Yes I agree - they are not neutral.
What I intended to do (as an adjunct to my main point) was to suggest
what libraries might usefully aspire to in a world where many of their
traditional users appear to regard them as irrelevant. In my own
defence, I did use the word "potential".
Maybe this is drifting a bit far from the main topic of NGC4lib, for
which my apologies.
John
John Hardy
Senior Analyst, Analyst Team
Talis Information Ltd
6190 Knights Court
Solihull Parkway
Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB
Switchboard: +44 (0)870 400 5000
Direct: +44 (0)870 400 5421
Internal: 3621
Fax: +44 (0)870 400 5001
Mobile: +44 (0)7977 102347
Email: john.hardy_at_talis.com
Web: http://www.talis.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Lester
Sent: 24 January 2007 21:01
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] coyle/hillman article from dlib [mods]
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.
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 Mon Jan 29 2007 - 07:00:42 EST