« Flickr's Gone Gamma | Main | Librarians + Good Marketing = Sweet Success »

Library 2.0 via a 1.0 Delivery Company


This post has been removed. On 5/19/06 I received an email from the CEO of the "1.0 Delivery Company" (herein referred to as "the corporation") that the ALA contracted to manage the Library 2.0 Boot Camp. That email led me to believe that legal action was being threatened.

I stand by my assertion that "the corporation" chose the wrong tools to teach a course on Library 2.0.  I remain convinced that there exist better open source options instead of the proprietary and less flexible tools that "the corporation" chose. WordPress, Drupal, and certain tools from 37 Signals, as well as other options, would have allowed the students to use the same 2.0 tools in class that they will be using outside of class. This argument is very well made in the comments to a post on Wandering Eyre.

As one of several original writers on the concept and theory of Library 2.0, I believe I am well positioned to express my personal opinion regarding anyone's attempt to interpret and teach on this topic.  My opinion continues to be that there are others better qualified to manage a course on Library 2.0.  That being said, I have no desire or intent to defame or harm "the corporation", and in fact I do not believe that I have harmed or defamed "the corporation".  However, I have no desire to meet "the corporation" in court; despite the fact that I believe my criticism of their business practices was protected speech.


ARGH, when will people (and corporations) learn to understand opinions?

Using proprietary tools for a Web 2.0 workshop does seem to contradict the whole ideas of open participation.

I'm sorry this happened Michael -- but I do like that you refuse to be stifled.

You wouldn't be referring to that company with a name of a carnivorous mammal of the weasel family, would you?

I see they have gone from being defensive to being offensive.

The little graph that Creating Passionate Users posts from time to time about How users feel about your product or service comes to mind. Looks like the unnamed company is doing "good."

Looking at the way "the corporation" handled criticism versus how Jenny handled the same criticisms on her blog is a clear example of the differences between 1.0 and 2.0. I think "the corporation" could have accepted the criticism, provided their rationale for doing things they way they did and make a good faith effort to improve things (especially since this seems to be a pilot project for a larger enterprise-level $$$ program http://www.ottergroup.com/blog/_archives/2006/1/9/1633065.html). Perhaps this final point gives us some clues to the reason that "the corporation" is being so threatening to people who criticize them -- especially people who were nice enough to record a podcast for the program. But what do I know? I'm a "deluded" person who actually believes that things can be done better.

For the record, I never threatened legal action and I never even considered it. The text of my email read: "I view the nature of your post on the Otter Group as both erroneous and possibly damaging to my business. I would like to ask you to remove the post immediately."

All I was concerned about was how my company's learning model was being described. I agree wholeheartedly with Michael's right to have an opinion about Library 2.0 and who is qualified to teach it and his opinion about our technology choices. Clearly Blogware is not the right blogging solution for this community. Knowing what I know now, I would never have recommended it. There is a larger argument over the podcasting infrastructure and whether or not libraries standardize on iTunes. If Apple extends its offer of free podcasting server software beyond the educational market then it may be the right choice for libraries. But that will be for all of you to figure out. People have their own preferences about aggregators. But you all should know that Pito Salas at Blogbridge is working on a directory system for RSS collections that should be interoperable with any aggregator. He is looking for design input from librarians, so if you all would like to consult with him, you can reach him at pitosalas [at] gmail.com.

Oh, I see. Michael's post is damaging to your business. Got it. See, I had thought it was the defensive counter-attack launched by the Otter Group that was damaging your business. My mistake.


If Michael's post contained erroneous information, a blog gives you an excellent ability to correct his mistakes in the comments. Asking him to remove a post? That's really bad form--it's no wonder he interpreted that as a legal threat, because there's no other reason to remove a blog post.

But he was stifled! I think Kathleen Gilroy's view is ridiculous. It was a lousy product that was huriting her company's business. It is just like ALA to go to the commercial sector for services and people when those services and people could be provided by hiring some of its members to provide technical services.


Look on the bright side. Your blog is now so popular and powerful that just one post has the potential to hurt a company's business.

With such power comes great responsibility. ;-)