Bernie, thanks for the reference to the other side. John's comments (or those he was quoting) bothered me before, but I didn't have the time to comment then.
Libraries are NOT neutral. Never have been, never will be.
And we certainly know that we DO have both shareholders and voters. Every library has shareholders, whether you choose to call them patrons, users, customers, clients, or something else. (Personally I avoid the word "patrons" like the plague). And every library has voters. Those of us who are publicly supported have not only citizens voting regarding funding issues and priorities, but we also have governing boards, legislators, city council critters, and so forth. And of course private libraries also have those who really control the policies and purse strings.
I think that most would agree that "most librarians are liberal" and "no one can be completely neutral". There have been plenty of studies that show how balanced, or unbalanced, many of our collections are. I just received an approval book that purports to show how Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong. Couldn't prove it by me either way, despite having studied physics decades ago (and why I'm the 'physics selector'). I was about to reject it until I realized that it was not from "Smith's Basement Physics Press", but from a quite reputable scientific publisher.
We all know that everybody knew the philosophers were right and Galileo was wrong....
cheers
dan
Lord, I never complain, never ask why, but please don't let my dream run dry
dan_at_riverofdata.com
Dan Lester, Boise, Idaho, USA
----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Sloan, Bernie" <bernies_at_UILLINOIS.EDU>
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Received: 1/24/2007 12:33:47 PM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] coyle/hillman article from dlib [mods]
>John Hardy said:
>"It seems to me that at the highest level, libraries have the potential
>to help users in two ways".
>The second of these two ways was: "Sorting the wheat from the chaff
>(dodgy information from solid stuff). Libraries are almost the only
>entities capable of doing this in neutral way, uncomplicated by
>shareholders or voters."
>Reminds me of something I read in an essay in the new issue of Prospect
>magazine:
>"Researchers always need to be reminded not to put too much trust in the
>materials that happen to lie within easy reach, but the risk of
>distortion will be much greater if they confine their investigations to
>a shelf of pre-selected books in a library rather than exposing
>themselves to the awe-inspiring quantities of treasure mixed with dross
>that Google spreads before them...Google may be creating new problems
>for scholars, but it offers new solutions too, and no one can play
>around with Book Search for more than a few minutes without stumbling
>into intellectual conflict zones that will wake them from the dogmatic
>doze that might have overwhelmed them in a well-regulated library."
>Bernie Sloan
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of John Hardy
>Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:59 AM
>To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] coyle/hillman article from dlib [mods]
>Karen wrote in a recent post:
>"...What is problematic about the library cataloguing viewpoint is that
>it is based on some principles that do not seem to be derived from any
>study of user behaviour -- there's absolutely no feedback loop from the
>user to the library cataloguing rules. So we have this gap between the
>"very good" metadata that libraries have and the fact that users are
>flocking to non-library systems. There isn't much glory in being right
>if no one comes to use our systems."
>Amen. I recently asked two friends doing research at the highest level
>in two entirely different fields in two entirely different UK
>universities if I could pick their brains unofficially about how they
>use the library. Both responses could be summarised as "the library
>manages our access to e-journals, but otherwise it's irrelevant. It will
>be dead in a few years if it doesn't change". One advised a career
>change (advice I intend to ignore).
>It seems to me that at the highest level, libraries have the potential
>to help users in two ways
>* Finding specific leaves in a burgeoning information forest
>* Sorting the wheat from the chaff (dodgy information from solid stuff)
>Libraries are almost the only entities capable of doing this in neutral
>way, uncomplicated by shareholders or voters.
>AACR2, MARC and the rest are only useful to the extent that we can
>employ them to achieve goals at this kind of level in an efficient and
>effective way.
>John Hardy
>Senior Analyst, Talis Information Ltd
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
>Sent: 18 January 2007 01:41
>To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] coyle/hillman article from dlib [mods]
>Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>> If we are to deal with the
>> world we need to talk to the rest of the world. Is Amazon's metadata
>> less worth to us because it's not in MARC nor created with our special
>> bibliographic rules? If you answer 'yes', well then that's our problem
>> right there, and may well be the end of the library world as we know
>> it.
>>
>Actually, catalogers (and I know I'm stereotyping here) don't really
>care about the data format, so it's not the MARC-ness or non-MARC-ness
>that matters to them. Catalogers care about how decisions are made when
>creating metadata, and that the decisions be consistent across items and
>between systems. This is not a bad thing, in itself. Unfortunately, they
>also think that the library cataloging rules are the only suitable ones
>for creating metadata. I'm sure that we can all find fault with Amazon
>or Google in their metadata creation, and in that sense the catalogers
>are right, some of their metadata is really sloppy. What is problematic
>about the library cataloging viewpoint is that it is based on some
>principles that do not seem to be derived from any study of user
>behavior -- there's absolutely no feedback loop from the user to the
>library cataloging rules. So we have this gap between the "very good"
>metadata that libraries have and the fact that users are flocking to
>non-library systems. There isn't much glory in being right if no one
>comes to use our systems.
>kc
>--
>-----------------------------------
>Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
>kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
>ph.: 510-540-7596
>fx.: 510-848-3913
>mo.: 510-435-8234
>------------------------------------
>The very latest from Talis
>read the latest news at www.talis.com/news
>listen to our podcasts www.talis.com/podcasts
>see us at these events www.talis.com/events
>join the discussion here www.talis.com/forums
>join our developer community www.talis.com/tdn
>and read our blogs www.talis.com/blogs
>Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be
>those of Talis Information Ltd. The content of this email message and
>any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of
>the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then
>please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this
>e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
>Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
>registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights
>Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
Received on Wed Jan 24 2007 - 15:04:04 EST