Re: Copernicus, Cataloging, and the Chairs on the Titanic, Part 1 [Long Post]

<snip> While the definition of "quality" will change, probably as alternatives 
to traditional peer review prove themselves, I think people will always want 
it.  In some shape or form this will be one of the tasks of "selection" in the 
future.</snip>

What's the difference between quality and something somebody (e.g. a scholar, a 
student) can do something (useful, creative, productive, imaginative, inspiring) 
with? Or wants to do something with?

<snip> Another aspect of selection that I predict will probably arise will be 
"appropriateness" e.g. the search for "Michelangelo frescos" should have filters 
for texts appropriate for children, novices, adults, experts, and so on.</snip>

Heaven save us from anything like this. Please!
Good grief.


- Laval Hunsucker
  Knokke-Heist, België





----- Original Message ----
From: Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 2:08:20 PM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Copernicus, Cataloging, and the Chairs on the Titanic, 
Part 1 [Long Post]

Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
<snip>
Would libraries not be marginalized very quickly if all materials that exist in 
digital formats were to be set free? In that unlikely
event, local collections lose most, if not all, of their appeal, except as 
repositories of physical objects some people might want
to inspect as such and physically.
</snip>

and

<snip>
And as soon as everything is open and accessible, the need for selection goes 
away. Rather, it becomes a "user task", as FRBR
in its sublime wisdom has already pinned down.
</snip>

That's an interesting subtlety on the FRBR task of "select" that I hadn't 
considered. I don't know if that's what the originators intended(!), but...

I don't know if it's really correct that the need for selection goes away when 
everything is open and accessible. Definitely, it changes dramatically, but as I 
read in a recent report of the Research Information Network "If you build it, 
will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0" (still reading it) at 
http://www.rin.ac.uk/web-20-researchers, there is a quote on pdf p. 7 under 
Barriers and constraints:

"But a second major set of barriers revolve around perceptions of quality and 
trust. Both as producers and consumers of information, researchers seek 
assurances of quality; and many of them are discouraged from making use of new 
forms of scholarly communications because they do not trust what has not been 
subject to formal peer review. A significant minority of researchers believe 
that peer review in its current forms will become increasingly unsustainable 
over the next five years, and nearly half (47%) expect that it will be 
complemented by citation and usage statistics, and user ratings and comments. 
But at 

present they do not see such measures as an adequate substitute for peer review. 
"

This is no surprise, and I don't think I need to prove that when they have the 
choice, people will opt for "quality" information over "no-quality" information 
(i.e. no one will choose information that is considered to be lousy over 
information that is considered to be good--if both are equally accessible). This 
issue of "quality" is a major obstacle for many using the web today. I have 
found that often researchers are reluctant to place their materials into an open 
archive, even though they make no money at all publishing through a traditional 
publisher, because they are worried that people will label their work labelled 
"inferior".  Scientists and physicists have pretty much gotten beyond this 
concern.

While the definition of "quality" will change, probably as alternatives to 
traditional peer review prove themselves, I think people will always want it.  
In some shape or form this will be one of the tasks of "selection" in the 
future. Another aspect of selection that I predict will probably arise will be 
"appropriateness" e.g. the search for "Michelangelo frescos" should have filters 
for texts appropriate for children, novices, adults, experts, and so on. This 
would probably come the closest to traditional library selection, since you 
would be doing this with your "user community" in mind.

James L. Weinheimer  j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy