Talk:Library 2.0

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 October 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dvcap. Peer reviewers: Dvcap.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting problem?[edit]

This page has some sort of formatting problem; I can't figure it out. Look at the references; they are split up. Denverjeffrey (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Library 2.0 vs. Business 2.0[edit]

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

Deletion[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Buzzword[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Time to remove the "nofootnotes" warning[edit]

That warning banner citing lack of inline citations was made in February 2008. Now it's April 2009, and I'd say there's a fair amount of inline citations. So I'm going to remove that warning sign since it's no longer valid. -- kosboot (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notes" Section[edit]

The "Notes" section of this article should be removed. It's just a general observation about the meaning of Web 2.0 which is entirely redundant with the Web 2.0 page. The link in the opening section and Overview more than suffice in explaining the connection between Library 2.0 and Web 2.0. Phette23 (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was also copied from somewhere else; I've removed it.

Citations[edit]

This article currently uses a hodgepodge of referencing styles; I'd like to propose converting to inline {{cite}} templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there were no objections, this is now done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Library 2.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Library 2.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Library 2.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Library 2.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added Artificial Intelligence and Participatory Library (Library 2.0) topic and paragraph[edit]

Hi, I added the Artificial Intelligence and Participatory Library (Library 2.0) Topic and paragraph with an academic reference. --- Dvcap (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added a library picture (NYC Public Library Research Room) --- Dvcap (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[edit]

Inserted a picture at article --- Dvcap (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Library_2.0&oldid=1203581030"