Assessing the Effectiveness of Web 2.0

They say "everything old becomes new again", and so it would appear to also be true in the matter of Online information dissemination. I've lost track of the number of hugely successfully authors (critically acclaimed as well as commercially viable) who stated their work is read because there's "something there to offend everyone" - or words to that effect.

And what better way to assess the effectiveness of Web 2.0 communication than to collate data as to what and why "advice" is given regarding the restriction of "certain information".

Whilst still contemplating the implications of the very recent verbal instruction that a certain person "did not expect to see their name mentioned" by me on "any website or listserv", and the confidential classification of The Meeting, and a prohibition on revealing the nature of the discussion, and the expectation of that none of the identities of the other parties would be revealed ... it occurs to me that perhaps I may have been the only one present that sees the true nature of the instruction.

We're not talking anti-terrorism strategies, national security policies, or even daytime television programming. This was a conflict resolution meeting regarding different perspectives on library management.

Can't tell you any more at this stage without appropriate clearances re identities, agenda, outcomes, determinations, etc. I'm already in trouble with the Fashion Compliance Unit, The Diet Council, and the Grammar Police. However, I'm reasonably sure that there isn't yet a prohibition on my "reflecting" or inviting comment on my reflections.

So pretty much it came down to an experienced, qualified and practicing Library Manager disagreeing with the principle of "non-accountability", unqualified, and precedent-reliant line managers determining policies which negatively impact on resource security, OHS issues, and pure and simple Human Rights.

Not to mention MLTU - the misinformed leading the uninformed ... to the exclusion of the only informed perspective. Such is the way of the world. Apparently.