I read T. Scott Plutchak's piece and disagreed with a few points but I didn't want to get into a debate -- I'm hesitant to try to redefine what Laura and I tried so hard to say in the LJ article. However, I just read David Rothman's newest post and he says pretty much exactly what I was thinking, so I want to point to it from here:
I think T. Scott Plutchak, like every reader, can infer what he likes from an article, but I don’t think Casey and Savastinuk implied that libraries have previously been opposed to reaching users or making use of customer input. I think they said that we should try to reach more users, to actively invite and facilitate customer input and have a stronger, clearer, more consistent conversation with our patrons. They’re not saying what came before is bad, they’re saying we can do better.
Libraries CAN do better, SHOULD do better, and WILL do better, and probably due in no small part to passionate people like Casey, Savastinuk and their contemporaries who constantly use mushy terms I am uneasy with, like “Library 2.0″ and “social software.”