Casey Durfee said:
"If you're not actively writing code to try to make better systems, you're just throwing bricks. Stop it."
Curious comment. You mean you can't possibly contribute to making better systems unless you're actively writing code?
Bernie Sloan
Casey Durfee <casey_at_LIBRARYTHING.COM> wrote:
This conversation has left me more depressed about the future of libraries
than I've ever been in the 7 years I've worked in this business. So, a few
parting shots, and I'm outta here.
1) Library catalogs most certainly do not work on the basis of concepts.
They work on the basis of text, and algorithms for matching against that
text. For Google, the text in question is statistically derived data based
upon billions of source documents. For libraries, it's the MARC record.
It's all text, though.
It's not concepts, whatever one might mean by such a loaded and ambiguous
word. The text in the MARC record is more useful than the text in a bunch
of LibraryThing tags or Google's indexes in some respects and less useful
than others. But they're all text.
Just because a cataloger generated that text doesn't give the text in
question some kind of supernatural metaphysical significance. The fact that
user-generated tags are not considered by some to have the same metaphysical
power of cataloging by librarians is very telling -- the idea being that
librarians are a sort of information priesthood, with the power to breathe
elan vital into their clay golems of metadata in a way that mere mortals
can't.
Amateur philosophy has been responsible for more death and destruction over
the course of history than amateur brain surgery. Please leave metaphysics
to the metaphysicians, everyone, or at least try to develop an attitude of
Socratic ignorance when it comes to fields you know nothing about. Anybody
who can say with a straight face that library catalogs search concepts
really needs to spend at least a couple of years reading up on the last
2000+ years of philosophy and learn a thing or two about how computers
actually work. This hubris and willful ignorance on display is a big part
of why people in other fields do not respect library science.
2) Libraries are not doing a better job than Google. Arguments to the
contrary are examples of cognitive dissonance and the Dunning-Kruger effect
[1] in their purest form. The first step is to admit that you have a
problem. Everyone, repeat after me: we have a problem.
3) If somebody did develop a truly innovative, revolutionary catalog, I'm
more convinced than ever it would be a commercial flop. The vast majority
of people in the library world understand that radical changes in the
library world are desperately needed, but decisions in libraries are done on
the basis of consensus. A few reactionary people with a Panglossian
attitude that what we have now just may be the best of all possible systems
can completely kill any effort at innovation.
4) Someone I respect immensely but disagree with vehemently once told me,
"it's a lot easier to throw a brick through a window than it is to make a
brick or a window." If you're not actively writing code to try to make
better systems, you're just throwing bricks. Stop it.
--Casey
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Received on Sat Jan 05 2008 - 09:57:35 EST