John, I take some responsibility for throwing gasoline on this discussion
because I think the library profession needs it. I looked at the original
post and my eyes about glazed over. Over the past two and a half decades I
have seen libraryland become all about itself even more than it always has
been and that's not a good thing.
The train has indeed left the station. If libraries don't serve the needs
of patrons and become true innovators and break the thinking of catalogers,
they will be left in the dust. Obsessing over MARC as they have over the
past 50 years has not done it any favours. I think some of us need to have
the courage to throw out everything we know and start over again.
Also, turning our work into a political crusade against Google, the NSA or
whatnot is not helpful either.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:25 PM, john g marr <jmarr_at_unm.edu> wrote:
>
> I see nothing but discouragement, pessimism, and obstructionism here (in
> Stephen's post). We could be performing and teaching constructive
> problem-solving, in relation to historical contexts, instead of engaging in
> entertaining Bulverisms.
>
> Google = predator; googlers - prey. Wikipedia = a construct designed to
> empower the prey (more the better).
>
> The process of predator vs. prey has characterized all destructive human
> relations throughout history, from bad personal relationships (and
> "bosses") to the most extreme examples of perfidy imaginable, all because
> the potential prey want to ignore overall situations and potentialities
> based upon the experiences of others, and predators encourage it.
>
> Godwin's law is effectively a glib neoconservative red herring: I'm not
> saying it was designed to (it might have been, or Godwin is a tool), but:
> "Godwin's law can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as
> censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole
> when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."
> [Wikipedia]
>
> Cheers!
>
> jgm
>
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Stephen Paling wrote:
>
> First, Wikipedia is the only open egalitarian, online information source
>>> available, in that real people participate in it (as they should also in
>>> government and public institutions like libraries)),
>>>
>>
>> There are a LOT of egalitarian communities on the Web, e.g.,
>> StackOverflow, although many of them are far less general than Wikipedia.
>>
>> Libraries could participate in the editing of Wikipedia pages and in
>>> helping Wikipedia find ways to prevent that editing from being corrupted
>>> (which is not the fault of Wikipedia).
>>>
>>
>> So can virtually anyone. What exactly could we offer that no one else
>> can? Take this article as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**
>> Phasor <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor>. What do we know as
>> librarians that would allow us to contribute to the maintenance of that
>> page any more effectively than any number of people with greater technical
>> training?
>>
>> OTOH, Libraries could develop (collaboratively) more efficient
>>> non-profit search engines that would put Google's lack of ethics to shame.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, but do you have any what idea kind of funding and resource
>> availability libraries would need to compete with Google? And given that so
>> many librarians refuse to learn programming in any depth, they would need
>> to hire outside programmers. Who cost money. A LOT of money. Whose salaries
>> would have to come from a steady revenue stream... like ads...
>>
>> Further, in what sense would we make search engines more efficient?
>> Efficiency is, roughly, about lowering the ratio of input to output. Who in
>> librarianship is going to beat Google at that game?
>>
>> Maybe the trains did run on time, but no one cared about or had the
>>> courage to look at where the trains were going or what they carried... or
>>> why... or to what possible consequences such efficiencies might lead.
>>>
>>
>> Is this a comparison to Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy? I hope not. But
>> if it is, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Godwin%27s_law<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law>
>>
>> Steve Paling
>>
>>
>>
> John G. Marr
> Cataloger
> CDS, UL
> Univ. of New Mexico
> Albuquerque, NM 87131
> jmarr_at_unm.edu
> californiastop_at_hushmail.com
>
> ** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just
> consider what goes on in between. **
>
> Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
> sharing is permitted.
>
Received on Mon Jul 29 2013 - 17:51:12 EDT