I also think Tim should consider the possibility of being ALA president.
:)
Tim,
I saw your blog post: "I have seen the future of libraries: It is to
spend the future discussing the future of libraries." Now I am quite
depressed that I[?] am making you depressed. Sigh.
Tim:
"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." (end)
Yes, yes, yes.
Tim:
"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." (end)
One the one hand, I sense I should agree with you. On the other hand,
there is evidence to suggest this is not the case:
http://tinyurl.com/2uvzg5 (found via Library Stuff - by the way, I think
"facts are inconvenient things for all of us, not just some of us,
though I submit that says more about us than it does about the relevance
of facts). Of course neither of us can predict the future, but can
attempt to shape it, working with what we have, as we see fit. Either
way, the concept of niche, it seems to me, is indispensable.
Tim:
"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." (end)
____________________________________
Well I for one don't believe this - and I think (and hope!) many libs
who are concerned about tradition don't either... I for one, would
change the sentence to "not really *that* good", going on to say that
"people are just 'uninformed' when they insist that the new ways -
valuable as they are - render the old ways unnecessary - *when it comes
to doing in-depth research*? *That* is what many of us - perhaps even
most of us (besides some holdouts)? - think!
_____________________________________
*Librarians need to communicate their value more forcefully; people are
just ignorant.
Hmmm... I am not sure if this is what I, for one, have been saying
either (which I'm not saying you are saying). I am saying the proof is
in the pudding, but many of us *aren't convinced we even have the
pudding* - so maybe we are the ones who are ignorant! (as Yee argues) I
have said that librarians need to come up with better patron-based tools
(while not allowing to die the potential for specialized searching using
the full range of traditional tools for treating "rare conditions") in
order to freely and naturally *demonstrate*, *prove*, and *convince*
people of their value. Things like Endeca - 20 years too late! - have
only started this process, I think. Unfortunately, I am only a little
bit creative and simply not a computer programmer. That is why I am
here to "lobby" I guess - if I am ignored, I am ignored, though I hope
to be somewhat winsome and "hit the mark" in the hearts of some folks
who will identify with what I say - this can happen, I believe, because
I think whatever our differences, we do share a common world out there!
____________________________________
*The new tools are fine, but you need a librarian to show you how to use
them right.
Well, I certainly don't believe this and I hope most of my colleagues
wouldn't. What new tools are you thinking about specifically? I think
though those new tools should often be used by libs, they certainly do
not usually develop in libraries, and I am not sure why we should or can
have a corner on knowing how to use them... We are getting away from
our niche here if we believe this, I think.
Tim, I hope that the dodgeball players you speak about will come around
too. I hope I am convincing you I am not one of them. :)
______________________________________
Tim:
"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."
This is exactly what I have been trying to say.
Tim:
"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."
Yes. No "either-or"ing.
Tim:
"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."
Sounds pretty good to me - please keep it up with the good work you are
doing.
Regards,
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
ISD 279 - Educational Service Center (ESC)
11200 93rd Ave. North
Maple Grove, MN. 55369
Work phone: 763-391-7183
Received on Fri Aug 03 2007 - 07:29:50 EDT