Farkas contends that Library 2.0 should really be about assessment: assessment of a library’s service and assessment of its patrons and their needs. The label Library 2.0 was simply that and led far too many institutions to jump on the bandwagon with regard to the new technology available with little thought to whether their patrons were interested or really needed such tools. She contends that some good developments have come about from vendors with regard to tagging. It also increased learning amongst librarians. But to simply adopt a technology because it is cool is really not the correct way to proceed.
I also found this article: Library 2.0 five years later by Walt Crawford, www.onlinemag.net Mar/Apr2011
Crawford confirms the confusion that exists around the term, something that Farkas also raised. Libraries differ in their perspectives of technologies and who should take responsibility for it (IT/library split). He also sees the term becoming a rather tired label, popularity of which is now waning. Library 2.0 technologies allowed libraries to undertake small “failable” experiments simply because of the ease of use and affordability. I don’t particularly like that tag. Farkas talks about assessment so if done correctly then failed projects shouldn’t really be a concern? He concludes that Library 2.0 has proved beneficial in terms of its concepts and philosophy providing libraries with flexibility and improved communication with communities.