First, a thought for Bernie Sloan, who bemoans the relatively small
percentage of NGC4LIB subscribers who participate in the conversation:
It's not that much different from any other list I subscribe to, whether
recreational or professional in nature .... and not all that much different
from what happens face to face. A few people talk, ask or answer questions,
express opinions, provide information. All the rest listen. I originally
subscribed when I was appointed to the LC Working Group on the Future of
Bibliographic Control, primarily to listen and observe for the purposes of
the Task Force. And that's what I mainly do.
As chair of ALA's Task Force on Electronic Member Participation I have had
an opportunity to consider matters related to electronic discussions, and
have observed (1) that even among people who are positively disposed toward
virtual discussion, it is a rare discussion in which a majority actually do
participate, and the larger the group the smaller the percentage who are
active, and (2) even when offered a variety of mechanisms for electronic
discussion, people overwhelmingly decide to do without the bells and
whistles, and revert to the lowest common denominator (no bells, no
whistles), which is some form of e-mail or other similar discussion forum.
So, while I also often feel frustration at how few people may participate in
discussions in a substantial way (and I often chivvy, nag, encourage, or
whatever), I realize that it seems to be a natural human tendency, rather
than any kind of deficiency in the interest of the topic or the ability of
those actually engaging in the conversation to attract more participation.
It's not exactly comforting, I know. It just is.
Second, in response to Tim Spalding's view that there has been noticeable
progress in the past three years, but that "Things only seem bleak when
compared with the change of the larger web and information landscape
itself--which has been, I think, much more impressive.": I'm struck by the
thought that the change in the "larger landscape" has been essentially
viral, while the change in the library landscape (such as it is) is more
engineered, and that engineered things progress in a more ordered and
controlled manner, constricted by rules, laws, the limitations of a specific
context, requiring review, validation, etc. before moving forward. While
viruses just go their own way, spreading, mutating, dying out here, taking
over there, etc.
It's probably too much to expect that libraries and such will ever all be
overtaken by a viral developmental process. But not too much for us to
watch, catch, harness, and use the viruses when they suit our purposes.
Libraries (and their like) involve a limited number of actors. The virus of
the web involves many many many more actors, and actors whose minds aren't
constrained by the preconceptions of a single particular profession.
Fabulous. The possibilities are electrifying.
Janet Swan Hill, Professor
Associate Director for Technical Services
University of Colorado Libraries, CB184
Boulder, CO 80309
janet.hill_at_colorado.edu
*****
Tradition is the handing-on of Fire, and not the worship of Ashes.
- Gustav Mahler
Received on Mon Mar 09 2009 - 11:50:23 EDT