Caleb, thanks for picking up on this. "Stewing" is definitely the right word. While the "more in-depth" direction is the thing that's making sense to me right now, I'm looking forward to a pretty broad discussion. I think a lot of people are jumping on the 2.0 bandwagon..which is fine...but at some point we'll need to start judging what the desired outcomes are. Increased stats? Better PR (for Reference? For the Library as a whole)? Artificial or not, our library makes a distinction between RA and Reference. I see a very different role for 2.0 tools in RA and Ref...but perhaps I could be convinced otherwise. Anyway, thanks again, and I'll keep checking in.
Caleb, thanks for picking up
Caleb, thanks for picking up on this. "Stewing" is definitely the right word. While the "more in-depth" direction is the thing that's making sense to me right now, I'm looking forward to a pretty broad discussion. I think a lot of people are jumping on the 2.0 bandwagon..which is fine...but at some point we'll need to start judging what the desired outcomes are. Increased stats? Better PR (for Reference? For the Library as a whole)? Artificial or not, our library makes a distinction between RA and Reference. I see a very different role for 2.0 tools in RA and Ref...but perhaps I could be convinced otherwise. Anyway, thanks again, and I'll keep checking in.
--Bill Pardue (bpardue@ahml.info)