Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>> Isn't this saying that we should never expect them to be able to
>> learn a thing? To insist 'they' always know enough and all faults are
>> ours?
>
> Oh, come on! What is this antiquated thinking doing here, if not as an
> example of just how wrong you guys are getting stuff? Seriously, this
> is perhaps the craziest thing I've read here so far, insisting that
> people have to learn a damn thing about librarianship and metadata in
> order to get some good help...
Alexander, you do not disappoint us again.
Why is it that some in our trade have this knee-jerk reflex against
the necessity of learning on the part of library users?
Sure we are there to help, but how many are we? As we all know,
give a man a fish to feed him for a day, teach him to fish to
feed him for life. This won't work if that man isn't willing
to learn. And we are to create the impression for our users that
they have no need to learn a thing? In an area that is quite a
bit more tricky than fishing?
Well, ok, you then go on to say
> This is not to
> say that people won't learn new stuff, nor that we can't expect them
> to do so, but to require it? Massive fail.
>
"Require" was not my word.
Everyone is used to the fact that lifelong learning is necessary and
beneficial. And everyone accepts that to get on with something non-
elementary, there's no way to avoid a bit of learning. Only we are
to let them forever believe they don't really need to? I beg to differ.
Fundamentally. For that's against the very idea of enlightenment.
Of course no one is saying we shouldn't try to create the best
possible information infrastructure. This must provide easy ways
for easy questions. It must also invite (not "require") users to learn
more to get more out of it. Index browsing, as it appears at the moment,
can be a useful part of the picture. Alas, it doesn't work without a bit
of learning. Out the door with it then?
B.Eversberg
Received on Fri Mar 13 2009 - 03:07:13 EDT