If we want to do meaningful justice to the matters we have
here begun to discuss, . . .
Let us for one thing not forget the multifarious 'savoir/
pouvoir' modalities that at least our intellectual history of
the last fifty years has shown to be ( potentially ) operative
in such contexts.
And let us for another not forget that directed "searching"
( as in : library catalogues, Google, a&i databases and so
on ), our own great preoccupation and solace, need not
play more than a very minor role if any in bringing even the
most ambitious and complex research trajectories all the
way from conception to successful fruition.
Otherwise, we can perhaps better leave all of this to those
who are actually involved.
- Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland
----- Original Message ----
From: James Weinheimer <weinheimer.jim.l_at_GMAIL.COM>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Sun, May 22, 2011 9:35:25 PM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Bill Clinton: Create Internet agency
Both views are quite interesting to me.
First, the idea of Todd Puccio that:
<snip>
Any agency, no matter how well intentioned, will attempt to protect its
funding by keeping its funder happy.
In this case, whatever federal government administration is in power at the
time. I certainly would not want to give any agency (How could it possibly
really be independent ?) this kind of power.
Even our old advocate friend Sandy Berman accused the LC of being biased.
How much more would an agency of this kind be?
</snip>
I agree that there is bias in anything created by human agency. Of course LC is
biased: it is an official part of the U.S. government and absolutely must
reflect its positions in many areas. Nevertheless, funding must exist and
therefore it must come from somewhere. Where there is funding, there is power.
This is just in the nature of things and cannot be avoided, no matter how we
try.
If there is going to be a government, it involves getting funding and directing
it toward initiatives. The question is: should there be funding for something
like what Bill Clinton suggested? Is there a need for what he suggested? It all
depends on if you think what he is suggesting is a type of censorship or not. I
would be completely against censorship, but as far as creating a tool to help
the citizenry, I would be for it, since that is the ultimate task of
librarianship.
Laval Hunsucker's view:
<snip>
It is certainly not my experience that not-for-profit organizations or units
therein ( including libraries ) are any less vulnerable to all kinds of
manipulation than are private, for-profit corporations. Perhaps they are even
more vulnerable.
</snip>
I had in mind public entities that are subject to open scrutiny by the populace.
Google's algorithms are completely secret and they punish websites that overstep
their "rules". (See
http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/02/dirty-little-secrets-of-search.html)
In any case, I think is statement that funding from taxpayers would be a
worthwhile investment is fine, and similar to public funding of libraries
themselves.
Also, Laval Hunsucker wrote:
<snip>
If what you are talking about is the selecting in general of what should come to
the attention of a creative researcher/scholar, then I doubt in fact whether
there's a competent and self-respecting scholar or researcher anywhere who would
really agree.
</snip>
We have discussed this before at length. The idea that a scholar has not needed
help in finding worthwhile materials, thereby rendering library selection
irrelevant has never been my own experience. I've worked in all kinds of
institutions. I am fortunate to have some really famous researchers as my
friends so I am not just spouting smoke. The fact is, the moment someone
searches a library catalog, they are utilizing the selection of librarians, who
in turn use publishers, book vendors, their own scholars, and many others. There
are all kinds of tools to help librarians select. Someone has to be responsible
to decide which materials a library's budget purchases, therefore, selection is
unavoidable. My own experience (seconded by others) is that the creative
researcher/scholar all too often concentrates only on his or her own
preferences, and anything else can go hang or at least is of far less
importance. The idea of maintaining a coherent *library collection* very often
is difficult to understand.
Online materials have only made it more complicated. Anyone using Google relies
on the selection done automatically with its page rank mechanism since nobody is
ever going to look at item number 2500. (OK, maybe .001% of people will, but
that only proves the point that the vast majority of researchers need and want
help) Selection of free, online resources is a completely different thing from
the traditional library selection, but it is still necessary at least for the
moment. Otherwise, people are left only with secret algorithms. Perhaps someday
the Web2.0 tools will obviate the need for librarians in selection, but that
will be awhile yet.
The problem is, many people equate selection with censorship. Too bad.
-- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Received on Sun May 22 2011 - 16:39:25 EDT