On Sat, 30 Jul 2011, James Weinheimer wrote:
> While I certainly have my own political viewpoints ...
Political viewpoints are irrelevant when the process is controlled by
individuals who's only satisfaction is being manipulative to obtain power.
> all have an equal need and desire for reliable information
One "faction" (not politically specific, psychological) will always have
a greater need to *control* information and either distort or conceal it.
> ... it is a part of public education and community development, which is
> in all people's interest along the entire range of political beliefs.
That is quite true, but it is also in the public interest to explain the
nature of information distortion and how information can be restricted
and how to avoid both. What better "selling point" for libraries could
one ask for?
> Attached to this however, is the need to build tools that people want and
> need. This means finding out what those users want and need so that you can
> build those tools.
Factor in to that what people need to make rational decisions: not just
information, but explication of information-distortion. Librarians could
successfully publish on that need and how to meet it.
> People have never liked to be confronted with: this is the
> product/service/whatever that we make and you have to use it or do without.
That is one reason for their disappointment with the entire society,
which is based upon "product-placement" and market domination. Only truly
representative *and mutually participative* social institutions can
confront the problem.
> The only time this "works" is when people are dealing with a monopoly, since
> their only choice is to literally do without. Libraries had a "monopoly" for
> a long time but that monopoly went away.
Not only did the information monopoly go away, but people's lives have
become so complex and they so overstimulated that they no longer (think?)
they have time for anything but entertaining sound-bites.
> ... the nightwatchman, wants to learn more about those dinosaurs,
> statues, and other things. So where does he go? To Barnes and Noble! I
> almost fell out of my seat since in my naivety I thought he would go to
> the library!
Obviously! The movie's producers had a lot more money to make than if
they had recommended any non-profit information source, but I would have
been even more shocked if they *had* mentioned the library rather than the
Web!
> a one-two punch that has staggered the entire field of librarianship.
The stodgy, never-changing, elitist, self-assured field, which failed to
compensate for massive changes taking place in society. Now we can't just
hand people info without simplifying it and explaining how it might be
misconstrued. There is simply too much info out there (and too little free
time) to rely on individuals taking time to dig it out and/or evaluate it
entirely for themselves-- especially if they can't read or afford a
computer.
> Far more productive would be to show people that we are changing
I still see an elitism in that approach. It assumes a distance between
the libraries and the people they "serve." The same problem characterizes
government image-making. What any public institution has to do to remain
relevant is to become collaboratively representative *of* their
constituencies and participative in the activities of the electorate.
> By far, the main tool that a library has is its library catalog
I'm sure that Jim didn't mean to make libraries sound stodgy, but, in
fact, the greatest resource a library has is its librarians, *if* they
can make themselves prominent in society and relevant to it.
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Mon Aug 01 2011 - 13:46:55 EDT