Tim,
Wow. I didn't think that I'd ever say this in a professional setting,
but I just became a fanboy. Can we elect _you_ ALA President?
I'm kidding, but not much.
The profession needs clear insight and a swift kick in the pants.
You've proven time and time again (on this listserv and on your blog)
that you can provide both. Thank you!
Thomas Arendall-Salvetti
Reference/Instruction Librarian
Langsdale Library
University of Baltimore
1420 Maryland Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21201
410-837-4275
tarendall-salvetti_at_ubalt.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Tim Spalding
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 12:57 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: [BULK?] Re: [NGC4LIB] Elitism - and Aristotle again! - in
libraries (was Elitism in libraries)
>On 8/2/07, Rinne, Nathan (ESC) <RinneN_at_district279.org> wrote:
Speak of the devil, I appear. Anyway, I feel empowered to boil my
perspective down as simply as possible:
I think digitization and now social media are multiplying the finding
options and cutting into the value of the core "librarian" options.
The pie has gotten a lot bigger, but librarians have the same quantity
of apples as they used to have, and some of what they have isn't as
attractive in light of the newer options.
It seems to me there are a few defensive approaches which I think of
as "dodges," even if they may contain some truth:
*The new ways are not really any good; people are just crazy and/or
stupid when they prefer them.
*Librarians need to communicate their value more forcefully; people
are just ignorant.
*The new tools are fine, but you need a librarian to show you how to
use them right.
I propose two basic strategies which are NOT dodges:
1. Figure out what you do that digitization and social media doesn't
or can't do well. These are powerful, world-changing trends, but they
don't solve every problem. Tagging, for example, is a wonderful way to
do some things, but not all. Figuring out what's "chick lit" is
tagging at it's best. Complex, controlled hieararchical finding is
something tagging doesn't do well, and which still has value. Focus on
what you do best; you'll find you do it even better.
2. Get aggresive about blending what you've done with the new stuff to
create something with the value of both. Instead of ignoring social
media, allow tagging and subjects to play together. Put
librarian-created reading lists alongside patron-lists, bibliography
lists, etc.
Or go past mashups to use what's new to electrify what's old. Faceted
browsing is one excellent example--taking the data you already have
and using it in wonderful, previously impossible ways. Or take the
LibraryThing's recommendation system that's based not on social media,
but on a statistical analysis of the patterns in DDC, LCC and LCSH. In
a similar vein I have proposed ways of adding relevancy ranking to
otherwise unranked subject headings, and creating a new DDC which
takes social media patterns into account but maintains some of the
strengths of a formal, stable system.
In sum, I think librarians need to think hard and realistically about
what they do best, and think creatively about how their tools can be
enhanced by new approaches.
Tim
> Karen - I think it would be awesome for us to be able to do this! A
la
> Library Thing. Maybe Tim has the wherewithal - or we can help him -
get
> into specialized libraries and academic libraries (Go Tim). You know,
I
> *want* to be able to do this - to be a facilitator at the center of it
> all (I think many libs have always wanted to do this) - but meanwhile
I
> don't think it is a good idea for us to give up what I believe is the
> historic core of our profession - which is "organization... imposed on
> documents" for the sake of findability (niche, niche, niche) - and not
> just because the market sees this as valuable, but because it is our
> *responsibility* to do this for the common good (I am thankful that
Tim
> seems to do both well: http://tinyurl.com/33fovq )
Received on Thu Aug 02 2007 - 17:07:11 EDT