> I also think Tim should consider the possibility of being ALA president.
I'm going to put myself up for the American LibraryThing Association.
Also, I'm going to rig the vote.
> 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.
No, actually, that's a tone-on-the-internet thing. I was just being
humorous. It's true, though, you must admit!
> 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.
Well, I'm only speaking to the relevance of cataloging and other
finding tools, not of libraries generally. A lot of what libraries do
is not primarily about finding things or people. Sometimes it'a a
convenient and free place to pick up something to read or etc.
Librarians have never had the lion's share of "what novel should I
read next" advising. Even now, new tools are only just starting to
matter there.
That said, I think it would be worth it if NGC4Lib discussed the
O'Reilly post showing declines in reference questios, and other
metrics among ACRL members. I'm surprised it didn't go off like an
atom bomb. Indeed, there's been fairly little discussion on library
blogs too.
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/07/if_libraries_ha.html
> Hmmm... I am not sure if this is what I, for one, have been saying
> either (which I'm not saying you are saying).
Please note! I was NOT criticizing you or anyone's message to the
list. This idea is out there, that's all.
> 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.
I appreciate your focus not on "libraries are better" boosterism but
on demonstrating the proposition—and working to make it more true than
ever. My focus is against that boosterism. Fundamentally I think that
people will find tools that work for them. The market for information
tools is like most markets, basically efficient. (If you get off the
boat on that sentence, there's not much I can say to persuade you.)
People may choose options for reasons we may not like--for example,
Wikipedia is much easier to get to than other sources. But I don't
think they're making uninformed choices. If they are, it will balance
out long-term.
>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.
Go learn! Kidding, but only just. :)
>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!
Absolutely. And yes, Endeca was 20 years too late. It's not like most
library catalogs have faceting, though. Uptake is as important as
innovation.
> *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.
Well, I've seen librarians' guides to using search engines, scolding
people about using too few words, and so forth. And then there's
librarian guides to tagging, which, frankly, drives me up the wall!
Clearly information literacy is increasingly important, and librarians
have a role to play there. But most people will learn through doing.
> "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.
Good. Sorry. I really wasn't meaning to respond to you specifically.
> Yes. No "either-or"ing.
Agreed. And it's not just libraries that need new stuff. The old stuff
needs libraries!
In that vein, libraries should do more to develop and promote the
various GreaseMonkey scripts that put library data into Amazon. And,
as I've argued before, they should design catalogs that the web can
actually index.
Stop getting colonized and start colonizing, people! :)
Received on Fri Aug 03 2007 - 08:24:51 EDT