Owen,
Sorry for the delayed response. I appreciate your struggles with these
matters and open-mindedness.
Just what "authoritative information" means is a good question. I'm not
a big believer in "authoritative teaching" myself, as I said in another
post. (I hope nobody confuses this with "authority files" in the
technical cataloging sense. Of course I'm a believer in those!) I guess
I mean roughly this: I might start studying something on Wikipedia,
especially if it's something I haven't studied in detail before.
Wikipedia stimulates me with possibilities. But once I have those
possibilities in mind, IF THE CONCLUSIONS I WILL COME TO ARE IMPORTANT
TO ME, I would do a search of library resources, to check those
perspectives against other things. If it is an extremely unfamiliar
subject to me, I might even go to a reference librarian and ask him/her
what kinds of reference sources (print or online) might be helpful in
that area. Web of Science is an interesting example of this, because,
contrary to the name, it has sources on non-scientific areas, and I
might not know that if I didn't ask a reference person.
The point, as Mann has said in his Oxford Guide to Library Research (3rd
ed. 2005), is that there are many paths to the right information, and
you can't expect the process to be "seamless." At least if you mean by
"seamless" some sort of "one-stop shopping," where one search box leads
to everything you need. While I don't believe strongly in "authoritative
teaching," we may never get to a place where we don't need to consult
information "experts." I'm not saying many on this list would deny that,
but "seamlessness" as an ideal is itself somewhat in conflict with the
idea of reference services. At least if you carry it far enough.
Here's an idea of mine, not Mann's. I don't believe in authoritative
teaching, because each of us is an "authority" once we get the
information we're confident in. We are "authorities" in that subject
area until we find something that shakes our confidence. But it will
always be hard to be confident in Wikipedia when you've got a professor
grading your papers. Or, let's say, when you're helping a congressman
prepare for a debate on a particular topic. Those situations will shake
your confidence, and with good reason, because there's a very strong
chance it will be in conflict with their confidence.
I would have to disagree with the professor who complained about
students finding sources on JSTOR. I'm not real experienced at using
that source, but I'm almost sure this is just a prejudice on the part of
that particular professor. Relating this to my last paragraph, a
professor is not "infallible": she just happens to have a degree of
power over her students when they're in her class. So at that point,
they may have to avoid using JSTOR, but in the future, they will
probably return to it with full confidence. And maybe they'll eventually
convince her it's good.
If you have any doubts about the wild ideas some people have about the
future of information services, you should try to find the article about
a play that was put on in San Jose, Calif. (Silicon Valley) about a year
ago or so. There was a link to it on American Libraries Direct at the
time, but I was unable to find it recently. The play depicts a future
where libraries as we know them have ceased to exist, because people can
now browse and access books "telepathically." I understand the play had
quite impressive visual effects, as you might expect.
It seems only in Silicon Valley would you find something as goofy as
that. I think American Libraries Direct may even have included the
article for a few chuckles. But it does show the extremes some computer
enthusiasts have reached in their belief in the omnipotence of computers
and software.
I think science fiction does have quite a bit of influence on people's
ideas about the real world. I understand sci-fi buffs are real aware of
the different ideas, for example, in Star Trek and Star Wars about how
you exceed the speed of light. I've heard one describe them as if they
were real engineering proposals. At the same time that, as a recent
issue of Popular Mechanics showed, NASA has given up the space shuttle
as too dangerous and is now designing a new capsule--basically a larger
version of the ones they used in the 60's--to go to the moon and Mars.
One person quoted in the PM article said: "Starting with the Wright
brothers, it took us 50 years to get to the moon, and it will take us
another 50 to get back to it." Sometimes technology progresses faster
than you expect, and sometimes more slowly.
I don't mean to put down sci-fi buffs here. I assume that being a sci-fi
buff comes at least partly from being good at science and math, which I
am not. We need visions of possibility, but for caution, we also need to
temper those visions with facts. That's where history comes in handy.
I also wasn't putting down "nitwits" in my last posting. I have been one
myself. But the educational process is designed at least partly to make
each of us less of one.
Owen, your blog piece was good. It shows the variety of things you can
find on the Web (I guess I'm including Google Books as part of that) and
the limitations, too. You really found some information that updated
OED. I also find Google helpful in deciphering illegible names in old
books I catalog. I appreciated your mentioning you might need to go to
that library six miles away to verify some information. I think that
will continue to be the case, even as Google Books expands. You will not
be able to do that "telepathically" for the foreseeable future.
--Ted Gemberling
Not an official statement of the UAB Lister Hill Library
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Stephens Owen
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:47 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Mann's critique of the Calhoun report
> Ted wrote:
> Wikipedia stimulates my mind, so it's
> educational in a way. But I would never go to it for *authoritative*
> information on anything.
>
>>> >>So where would you go for authoritativeı information?
>
> Iım so torn with this post, on the one hand I agree with some of it,
and on
> the other I want to scream. I agree that librarians donıt need to ³own
the
> web² - but we canıt bury our heads in the sand here.
>
> You mention a history professor complaining about students using
Wikipedia for
> their research. We recently had a professor complain about students
using
> JSTOR for their research. It lead them to use inappropriateı sources
which
> they wouldnıt have found except for the existence of JSTOR. Iım sorry,
but
> this seems like only a few steps away from telling students only to
use
> approvedı sources and this really is going to get us nowhere. There
is an
> education issue to tackle here, not an information issue.
>
> I donıt know any librarians who think the web has replaced what we
have done
> (there may be some, but I donıt know them) - but there are librarians
who
> believe that the availability of digital information, and the
³wonderful
> technology² of the web requires us to examine what we do closely and
consider
> how we might change our traditional practices to embrace the
opportunities it
> offers.
>
> As a shameless plug, Iıve just posted a blog entry on a recent
experience with
> Google Books at http://www.meanboyfriend.com/overdue_ideas/ - I donıt
really
> claim any startling insight, and Iım sure others have done more
detailed
> critiques of the service, but this was the first time Iıd used it in a
real
> world situation, and by doing so, I felt I started to get a grip on
what this
> kind of project means for libraries, and how we need to come up with a
> sensible way of blending traditional library practice with digital
> information.
>
> Owen
Owen Stephens
E-Strategy Co-ordinator
Royal Holloway, University of London
Egham
Surrey
TW20 0EX
Tel: 01784 443331
Email: owen.stephens_at_rhul.ac.uk
Received on Sun May 27 2007 - 19:51:12 EDT