James Weinheimer wrote :
> For all of these reasons, it seems to me that as people
> find Google and its offspring easier and easier to use
> while they find better and better materials, they will
> ask us for help less and less. Yet it is clear that they
> will always need help and therefore, it is vital that we
> find some way to fit our tools and our expertise into
> this reality.
You're predicating, here, a lot on the factor "need" -- or
what you are construing to be need.
That line doesn't look very promising to me.
"Need", I'm afraid, is much too slippery and moot a
concept to serve as a basis for any practical measures
or plans or policies -- or even speculation, or, yes,
sanguine expectation.
As you already sort of implied, what *in fact* counts
is not people's need for help ( whatever that may
mean ), but their _perception_ of need for help -- or,
more accurately, their perception of the likely benefits
of seeking help ( i.e., from "us", as you put it ) [ and,
one would hope, of also getting real help from "us" ],
weighed against their perception of the cost ( effort,
time, perhaps expense, perhaps discomfiture ) of
seeking such help. And all of this contingent each
time on the situation, motivation and objectives, and
affective circumstances prevailing in each particular
case. N'est-ce pas ?
What it comes down to, then, is exercising a systematic
and continuing -- and sufficiently strong -- influence on
perceptions. And furthermore, the perceptions of
persons whom we in many cases can not even identify
beforehand. [ Who among all the people out there are
in need of what kinds of help at what points for what
purposes and under what circumstances ? ]
Are "our tools" and "our expertise" in fact what is
needed or suited to do this critical presumptive job of
influencing perceptions -- yes, of modifying perceptions ?
When I look at the track record, I'm not optimistic
that that's ever gonna work. I'm not optimistic that this
kind of thinking, or strategy if you like, is going to rescue
"us" from being ( rightly ? ) left out in the cold.
Moreover, am I not correct that "our tools", and "our
expertise", have always been founded on what we ( too
often in abstracto ) think that people ought to need and
how they ought to pursue it ? And that's our reality, not
theirs.
Sorry to say it, but I can't find any reason to believe that
this is an unfair assessment of the situation. Life is not
always as we might wish it to be.
- Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland
----- Original Message ----
From: Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 10:45:54 AM
Subject: [NGC4LIB] Cablegate from Wikileaks: a case study
All,
I have gotten a couple of reference questions about how to use the Cablegate
site from Wikileaks: http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/ (working sporadically at
the moment) but once there, you can browse by tag; e.g. if you click on "P", you
see:
"PREL PTER PGOV PARM PHUM PECON PA PINR PK PINS POLITICAL PARTIES PREF PM PEPR
PROP PBIO PBTS" and people wanted to know what all of this meant. We could not
find any information on the site.
I figured that PA and PK were country codes, and from examining a few cables, it
appeared that I was correct, see:
http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.htm
but the others were mysteries.
After some rather indepth searching that surprised me, since I thought it would
be easier, I found a CBC article about it
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/29/f-database-wikileaks-canada-cables.html
and they reference a list compiled by the Guardian and put into Google docs:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Auo8KSVAc9r8dHdnMGhjOXhhNzY0LTE0M0NqNmNTRHc&hl=en&output=html
which is a partial glossary.
Looking harder however, I found a reference (I don't remember how at this point)
for the term "5 FAH-3", discovered a relevant page at the U.S. archives, which
appears to be more or less complete:
http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fah/c23302.htm, especially the TERMDEX
(http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/89253.pdf) and Subject Tags
Definitions (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/89261.pdf) and we can
find out what the tags mean and how they are used. So, we see PTER (above) in
TERMDEX, and how it is used, while in the Definitions, we see what it means
"PTER TERRORISTS AND TERRORISM
Effective from March 1981 (Revised January 1983)
All aspects of terrorism which transcend national boundaries due to the
nationality of the perpetrator, victim, place, or the incident. (Replaces RCHB
file category: POL)"
Still, when I was checking at random, I found a code "INRB" which is not in
these pdfs nor in the Guardian's list, so there must be updates somewhere, or it
may be in the other lists at http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fah/index.htm.
This is not a political message at all; I just wanted to share a real life
reference question on a topic of some importance today and my amazement at being
able to do something like this sitting on the top of the Janiculum Hill in Rome.
Being able to find this kind of information is undoubtedly powerful, but I will
assume that the average user cannot do this. I used only Google by the way. Even
though I am not an expert on the US archives, and such an expert could have
managed it much easier (saying "Why, of course that is in the Foreign Affairs
Handbook" http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/614000476), my training helped me find
it.
Nevertheless, statistics show that the number of reference questions is
definitely declining and there is no reason to believe people will start
flocking back to the reference desk, no matter where it happens to exist in
virtual or physical space. For all of these reasons, it seems to me that as
people find Google and its offspring easier and easier to use while they find
better and better materials, they will ask us for help less and less. Yet it is
clear that they will always need help and therefore, it is vital that we find
some way to fit our tools and our expertise into this reality.
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu<mailto:j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu>
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
via Pietro Roselli, 4
00153 Rome, Italy
voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258
fax-011 39 06 58330992
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Received on Sat Dec 04 2010 - 17:30:39 EST