf/chasm was the unfortunately expressed post revealing, is there a way to bridge it and is there enough of a common purpose (eg. we are all technically competent and love libraries) to work together?

    Personally, I find AL just plain rude often, sometimes snarkily funny, but maybe she’s right – I just don’t relate to the culture of people who disagree in the way she does. I get intimidated by that kind of argumentativeness, or mightily pissed off when I read a lot of the responses on her blog – and scared or angry people don’t usually make good listeners.

    I’m still not convinced that the mob she identifies as twopointopians are getting agreement to what they are saying via intimidation and blind faith. She criticises twopointopians for not presenting evidence and then makes unsupported assertions like that? Has she considered that it’s possibly because other librarains are beginning to try these tools, examine the new attitudes they bring and – just maybe – agreeing?

    Ooops. Maybe that last paragraph just slipped the troll a couple of choccie bikkies – damn but it’s easy to do.

  • http://www.goblin-cartoons.com/ joshua m. neff

    (Good Golly, this is all becoming eerily reminiscent of a debate I used to be a part of in a whole different corner of the internet.)

    Walt, I never said moving the goalposts was unique to one side. However, the ever-changing definition of Library 2.0 isn’t moving the goalposts. If I say Library 2.0 isn’t inherently about technology and someone else says it absolutely is, that’s not moving the goalposts. That’s two people looking at the same thing and drawing two different conclusions. That happens all the time in philosophy, politics, religion, psychology, etc. (See Meredith’s invoking of the Tower of Babel.) If you ask 10 librarians to define what a library is, you’ll probably get 11 different answers. That’s not moving the goalposts. Moving the goalposts is this:

    Critic: The problem with the Library 2.0 people is that they can’t come up with a strict, generally accepted definition of what Library 2.0 is.

    Library 2.0 enthusiasts: Okay, we all agree that Library 2.0 is this.

    Critic: See? The problem with the Library 2.0 people is that they all spout the exact same rhetoric. They’re hiveminded cultists who have drunk the Kool-Aid and allowed themselves to be brainwashed.

    Here’s another example:

    Blogger: The problem with Library 2.0 people is that they can’t stand anyone who disagrees with them. They don’t take differing opinions like mine into account.

    Library 2.0 Blogger: That’s not true. I frequently ask for people to disagree with me, and when they do, I acknowledge that I may be wrong and ask for discussion, to come to a better conclusion. So, tell me your concerns and I’ll try to address them.

    Blogger: You loser! I was simply saying that for humorous effect! By even taking me seriously and engaging me, you’ve shown yourself to be pompous and humorless. Can’t you take a joke?

    These are discussions that, as Steve has said, you lose as soon as you enter into them. Surely you can see a difference, Walt, between changing one’s mind mid-discussion (because new evidence has presented itself, requiring you to adjust your conclusions) and changing the entire nature of the discussion (by changing what is being discussed, from “what is Library 2.0?” to “is there any way to talk with me without being mocked and derided?”). There are some people, like David and Steve and myself, who are interested in discussing and debating to come to better conclusions about things. There are other people who may appear to be interested in discussion, but they’re really only interested in attention, positive and/or negative. Whether you want to label these people “trolls” or not, I don’t find it worth trying to play their game.

  • http://www.goblin-cartoons.com joshua m. neff

    (Good Golly, this is all becoming eerily reminiscent of a debate I used to be a part of in a whole different corner of the internet.)

    Walt, I never said moving the goalposts was unique to one side. However, the ever-changing definition of Library 2.0 isn’t moving the goalposts. If I say Library 2.0 isn’t inherently about technology and someone else says it absolutely is, that’s not moving the goalposts. That’s two people looking at the same thing and drawing two different conclusions. That happens all the time in philosophy, politics, religion, psychology, etc. (See Meredith’s invoking of the Tower of Babel.) If you ask 10 librarians to define what a library is, you’ll probably get 11 different answers. That’s not moving the goalposts. Moving the goalposts is this:

    Critic: The problem with the Library 2.0 people is that they can’t come up with a strict, generally accepted definition of what Library 2.0 is.

    Library 2.0 enthusiasts: Okay, we all agree that Library 2.0 is this.

    Critic: See? The problem with the Library 2.0 people is that they all spout the exact same rhetoric. They’re hiveminded cultists who have drunk the Kool-Aid and allowed themselves to be brainwashed.

    Here’s another example:

    Blogger: The problem with Library 2.0 people is that they can’t stand anyone who disagrees with them. They don’t take differing opinions like mine into account.

    Library 2.0 Blogger: That’s not true. I frequently ask for people to disagree with me, and when they do, I acknowledge that I may be wrong and ask for discussion, to come to a better conclusion. So, tell me your concerns and I’ll try to address them.

    Blogger: You loser! I was simply saying that for humorous effect! By even taking me seriously and engaging me, you’ve shown yourself to be pompous and humorless. Can’t you take a joke?

    These are discussions that, as Steve has said, you lose as soon as you enter into them. Surely you can see a difference, Walt, between changing one’s mind mid-discussion (because new evidence has presented itself, requiring you to adjust your conclusions) and changing the entire nature of the discussion (by changing what is being discussed, from “what is Library 2.0?” to “is there any way to talk with me without being mocked and derided?”). There are some people, like David and Steve and myself, who are interested in discussing and debating to come to better conclusions about things. There are other people who may appear to be interested in discussion, but they’re really only interested in attention, positive and/or negative. Whether you want to label these people “trolls” or not, I don’t find it worth trying to play their game.

  • http://waltcrawford.name/ walt crawford

    Yes, I see a difference. And my comment “Maybe I’m wrong here” is sincere–maybe, in this case, the process is such that no useful discussion can take place on the AL post itself.

  • http://waltcrawford.name walt crawford

    Yes, I see a difference. And my comment “Maybe I’m wrong here” is sincere–maybe, in this case, the process is such that no useful discussion can take place on the AL post itself.

  • http://waltcrawford.name/ walt crawford

    Sorry; the brief comment above is a little incomplete. The key point: Yes, it’s probably a waste of energy to pursue the discussion at the AL blog itself. Although this side conversation has not, I believe, been a waste of energy.

    When I used the indefinition of Library 2.0 as an example, I was imprecise. It was my impression, at least, that–back in the day–there was a tendency to keep redefining Library 2.0, even within a single thread, so as to undermine any argument against it. That’s one reason I did the special issue. I’m not sure it helped.

    What I see happening at this blog over the last few weeks is interesting and quite different. David put up a vector graphic that some of us (including me) found somewhat confrontational. After some back-and-forth, David replaced it with a set of concentric circles that I find interesting and not at all confrontational. That wasn’t moving the goalposts; it was changing the way you (David) were saying something, and maybe changing what you were trying to say, based on a multipart conversation. Good stuff. Thanks, David.

    Oh, and by the way, PaperCuts is a really interesting blog (at DLK’s library, that is), even if the archives are hard for me to deal with.

  • http://waltcrawford.name walt crawford

    Sorry; the brief comment above is a little incomplete. The key point: Yes, it’s probably a waste of energy to pursue the discussion at the AL blog itself. Although this side conversation has not, I believe, been a waste of energy.

    When I used the indefinition of Library 2.0 as an example, I was imprecise. It was my impression, at least, that–back in the day–there was a tendency to keep redefining Library 2.0, even within a single thread, so as to undermine any argument against it. That’s one reason I did the special issue. I’m not sure it helped.

    What I see happening at this blog over the last few weeks is interesting and quite different. David put up a vector graphic that some of us (including me) found somewhat confrontational. After some back-and-forth, David replaced it with a set of concentric circles that I find interesting and not at all confrontational. That wasn’t moving the goalposts; it was changing the way you (David) were saying something, and maybe changing what you were trying to say, based on a multipart conversation. Good stuff. Thanks, David.

    Oh, and by the way, PaperCuts is a really interesting blog (at DLK’s library, that is), even if the archives are hard for me to deal with.

  • http://www.goblin-cartoons.com/ joshua m. neff

    Also, here’s my own disclaimer: I may very well be applying my own baggage from past internet experiences to this instance. Maybe AL is sincerely interested in discussion, compromise, and either coming to mutal conclusions or goodnaturedly agreeing to disagree. It doesn’t look that way to me, but I have my own lenses I look through.

  • http://www.goblin-cartoons.com joshua m. neff

    Also, here’s my own disclaimer: I may very well be applying my own baggage from past internet experiences to this instance. Maybe AL is sincerely interested in discussion, compromise, and either coming to mutal conclusions or goodnaturedly agreeing to disagree. It doesn’t look that way to me, but I have my own lenses I look through.

  • davidleeking

    You guys are truly awesome! Look at this amazing discussion taking place – you have turned something that started off really sort of snarky into something I find extremely useful.

    Thanks!

  • davidleeking

    You guys are truly awesome! Look at this amazing discussion taking place – you have turned something that started off really sort of snarky into something I find extremely useful.

    Thanks!

  • Shannon

    I personally think one of the issues here is the phrase that so many “twopointopians” have adopted–that they are the librarians that “get it”. I find this to be rather a combative phrase, somewhat dismissive and even possibly intimidating. (I’m not familiar enough with this blog to say whether that phrase has appeared here or not). That phrase certainly does not encourage any middle ground–either you “get it” or you don’t. Anyone using that phrase does not seem to me to be open to rational debate, but rather openly disdainful of anyone who disagrees with them.

  • Shannon

    I personally think one of the issues here is the phrase that so many “twopointopians” have adopted–that they are the librarians that “get it”. I find this to be rather a combative phrase, somewhat dismissive and even possibly intimidating. (I’m not familiar enough with this blog to say whether that phrase has appeared here or not). That phrase certainly does not encourage any middle ground–either you “get it” or you don’t. Anyone using that phrase does not seem to me to be open to rational debate, but rather openly disdainful of anyone who disagrees with them.

  • davidleeking

    And Walt – good observation. I think that’s the difference between blogs like this one and and the AL’s blog. Comments and at least some posts there – possibly not too useful (especially the fascist and religious zealot references).

    These however (and of course I’m biased here, since it’s on MY blog, after all) show what CAN happen when one person presents a thought – incomplete though it might be – and allows others to build it, stretch it, test it, critique it, and hopefully pull out something even better.

    For me, the goal is helping libraries and librarians improve themselves. We do the “heavy lifting,” so to speak – and others get to see the possibilities after the dust has settled.

  • davidleeking

    And Walt – good observation. I think that’s the difference between blogs like this one and and the AL’s blog. Comments and at least some posts there – possibly not too useful (especially the fascist and religious zealot references).

    These however (and of course I’m biased here, since it’s on MY blog, after all) show what CAN happen when one person presents a thought – incomplete though it might be – and allows others to build it, stretch it, test it, critique it, and hopefully pull out something even better.

    For me, the goal is helping libraries and librarians improve themselves. We do the “heavy lifting,” so to speak – and others get to see the possibilities after the dust has settled.

  • davidleeking

    Shannon – I partially agree with you. And I have probably said the “get it” phrase at some point.

    Here’s where I agree – A twopointopian might very well “get” the web 2.0 stuff – they are the ones who understand how to create a blog, edit the php behind it, customize the CMS, etc. But here’s what that person might NOT get – the system-wide strategic planning that might be needed to implement and sustain a blog. Answering the “why do we need this” in language his/her administration might understand.

    And here’s where I disagree – there’s a reason people ask me to write and speak about this stuff (just using myself as one example of many here).

    For example, I just spoke at a smaller library yesterday about 2.0 stuff. They asked me because I do, in fact, understand it, and they didn’t (they do now :-).

    So yes – there are certainly extremes. But sometimes, the get it/don’t get it language is also appropriate.

  • davidleeking

    Shannon – I partially agree with you. And I have probably said the “get it” phrase at some point.

    Here’s where I agree – A twopointopian might very well “get” the web 2.0 stuff – they are the ones who understand how to create a blog, edit the php behind it, customize the CMS, etc. But here’s what that person might NOT get – the system-wide strategic planning that might be needed to implement and sustain a blog. Answering the “why do we need this” in language his/her administration might understand.

    And here’s where I disagree – there’s a reason people ask me to write and speak about this stuff (just using myself as one example of many here).

    For example, I just spoke at a smaller library yesterday about 2.0 stuff. They asked me because I do, in fact, understand it, and they didn’t (they do now :-).

    So yes – there are certainly extremes. But sometimes, the get it/don’t get it language is also appropriate.

  • davidleeking

    Joshua – here’s my observation of AL – he/she says something meant to inflame or at least to be humorous in a sarcastic way (the way she ripped into that manifesto, for example). And then his/her commenters tear into it and anyone who says something they don’t like.

    Anonymity is wonderful – no one knows if you’re a dog :-)