It is getting a little late here, and I will add more to this discussion
tomorrow. But I have to say that my first impression of the library when I
started working in them in the late 1980's and taking library science
courses as a computer science student was that it is drawn inward and all
about itself. I have never seen a profession that is so self conscious of
and insecure about its professional nature. "Is librarianship a
profession?" was a big question then as it seems to be now. Everyone else
seems to take what they do for granted as being useful professional work.
Not librarians.
I wanted to change that way back then. I saw enormous potential for
computers in libraries when CD-ROMS were the media of the day. The WWW
wasn't even invented yet. There was so much potential for librarians to
become involved in what was about to happen then and really make a
difference. if they could only just get over themselves and their ways of
thinking. That didn't happen.
There aren't many truly independent thinkers in this profession. They all
act through consensus, committee, adherence to familiar tools and ways of
doing things. Not to mention the mind-numbing minutiae. It's crazy! It
seems there are few if any real innovators doing work on their own and
making it happen. Change, if it happens at all happens through the places
they work and the committees they serve on slow as mud.
The only hope I see is to take some of the things that the library world
brings, refine it some way and adapt it to the world that is forming and in
many ways already is.
Another problem is political, at least in the USA. There is little
patience now for things that don't have an immediate return on investment,
and this is much more hostile environment for things that depend on tax
money like libraries. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.
Libraryland is deathly ill, but is still arguing what colour to paint the
bicycle shed.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Stephen Paling <paling_at_wisc.edu> wrote:
> On 07/29/13, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > What I see is that images go through an interpreter for certain
> characteristics (lots of flesh color, looks like a nipple, there's a face
> in here), but that isn't subject indexing.
>
> Why do we place so much emphasis on subject indexing? I can tell you from
> my interviews with literary community members that "Take me to poems by
> other authors in this anthology" is a more important need than "Show me
> poems on [subject]". An LCCS number for American authors who flourished
> after (I think it's) 1965? Subject headings for individual poems? They are
> seriously not interested.
>
> It reminds me of a story an old professor told me. Two colleagues were
> arguing about the meaning of a word. One colleague suggested that they let
> the dictionary settle it. The other colleague said (I'm paraphrasing), "No,
> because the people who make dictionaries consult people like me to
> determine the meaning." Members of the literary community don't want our
> interpretation of the subject. They want their own.
>
> So skip the subject headings for many literary works. But if you can
> represent the social network in which a literary work is embedded, THEN
> they're interested. Oh, and I'm not necessarily talking about books. It was
> also clear that they wanted access down to the level of individual poems,
> stories, etc.
>
> Cutter's triumvirate of author, title, and subject is not a user-based
> principle. It's a reflection of what they could realistically accomplish in
> the late 19th century. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
>
> Steve Paling
>
Received on Mon Jul 29 2013 - 22:57:36 EDT