On 07/11/2012 22:33, Dobbs, Aaron wrote:
<snip>
> I see it more as a realistic assessment of where the world of information is right now:
> "Not every cataloger can catalog everything."
>
> Or, in other words:
> "There aren't enough catalogers available to be able to catalog everything."
> Or maybe:
> "There aren't enough catalogers available with specific domain knowledge to be able to adequately catalog everything."
>
> That's the problem with soundbytes: reductio ad absurdum.
</snip>
Perhaps, but such a statement is a chimera. Libraries have never
"cataloged everything", not even when you include the entire
bibliographic apparatus of the world. There is only the possible
exception of the Library of Alexandria, although even there researchers
have apparently found desiderata lists of materials that were wanted but
not available.
At the same time, all layers of the public from children to the greatest
researchers desperately want selection, or as Clay Shirkey himself put
it effectively: better filters. Cataloging, if everyone's work were
coordinated, could be vastly more efficient than today, that is, if
everybody really and truly followed normal, genuine standards. Today
(miraculously!) such efficiency is actually in the realm of the
possible, although it would not be simple. I can't think of any
agency--other than libraries--that is in a better position to begin to
provide what the public wants so much.
Instead of positing a task that has always been impossible (cataloging
everything) we should begin to ponder the limits of what is both
achievable and what is desired. If we could focus on that and provide a
semi-realistic plan, I believe that the funding would follow, even in
restricted times.
--
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Received on Wed Nov 07 2012 - 17:21:03 EST