I should think that many librarians out there should remember this
Jonathan: [our] "business interest is entirely to serve the user's interest,
and not to 'monetize' the user"
I've seen a great deal of efforts that seem to point to the idea that many
librarians have the idea that their business interest is entirely to save
their jobs.
We also need to realize that each library has a different "mission" and
"users".
Therefore, each library will have different interests.
Libraries don't 'monetize' their users because their users 'monetize' them.
Jim had it right :
"librarians need to remember that it in 90% of the cases, it is not the
*libraries* that "own" the books and resources, but our respective
universities, institutions, organizations, and so on. In this kind of
hierarchical sense, a library is nothing more than an hierarchical unit that
can be downgraded and merged with any other unit."
Really, how many libraries out there are completely independent
philanthropic ventures ?
Most libraries are a service within a larger institution. They serve at the
pleasure and use of that larger institution.
University libraries are created to provide access to the information they
need to make money as a successful school.
Librarians are hired to staff and manage those libraries.
Public libraries are set up to provide information services to citizens - so
that they are productive and informed electors.... so that the community is
economically and socially successful.
Librarians are hired to staff and manage those libraries.
Corporate Libraries are created to provide access to the information they
need to make money as a successful business.
Librarians are hired to staff and manage those libraries.
Plain and simple, if our services as librarians are not helpful to our users
so that they can be successful, then they don't need us.
We should not have to convince them that we help them become successful. If
it's not obvious to them - then maybe they really don't need us.
Or maybe we should just do a better job ?
Sure a little marketing helps . . . but marketing is not our business.
When it comes to FRBR & RDA the only question is, "Does this help our users
?"
Of course the first question we need to ask is "Who is our user ?"
and remember
__ Librarians are users, too.__
If a tool is helpful for the librarian - then the librarian can do a better
job for the user.
Not all tools are meant to be useful to the novice user or the end user.
Perhaps FRBR & RDA will become the best Librarian tools out there. And
what's wrong with that ?
The average public library user - or the average university student are not
the only measures by which our products and tools should be measured.
TJP
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:56 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] New "Cataloging Matters" podcast
I think Jim's got it quite right, the library is the only major institution
of information access whose business interest is entirely to serve the
user's interest, and not to 'monetize' the user.
Agree with Jim that trying to argue libraries somehow have a monopoly on
'better' or 'more reliable' sources is doomed, because it's just not true.
________________________________________
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On
Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim [j.weinheimer_at_AUR.EDU]
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 6:46 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] New "Cataloging Matters" podcast
Karen Coyle wrote:
<snip>
Do people know this about us, though? If we are to fight the battle on
our ethics, we need to make sure that people know what they are. In
fact, we might need a good slogan.
</snip>
People don't know this, and what's more, they don't even think about it.
I am really concerned that if we decide to fight the battle by declaring
that our information is "better" or more "reliable", or that we "own" better
information, we are doomed to ignominious failure. "Better" is difficult to
prove, especially in these days: "Better" information leads down a very
difficult path, riddled with booby-traps where "better" tends to mean
"sanctioned by approved authorities", and pretty much ignores open-access
projects which are definitely very good, and other open resources, which is
precisely where all the dynamism and excitement lies.
Maintaining that libraries provide "better" access, I think if we stay the
course the library world is currently on (in the sense of FRBR/RDA types of
access), we risk turning ourselves into laughing stocks, and in the other
sense of access, i.e. actually providing authorization to view copyrighted
materials, librarians need to remember that it in 90% of the cases, it is
not the *libraries* that "own" the books and resources, but our respective
universities, institutions, organizations, and so on. In this kind of
hierarchical sense, a library is nothing more than an hierarchical unit that
can be downgraded and merged with any other unit. As one rather drastic
example, our British colleagues are seeing their "bureaucratic organizing"
changing from the Museums, Libraries and Archives (MLA), to Arts Council
England (ACE).
http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/888280-264/spending_cuts_gut_library_b
udgets.html.csp
Also, when it comes to providing "access" to remotely owned databases, such
as Ebsco and Elsevier, these are simply links made available from the
library's website, and those links can be anywhere else the powers that be
decide to place them: they could go on the Student Services page, or
individual academic departments, or "information services".
Once again, it would make sense to focus on what the library world provides
that is unique, and to let others know, and a slogan is essential. If
anybody reads my postings, it is clear that I am really bad at coming up
with short, pithy statements! I realize that this is a failing of mine. But
others are very good at it. One pitfall to avoid though, is that when I have
brought this up in my classes, people are automatically *very protective* of
Google and these other services, and are very quick to assume that this
"filthy librarian" is dissing Google and I am saying that while librarians
follow ethics, Google, etc. are unethical.
No, not at all. It's just that ethics don't even enter into the entire
discussion with Google. So, it's not that Google is *un*-ethical, it's just
that ethics can't even enter into the discussion when we talk about Google.
People at least appear to accept this, although even then I am not sure. So,
any slogan would have to be gentle, and fun.
James L. Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Received on Mon Dec 20 2010 - 15:38:41 EST