I really enjoyed reading the “Deconstructing Library 2.0” article by Andy Woodworth.  He states that one aspect of Library 2.0 is that it involves “The concept of an organization changing due to external pressures over time,” and he states that “that does not strike him as being radical or controversial at all.” In many ways this question mirrors some of the feelings I have always had about web 2.0 technology. It seems to me that much of what we have done through other means, we are now simply doing through new online tools. It seems that the common thread among these new tools is the capability of greater user interactivity and user-generated content.

I think that there could be some benefit in viewing web 2.0 technology from a more historical or evolutionary perspective, whatever that may be. I agree with Stephanie who stated that  ”Subjects, professions, the web, they’re all just evolving like everything in the world does everyday.”  I think that it would be constructive to view these technologies in terms of how they relate to previous ones. Also, it could be beneficial to view these technologies singularly instead of lumping them together under the umbrella term “web 2.0.” While they share commonalities such as user-generated content and interactivity, they also have differences. Viewing them evolutionary could highlight these differences. It could also make them more understandable and approachable to those who may be apprehensive about adopting them. As Woodworth seems to imply in the above quote, using this technology to communicate traditional or everyday information takes some of the mystery out of it.

Ultimately, I am also trying to come to an understanding of the significance of web 2.0. To me it really seems like just another way of communicating and not really that big a deal, but perhaps I have just grown used to it.