Jan Szczepanski, Förste bibliotekarie Goteborgs
universitetsbibliotek, wrote :
> I must add that I have never been in the
> "information business". I'm in the knowledge
> business.
Really ? This sounds exceedingly promising.
Maybe even unique. As far as I know, it would almost
have to be.
I've never seen a university library ( among the countless
I've seen, in many countries) that was in the knowledge
business.
All those I've ever seen were in the document ( and,
secondarily, the referral and suggestion ) business.
I'd really like to know how one can set up such a knowledge
business. Maybe this'd prove worth a trip to Göteborg ( and
if not, no problem ; I'm sure Göteborg is worth it in other
ways anyway ).
> The same criteria are used as always. Quality
> and relevance. We are gatekeepers that see to
> it that "bad information" are not included.
Criteria ?
But how oh how can anyone except the information
consumer ( = actual construer of information, ad hoc ),
at the point of information use ( production of personal
understanding -- conditioned by existent knowledge and
belief, individual objectives etc. ), ever possibly, even
theoretically, rightly pass judgment -- out of context, in
advance -- on factors as quality, to say nothing of
relevance ? It's a mystery to me. ( Only if s/he's as much
a domain expert as the consumer does s/he have anything
like a reasonable chance, and even that's a hit-and-miss
proposition. )
- Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland
----- Original Message ----
From: Jan Szczepanski <jan.szczepanski_at_UB.GU.SE>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 12:16:43 PM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Problems With Selection in Today's Information World
Weinheimer Jim skrev:
> Following Eric's slap-down (just kidding!), I have decided to pose a question that has not been very well addressed, so far as I know: how selection of digital resources, and especially open-access materials, can be achieved on the web.
>
> Here are some of my own observations concerning the issues:
> 1) The non-librarian does not understand traditional library selection;
>
Right
> 2) Library selection has traditionally meant being responsible for a limited budget and adding materials based on a limited amount of resources, both money and shelf space. In essence, it is a process of *inclusion* of specific materials, based on specific policies and limited resources;
>
Right. The less money you had the tougher was the selection process.
> 3) When it comes to web resources, the public wants selection of another type. They are very concerned about getting "bad" information. Faculty and scholars are just as concerned as students and the regular public. While they like to know what is "recommended by the most people" this is not enough and they still have concerns;
>
The same criteria are used as always. Quality and relevance. We are gatekeepers that see to it that "bad information" are not included.
> 4) When we have millions of free materials and no problems with shelf space, library selection becomes something fundamentally different from what it has been; in essence, it becomes (I believe) a process of *exclusion*, i.e. taking the "best" and excluding the "worst", much as the traditional "bibliographies of best books" have tried to achieve (for examples, search the subject: "Best books" in Worldcat);
>
Right
> 5) While it no longer makes much sense to catalog the same text over and over and over in each library, I don't think it makes much more sense to "select" the same thing over and over and over in each library;
>
What I collect is not the same as another library collect. It depends on what kind of library you are. But you are pointing at a real problem. I can't understand why every library seems to need exactly the same e-journals that are part of "Big Deals". The majority of the titles are not even used by the most important libraries. This is not collection building.
> 6) The traditional library selector has had a lot of help from book dealers and library profiles. Without them, it would be pretty much impossible to do the work in any sort of comprehensive manner. Book dealers get paid to do this work through approval plans and other ways when libraries buy the physical books (or other resources). It is naďve to believe that similar organizations will do a comparable amount of work for materials that are available for free;
>
That may be the American way. It has never been impossible to collect in a comprehensive manner. It takes time to learn the trade but it's not impossible. You have to learn what hundred of publisheres are good at and you have to following what our libraries that you trust are collecting, you have to know what is used in the collection and hundred of other criteria
> 7) Selecting materials on the web is being done now to a limited extent through heroic efforts in cooperative projects such as Intute, Infomine and other projects (to see the tool I created for my own "selection of web materials" see: http://www.galileo.aur.it/opac-tmpl/npl/en/pages/news/latestwebsites.html). If you look at these sites, you will see many items selected that are not in our library catalogs, plus there is metadata work done twice on these sites and in our catalogs. The resources found through these projects are not nearly all of the worthwhile digital sites however;
>
I have been collecting free e-books since October 2005 and hope to have 50.000 titles at the end of this year. It's a new terrain and new kinds of "publishers" and often new kinds of material. For example, we know that the social scientists use of the library is decreasing. Why? Because the library has never collected the kind of material they need. The library bought books but they need articles and reports.
> 8) In the everyday practice of library selection, many people feel ignored and/or left out since you cannot make everyone happy. Now, since there is not the concerns of a limited budget, or of shelf space, each faculty member, teacher, whoever, could equally be a selector. This has obvious advantages as well as drawbacks.
>
Even in the old times, faculty members had shelves full of books at work and at home. And of course they continue that praxis in the new world.
> This does not at all exhaust all the concerns, but I think they represent a good beginning. Perhaps others are discussing these matters as well, and if so, could others point me in the right directions. I can envision a cooperative tool that could solve these concerns technically at least, but getting agreement on the huge number of issues would be the challenge, not the least being the explosive question: who will select?
>
Librarians will continue to select in the future as usual.
> What do others think? And yes, in such scenarios the "catalog" will change, but I think will still be the key to it all.
>
1. Libraries still don't collect free e-books
2. When you collect you give the book a quality stamp.
3. A lot of material should be imported automatically, like official material from government,
government offices, international organization like EU, UN or the International Crisis Group
that I am working through for the moment. I can see the need for import and export of
quality information and the only solution is working with a global library organization like
WorldCat.
4. The problem is why use a local collection when I can use a much more comprhensive
one like our national catalogue and why use the national catalogue when I can use a more
comprehensive one like WorlCat. So in the end what can I add that WorldCat can't
supply? Maybe quality and relevance.
5. I must add that I have never been in the "information business". I'm in the knowledge
business. And that is an enormous difference between information and knowledge.
6. If someone is curious about what I have collected I can send my source-list, 58
pages.
Jan
Received on Tue Jun 29 2010 - 11:49:39 EDT