There's nothing, I'd offer, to be gained by going back and
forth on this -- and certainly not on this list.
Your reaction ( below ) doesn't appear to me to be terribly
relevant. Why not ? Look at your original posting to which
I responded. When you do, you'll see that the last paragraph
is extremely general. Perhaps you didn't conceive it to be
so, but it is clearly so formulated -- and will be so construed
by the reader. He or she can not read your mind -- only your
words. Their import was, paraphrased : What can we then
do to save from obsoleteness the general phenomenon of
library reference services as we know them today ?
My response to your posting
(http://serials.infomotions.com/ngc4lib/archive/2010/201012/1586.html)
was a response only to that last paragraph, as I believe I
made pretty clear. I even began by quoting the passage to
which I was reacting, thus :
> 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.
So. If you think that there will always continue to exist
sufficient numbers of special cases, in which "people"
( as you put it ) will come up against references or points
or ideas or expressions etc. which they don't comprehend,
will want badly enough to comprehend them that they
will go searching for the answer, will be unsuccessful ( in
spite of Google and whatever other approaches they have
at their disposal ), will then conclude that they really do
"need" ( as you put it ) to get an answer, will try harder,
will fail again, will consult their immediate circle without
success, will then be prepared to identify a general library
reference service [ rather than, say, a real domain expert ],
and then to undertake the time and/or trouble and/or
cost and/or discomfort and/or embarrassment actually
to consult sufficiently with the librarian, who will of
course, given "our tools" and "our expertise", have the
right answer [ let's forget, for the moment, that annoying
55% rule ] -- if you think, then, that the potential for such
scenarios will always continue to be demonstrably so
great as to enable us rightly to convince the organizers
and funders of what we now know as general reference
services that indefinitely continued support of such
services, on a scale anything like as large as that on
which they traditionally have supported them, is justified,
then obviously you are more than free to do so. I'd say :
we can just agree to disagree ; good luck to you ; but,
maybe you shouldn't bet the family silver on it.
Oh, I almost forgot -- you also asked :
> could you elaborate on the role of the librarian/expert
> in information/whatever you prefer to call it?
Thanks for your interest in my views, whatever those may
be worth. I don't want to be flippant, but if you've been
"reading several of [ my ] posts", as indicated, then you've
apparently missed some very pertinent ones. You may
want to look back into the list archive from late 2009
through this year ( perhaps especially from the spring of
this year, I seem to recall ). I've made my way of looking
at things fairly clear, I believe, and at considerable length.
Maybe too considerable for some persons' liking -- and
that's why I think I might better just leave it at that for the
moment. With all due respect.
- Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland
----- Original Message ----
From: Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Sun, December 5, 2010 3:55:15 PM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Cablegate from Wikileaks: a case study
Laval Hunsucker wrote:
<snip>
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 ?
</snip>
No. I showed a very specific question (not only from a single person) about a
very specific resource (i.e. Wikileaks) of current importance, to determine some
very specific codes that they could not understand (e.g. PTER, PGOV, etc.) and
they were not able to find the answers. This was information that *they
believed* could help them. I am sure they are not the only ones. I illustrated
the methods that, based on my experience, expertise and perseverence, I was able
to answer these questions. I tried to point out that many librarians could do
the same thing I could, and some experts in the area could have been much more
efficient answering the question than I was. The only place where I suggested
that I was "better" than the people who asked me (and I apologize for the
blatant promotion of such a thing as a librarians expertise, but I am one who
believes in such a thing as "expertise") was that I believe--based not only on
this example--that the untrained person could not fin!
d the answer to such a question.
After reading several of your posts, I get the impression that you do not really
believe that librarians have any type of expertise, or at least, a type of
expertise that people want. Of course I may be incorrect in this assumption, but
could you elaborate on the role of the librarian/expert in information/whatever
you prefer to call it? For example, in the current reference question concerning
Wikileaks, do you believe that people actually can find the answers themselves
using whatever tools they may have--in this case, only Google, *not* Google
Scholar, *not* a catalog, *not* any other tool that I could easily find, and
yet, using the very strange tool called Google (which didn't exist 15 years ago)
I was able to do it, but it was anything but easy. I found it amazing.
How does a novice, without any help, discover that the answer they need is in
the Foreign Affairs Handbook? Certainly, you could ask an expert in U.S.
government information, but I am not, and yet I answered the question. I am far
from unique. I am not interested in keeping this information all to myself as a
guild-type of "professional secret".
When someone has problems finding something, who are they supposed to ask for
help? Just trust Google? Or ask... whom? Their parents or friends? Or do
without?
This sort of question and answer session happens thousands of times each day in
libraries around the world.
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 Sun Dec 05 2010 - 13:58:03 EST