I really like the term "invisible web." It implies super powers, or something mystical. Certainly not what it really means, just parts of the internet that are not "publicly indexable," according to Ru and Horowitz in Indexing the Invisible Web . Information that is hidden, either because you have to pay to subscribe to it (from databases or journals) or url s that contain a ? (Ru and Horiwitz 250). So people who work on indexing and categorizing this hidden web- are they considered web 2.0 people, or is that encroaching on 2.5....or even 3.0? Library 2.o is a buzz word that has recently created a lot of hype on wikipedia; someone suggested getting rid of the term altogether. Why doesn't it deserve an entry, I wonder? Just because someone doesn't like it? Isn't that called censorship ? Most libraries are working to combat censorhip, so censoring the very term library 2.0 is pretty ironic, I think. According to Casey and Savastinuk in Library 2.0 , libra