There was a huge gust of wind that originated from the Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base where Calvary Bible College and Theological Seminary’s campus is located. We had our 2 year focus visit from the Higher Learning Commission, a Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools – or NCA for short.
The team was here Monday through Wednesday, April 21-23. At the end of their visit they reported to the institution’s cabinet that they will recommend that NCA does not need to come back for a visit for seven years! It could have been 5, 7, or 10.
Given that the property issue is still unresolved but in the hands of the city of Kansas City, MO and not ours, was somewhat to our advantage. They realize that this issue is unsettled because of circumstances beyond our control. When that is resolved, our financial condition should also improve.
They also noted that strides that have been taken to improve the institution from retention, to library holdings, to mission content and it’s application to curriculum, and more.
That gust of wind mentioned at the top? It was the huge sigh of relief from the top down. Preparations for these visits are exhausting, even though they are enlightening and beneficial. We are much relieved!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
National Library Week 2008
We had a low key celebration this year, but here were our plans.
Monday: Balloons, cookies and a handout of staff’s favorite cookie recipes.
Tuesday: T-N-N-T Day: Tuesday-NO-“no-talking”-Day.
Wednesday: Amnesty Day
Thursday: Funny Hat Day
Friday: Jelly Bean and Quiz contest deadlines.
Monday, it turned out, I was being discharged from a weekend visit to the hospital. That put some work and planning behind. But the cookies and balloons did get put out. (Thanks to AE and EB). The advertisement for T-N-N-T day was late in coming. We did get a poster up that afternoon and games out on a table. But no one used them. Thursday was fun. Friday we had two winners who received Gift Certificates to our Coffee Shop.
One prize was for the best guess in how many jelly beans in the jar and the other for the highest score on the quiz we put together. We also got a nice bulletin board put up, thanks to JT. She did a great job. Now if I could only figure out how to post pictures!
Monday: Balloons, cookies and a handout of staff’s favorite cookie recipes.
Tuesday: T-N-N-T Day: Tuesday-NO-“no-talking”-Day.
Wednesday: Amnesty Day
Thursday: Funny Hat Day
Friday: Jelly Bean and Quiz contest deadlines.
Monday, it turned out, I was being discharged from a weekend visit to the hospital. That put some work and planning behind. But the cookies and balloons did get put out. (Thanks to AE and EB). The advertisement for T-N-N-T day was late in coming. We did get a poster up that afternoon and games out on a table. But no one used them. Thursday was fun. Friday we had two winners who received Gift Certificates to our Coffee Shop.
One prize was for the best guess in how many jelly beans in the jar and the other for the highest score on the quiz we put together. We also got a nice bulletin board put up, thanks to JT. She did a great job. Now if I could only figure out how to post pictures!
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Beware! Barbarians at the Gate!
Someone has once said ‘the only thing that is constant is change’. We get comfortable with the status quo and don’t like it when something comes along the shakes up our comfort zone of what we know. What we don’t know presents the possibility of something fearful, largely because we don’t know what it is. We want to stay where it is safe, in a world with which we are familiar.
But our present world has had more change in the last 18-25 years than mankind has ever faced. This change has been brought on by the explosion of high technology on the scene of grassroots life. It burst out of the doors of the elite few, if you will, and onto the main stage of life as a whole, pouring into the cracks and crevices of the ordinary man’s life and business.
As it applies to the world of librarianship, someone once told of visiting the Library of Congress. They were guided by a veteran librarian. The LC was experimenting with automation of cataloging records and was experiencing some difficulties. The tour guide commented on the venture that was being attempted, as the visitors passed the door where this was taking place. In essence her comment was that it would fail. They will never change the way librarianship is being done. It has stood the test of time. Need I say more?
A couple of weeks ago there was a discussion on the results of the LC’s Working Group report. Following is the thread of that discussion and the changes that are coming. As discussions often go, various sub-themes would pop up. Linear thinking that we western-world people are, this may be a bit disconcerting as the conversation became circular*, but the attempt has been made to put the comments in relative order, so that one may be able to follow the comments that were made and references to previous comments. (*Example: the discussion of copyright that spun off but not included here.) I have not tried to summarize the comments. They are “cut and pasted” as originally written. A line of three asterics, ***, were used to indicate separation of authored comments. There have been only minor editing done, e.g. putting in an apostrophe that got left out, etc.
Those contributing to this topic are: JSH, GAS, JGM, AK, JFM, TM, AM, SG, TG, NR, JA, JH, IF, DG. If you want complete names please send an email with contact information. My thanks to all who had a part in this mind-stretching exercise.
Please note, this is a lengthy post.
***
We have many choices available to us as we attempt to provide bibliographic access to information resources while operating in today's setting.
We can have a tantrum, and drum our heels on the floor, demanding to get our way. It may be momentarily satisfying, but it's ultimately exhausting and it rarely has the result we'd like. We probably don't get our way. We may get slapped. We may get put in our room. Or we may just get ignored.
We can throw up our hands and declare that it's all going to hell in a handbasket anyway, so why are we bothering to care. Learning not to care is at least not exhausting, but it's also not satisfying. And if things
really ARE going to hell in a handbasket, we're helping make it happen.
We can stand our ground, continuing with what we've learned, what we are familiar with, what has always worked up to now. And we'll do much good that way, but we can't block the whole path, and eventually people will walk around us.
We can remind ourselves of the real purpose of what we are working on, figure out which of the things we do are ENDS, and which are only MEANS, and try to see what parts of what we are doing contribute the most to our desired outcome, and fight for those.
We can remind ourselves of the real purpose of what we are working on, and try to see if some of what others are suggesting might help us achieve it ... even if it's stuff we don't know how to do yet, or even if it's stuff we are less than thrilled about as yet.
We can continue to believe that all things either are, or ought to be possible, and that if we just say something loudly enough, often enough, clearly enough, or with enough passion, eventually people will believe us and cave in, finding the money for it somewhere. But, if we do this, we will be disappointed, because it's not that we haven't been convincing enough, and it's not that we are not RIGHT in what we are asking for, it's that there really aren't enough resources to do everything.
We can continue to be proud of all we have achieved, proud of the efforts we are making to maintain our principles in the face of less than ideal circumstances, and proud of all we WILL achieve. We can try to make use of new technologies, and can experiment with new approaches without betraying what we are about. We have NEVER been able to do everything that there is to be done, and we never will, but we can reassess what part of everything most warrants our attention now, and by doing so, we can continue to contribute immeasurably to the ideals of access to information and contributing to the growth and dissemination of knowledge and to a civilized society.
We can be realistic about which are the immovable objects and which are not, and we can stop wasting our energy on trying to move the cliff and concentrate our efforts on the boulders. The Library of Congress SHOULD BE all things to all people. It should be funded at a level that would allow it to assume and continue the role of mothership to us all. But it's not going to happen. If that be the case, we need to incorporate that reality into our situational construct, and move forward.
The recommendations of the LC Working Group were unanimous among the Working Group. They reflected much discussion, much consideration of community input, and many changes of opinion along the way. They also reflected some reluctant acceptance of unpalatable realities, some reluctant dismissal of things that some initially thought would be cool, groovy, and/or inevitable, some assessment of what recommendations might be doomed from the start, and lots of compromise. Some of our recommendations made us happy. Some made us sad. The Working Group is under no illusion that all of its recommendations will be followed or their promise fulfilled. We know that some things will probably take so long to do that something better will have come along in the meantime. The Working Group is under no illusion that everyone will like what we had to say. But we do believe firmly that it all needs to be considered carefully. And if recommendation X or observation Y is rejected, we want it to be rejected for good reasons, and not just because it represents change.
***
I absolutely agree with this (above statement)! This will be a short reply! There will always be change. Some of it good and some bad. At this juncture there are many choices and we can either do something to elevate what our concerns are in a way that is respectful to all sides and know and understand that we will not always agree 100 per cent but hopefully that we can agree to an extent that the road to change, innovation can begin and in many cases continue. I'll be honest and say that I am not interested in one side or another, but I am most interested in what I can do to improve, and enhance access to information, no matter the format for my users!
***
The question becomes whether both "sides" (only 2?) can be equally respectful and openly communicative while being driven by different interests (e.g., serving the individual vs. serving the public?).
So long as that is the dominant paradigm for both "sides", we do not have a problem, do we?
***
The Barbarians are offering the option of metadata (that's really just a cool name for cataloging, see my article on TSLL newsletter several years ago) that can be produced by well trained monkeys armed with scanners who are willing to work for bananas. Retrieval is by keyword based on the terminology used by the author. Access if "good enough".
We members of the aging priesthood of the dying scholar civilization, offer metadata based on professionals analyzing the work and providing authority control for the author and title, and professional assignment of subject terms based on controlled vocabulary as well as classification. I question the value of any cataloging (metadata) system that doesn't provide authority control, controlled vocabulary, and subject analysis by someone who is well versed in the subject. Regardless of what rules and tools we use, if it doesn't provide good cataloging (metadata), is it really any better than switching to monkeys with scanners.
Some test questions to ask:
Does the system enable one to find the linkage of Arthur Clarke's "The sentinel" and "2001"? Does the system indicate the "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" is NOT a prequel to "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone". Will it find all the books by Harry Turtledove regardless of in which universe they are written, or under which version of his name? Does the subject analysis bring together books on the "pro-choice" movement with books on the "pro-abortion" movement (not to mention the "pro-life" and the "anti-abortion" movement)? Does it provide access to materials regardless of language or script?
If we can answer "yes" to these, and the similar questions we can all think of, we can justify our jobs to even the most savage of the barbarians (who in the final analysis want a way to find materials based on author, title or subject). If we simplify cataloging so that the answer is "no", then it probably is reasonable to replace us with monkeys (who hopefully will share their bananas with us). In looking at proposed changes, the criterion we should use it whether it reduces our ability to meet the venerable Cutter standard (author, title or subject) - if it doesn't we should support it, if it does then we should oppose it.
***
Thank you (JH) for your passage… I still am not entirely convinced of the premises, conclusions, and recommendations of "On the record", but the passage (above)lends far more credibility to the WG's efforts and product than could ever be conveyed by reports of unanimity. The loss of nuanced positions is perhaps inevitable in this age of hard-sell sound bites, but I gladly would have read a larger report to learn of such things and the awareness of such realities on the process that brought about the unanimity in the WG's report.
FWIW, to pick up on the issue of change which has permeated follow-on postings, I am not against change in and of itself. I know that we have used a model and system that has worked exceedingly well for a long time, but which is falling behind the power curve of technological and societal changes. My point is that Mann and the LCWG are both in error for failing to acknowledge or adequately address the complexity of the issues that underlie their positions on status quo or change. At the risk of making overly broad generalizations: Mann goes too far in arguing solely from a benefit point of view and the LCWG report goes too far in arguing solely from a cost point of view; Mann presses the case of the highest denominator and the LCWG report goes for the lowest denominator. There are some hard choices to make ahead of us in the face of expanding information resources, technological changes, diminishing personnel resources, and limited financial resources. We are not going to find the solutions in the extreme poles of the arguments.
An economist herself, my dean recently called me a "closet economist". One of my favorite quotes is by Burke, "Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part of true economy. Economy is a distributive virtue, and consists not in saving but selection. Parsimony requires no providence, no sagacity, no power of combination, no comparison, no judgment." Parsimony led our forebears to institute superimposition when AACR1 was issued. Economy drove them to undertake the great expense to revisit that course when AACR2 was issued. We will need all our powers of sagacity and judgment to avoid similar mistakes and to plot a wise course in selecting for our future.
***
A lot surely depends on what you want catalogued and are there enough priests to catalogue it all. If you think of the web, you'll be lucky to get simian-level metadata for a fraction of the pages. However, a few baboons adding tags for a lot of pages are still arguably better than some archbishops producing illuminated catalogue records for a few. If we do want to enlist some help from the nerds and the monkeys to at least get some things described and accessible beyond simple keywords, I think there is a strong case for making new rules that are compatible with both hieratic and demotic metadata needs, in other words some kind of standard.
I also think it not unlikely that the Nerds will gradually overtake the priests in any case. Even if they are a long way off, I see them driving the pace of change and in control of the technological tools we also need to make progress.
***
RE: We members of the aging priesthood of the dying scholar civilization,
I wonder if those who were 100 years before us thought the same thing.... "every" older generation thinks the younger ones are going to hell in a handbasket... same principle here... hmmm?
***
Their biggest problems were that some librarians couldn't manage the switch from "library hand" to typewriters, and that LC selling catalog cards would result in all other libraries outsourcing all their cataloging to LC.
But at the time, literacy was rising, America was growing and for the first time getting involved in what was happening overseas, so things worked out (though penmanship has never recovered).
(Blogger's editorial comment: it was once thought that Library Hand penmanship would never give way to typewriters. We know what the outcome of that was.)
***
That would have been a real tough transition for me, too, because I could never get comfortable using a typewriter. It was such a great thing when the personal computer came in, because you got to fix errors before they were on paper. Some of my worst memories in adolescence are of trying to use a typewriter and being embarrassed by it. My last grade in high school was a D in typing, and I was usually an A or B student.
(AK), I think you bring up another point that may be relevant to these discussions. At that earlier time of transition, America was growing and literacy was rising. What I worry about this period is that we may not be in that sort of growth stage. While the discussion is claimed to be about new technologies and "openness to change," in many cases it really seems to be more about having less money. As "M" pointed out, we increase funding for armies and prisons and cut it for educational institutions like libraries. "J's" statement yesterday seemed to imply that this is just an inevitability we have to accept.
I think that when the online catalog came in the 80's, Thomas Mann probably thought it was the greatest development in libraries ever. It allowed us to do many things we couldn't do before. I don't think it was until sometime in the 90's that he began to see evidence computerization was beginning to be used as an excuse for dismantling our library systems. I think his position needs to be put in that sort of context.
***
From my perspective, there do appear to be some "Priest-Nerds" but they seem to be few and far between. :)
***
This reminds me of those 'gatekeepers' that think the library is their personal territory. I have also found this in the genealogy world when you want information (like at a court house) and some little ole lady will not let you have access to it, no matter what the law says!
***
I know exactly what you are talking about! (I've heard of this happening in archives around here - actually at a Christian seminary). So, let me be clear: what's good about the "priests" is that they are "good elitists": good elitists are eager to serve their clientele, and always eager to encourage inquiry and learning.
***
It goes way back:
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." -- Socrates
***
Didn't Cutter say 100 years ago, "I cannot help thinking that the golden age of cataloging is over, and the difficulties and discussions which have furnished an innocent pleasure to so many will interest them no more." (bottom of the page).
***
I was thinking about this the other day. I'd say we're just now entering the Iron Age of Cataloguing. But, hey, there's still pleasures to be had, innocent or otherwise.
***
I thought the Nerds would become the Priests.
Have you ever read “The Integral Trees” by Larry Niven? The high priest in the society is called the Prof and his acolyte is called the Grad.
***
End of thread. There was no conclusion to this conversation, but maybe you should draw your own conclusions? Besides, who’s to say who the correct prophet will be? There was a lengthy discussion first regarding the Library of Congress Working Group’s report and the response by Thomas Mann.
LCWG's report and Mann’s response to the report gives background information to the above discussion thread.If you are interested in reading more about this topic, visit the links given above.
.
.
.
But our present world has had more change in the last 18-25 years than mankind has ever faced. This change has been brought on by the explosion of high technology on the scene of grassroots life. It burst out of the doors of the elite few, if you will, and onto the main stage of life as a whole, pouring into the cracks and crevices of the ordinary man’s life and business.
As it applies to the world of librarianship, someone once told of visiting the Library of Congress. They were guided by a veteran librarian. The LC was experimenting with automation of cataloging records and was experiencing some difficulties. The tour guide commented on the venture that was being attempted, as the visitors passed the door where this was taking place. In essence her comment was that it would fail. They will never change the way librarianship is being done. It has stood the test of time. Need I say more?
A couple of weeks ago there was a discussion on the results of the LC’s Working Group report. Following is the thread of that discussion and the changes that are coming. As discussions often go, various sub-themes would pop up. Linear thinking that we western-world people are, this may be a bit disconcerting as the conversation became circular*, but the attempt has been made to put the comments in relative order, so that one may be able to follow the comments that were made and references to previous comments. (*Example: the discussion of copyright that spun off but not included here.) I have not tried to summarize the comments. They are “cut and pasted” as originally written. A line of three asterics, ***, were used to indicate separation of authored comments. There have been only minor editing done, e.g. putting in an apostrophe that got left out, etc.
Those contributing to this topic are: JSH, GAS, JGM, AK, JFM, TM, AM, SG, TG, NR, JA, JH, IF, DG. If you want complete names please send an email with contact information. My thanks to all who had a part in this mind-stretching exercise.
Please note, this is a lengthy post.
***
We have many choices available to us as we attempt to provide bibliographic access to information resources while operating in today's setting.
We can have a tantrum, and drum our heels on the floor, demanding to get our way. It may be momentarily satisfying, but it's ultimately exhausting and it rarely has the result we'd like. We probably don't get our way. We may get slapped. We may get put in our room. Or we may just get ignored.
We can throw up our hands and declare that it's all going to hell in a handbasket anyway, so why are we bothering to care. Learning not to care is at least not exhausting, but it's also not satisfying. And if things
really ARE going to hell in a handbasket, we're helping make it happen.
We can stand our ground, continuing with what we've learned, what we are familiar with, what has always worked up to now. And we'll do much good that way, but we can't block the whole path, and eventually people will walk around us.
We can remind ourselves of the real purpose of what we are working on, figure out which of the things we do are ENDS, and which are only MEANS, and try to see what parts of what we are doing contribute the most to our desired outcome, and fight for those.
We can remind ourselves of the real purpose of what we are working on, and try to see if some of what others are suggesting might help us achieve it ... even if it's stuff we don't know how to do yet, or even if it's stuff we are less than thrilled about as yet.
We can continue to believe that all things either are, or ought to be possible, and that if we just say something loudly enough, often enough, clearly enough, or with enough passion, eventually people will believe us and cave in, finding the money for it somewhere. But, if we do this, we will be disappointed, because it's not that we haven't been convincing enough, and it's not that we are not RIGHT in what we are asking for, it's that there really aren't enough resources to do everything.
We can continue to be proud of all we have achieved, proud of the efforts we are making to maintain our principles in the face of less than ideal circumstances, and proud of all we WILL achieve. We can try to make use of new technologies, and can experiment with new approaches without betraying what we are about. We have NEVER been able to do everything that there is to be done, and we never will, but we can reassess what part of everything most warrants our attention now, and by doing so, we can continue to contribute immeasurably to the ideals of access to information and contributing to the growth and dissemination of knowledge and to a civilized society.
We can be realistic about which are the immovable objects and which are not, and we can stop wasting our energy on trying to move the cliff and concentrate our efforts on the boulders. The Library of Congress SHOULD BE all things to all people. It should be funded at a level that would allow it to assume and continue the role of mothership to us all. But it's not going to happen. If that be the case, we need to incorporate that reality into our situational construct, and move forward.
The recommendations of the LC Working Group were unanimous among the Working Group. They reflected much discussion, much consideration of community input, and many changes of opinion along the way. They also reflected some reluctant acceptance of unpalatable realities, some reluctant dismissal of things that some initially thought would be cool, groovy, and/or inevitable, some assessment of what recommendations might be doomed from the start, and lots of compromise. Some of our recommendations made us happy. Some made us sad. The Working Group is under no illusion that all of its recommendations will be followed or their promise fulfilled. We know that some things will probably take so long to do that something better will have come along in the meantime. The Working Group is under no illusion that everyone will like what we had to say. But we do believe firmly that it all needs to be considered carefully. And if recommendation X or observation Y is rejected, we want it to be rejected for good reasons, and not just because it represents change.
***
I absolutely agree with this (above statement)! This will be a short reply! There will always be change. Some of it good and some bad. At this juncture there are many choices and we can either do something to elevate what our concerns are in a way that is respectful to all sides and know and understand that we will not always agree 100 per cent but hopefully that we can agree to an extent that the road to change, innovation can begin and in many cases continue. I'll be honest and say that I am not interested in one side or another, but I am most interested in what I can do to improve, and enhance access to information, no matter the format for my users!
***
The question becomes whether both "sides" (only 2?) can be equally respectful and openly communicative while being driven by different interests (e.g., serving the individual vs. serving the public?).
So long as that is the dominant paradigm for both "sides", we do not have a problem, do we?
***
The Barbarians are offering the option of metadata (that's really just a cool name for cataloging, see my article on TSLL newsletter several years ago) that can be produced by well trained monkeys armed with scanners who are willing to work for bananas. Retrieval is by keyword based on the terminology used by the author. Access if "good enough".
We members of the aging priesthood of the dying scholar civilization, offer metadata based on professionals analyzing the work and providing authority control for the author and title, and professional assignment of subject terms based on controlled vocabulary as well as classification. I question the value of any cataloging (metadata) system that doesn't provide authority control, controlled vocabulary, and subject analysis by someone who is well versed in the subject. Regardless of what rules and tools we use, if it doesn't provide good cataloging (metadata), is it really any better than switching to monkeys with scanners.
Some test questions to ask:
Does the system enable one to find the linkage of Arthur Clarke's "The sentinel" and "2001"? Does the system indicate the "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" is NOT a prequel to "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone". Will it find all the books by Harry Turtledove regardless of in which universe they are written, or under which version of his name? Does the subject analysis bring together books on the "pro-choice" movement with books on the "pro-abortion" movement (not to mention the "pro-life" and the "anti-abortion" movement)? Does it provide access to materials regardless of language or script?
If we can answer "yes" to these, and the similar questions we can all think of, we can justify our jobs to even the most savage of the barbarians (who in the final analysis want a way to find materials based on author, title or subject). If we simplify cataloging so that the answer is "no", then it probably is reasonable to replace us with monkeys (who hopefully will share their bananas with us). In looking at proposed changes, the criterion we should use it whether it reduces our ability to meet the venerable Cutter standard (author, title or subject) - if it doesn't we should support it, if it does then we should oppose it.
***
Thank you (JH) for your passage… I still am not entirely convinced of the premises, conclusions, and recommendations of "On the record", but the passage (above)lends far more credibility to the WG's efforts and product than could ever be conveyed by reports of unanimity. The loss of nuanced positions is perhaps inevitable in this age of hard-sell sound bites, but I gladly would have read a larger report to learn of such things and the awareness of such realities on the process that brought about the unanimity in the WG's report.
FWIW, to pick up on the issue of change which has permeated follow-on postings, I am not against change in and of itself. I know that we have used a model and system that has worked exceedingly well for a long time, but which is falling behind the power curve of technological and societal changes. My point is that Mann and the LCWG are both in error for failing to acknowledge or adequately address the complexity of the issues that underlie their positions on status quo or change. At the risk of making overly broad generalizations: Mann goes too far in arguing solely from a benefit point of view and the LCWG report goes too far in arguing solely from a cost point of view; Mann presses the case of the highest denominator and the LCWG report goes for the lowest denominator. There are some hard choices to make ahead of us in the face of expanding information resources, technological changes, diminishing personnel resources, and limited financial resources. We are not going to find the solutions in the extreme poles of the arguments.
An economist herself, my dean recently called me a "closet economist". One of my favorite quotes is by Burke, "Mere parsimony is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part of true economy. Economy is a distributive virtue, and consists not in saving but selection. Parsimony requires no providence, no sagacity, no power of combination, no comparison, no judgment." Parsimony led our forebears to institute superimposition when AACR1 was issued. Economy drove them to undertake the great expense to revisit that course when AACR2 was issued. We will need all our powers of sagacity and judgment to avoid similar mistakes and to plot a wise course in selecting for our future.
***
A lot surely depends on what you want catalogued and are there enough priests to catalogue it all. If you think of the web, you'll be lucky to get simian-level metadata for a fraction of the pages. However, a few baboons adding tags for a lot of pages are still arguably better than some archbishops producing illuminated catalogue records for a few. If we do want to enlist some help from the nerds and the monkeys to at least get some things described and accessible beyond simple keywords, I think there is a strong case for making new rules that are compatible with both hieratic and demotic metadata needs, in other words some kind of standard.
I also think it not unlikely that the Nerds will gradually overtake the priests in any case. Even if they are a long way off, I see them driving the pace of change and in control of the technological tools we also need to make progress.
***
RE: We members of the aging priesthood of the dying scholar civilization,
I wonder if those who were 100 years before us thought the same thing.... "every" older generation thinks the younger ones are going to hell in a handbasket... same principle here... hmmm?
***
Their biggest problems were that some librarians couldn't manage the switch from "library hand" to typewriters, and that LC selling catalog cards would result in all other libraries outsourcing all their cataloging to LC.
But at the time, literacy was rising, America was growing and for the first time getting involved in what was happening overseas, so things worked out (though penmanship has never recovered).
(Blogger's editorial comment: it was once thought that Library Hand penmanship would never give way to typewriters. We know what the outcome of that was.)
***
That would have been a real tough transition for me, too, because I could never get comfortable using a typewriter. It was such a great thing when the personal computer came in, because you got to fix errors before they were on paper. Some of my worst memories in adolescence are of trying to use a typewriter and being embarrassed by it. My last grade in high school was a D in typing, and I was usually an A or B student.
(AK), I think you bring up another point that may be relevant to these discussions. At that earlier time of transition, America was growing and literacy was rising. What I worry about this period is that we may not be in that sort of growth stage. While the discussion is claimed to be about new technologies and "openness to change," in many cases it really seems to be more about having less money. As "M" pointed out, we increase funding for armies and prisons and cut it for educational institutions like libraries. "J's" statement yesterday seemed to imply that this is just an inevitability we have to accept.
I think that when the online catalog came in the 80's, Thomas Mann probably thought it was the greatest development in libraries ever. It allowed us to do many things we couldn't do before. I don't think it was until sometime in the 90's that he began to see evidence computerization was beginning to be used as an excuse for dismantling our library systems. I think his position needs to be put in that sort of context.
***
From my perspective, there do appear to be some "Priest-Nerds" but they seem to be few and far between. :)
***
This reminds me of those 'gatekeepers' that think the library is their personal territory. I have also found this in the genealogy world when you want information (like at a court house) and some little ole lady will not let you have access to it, no matter what the law says!
***
I know exactly what you are talking about! (I've heard of this happening in archives around here - actually at a Christian seminary). So, let me be clear: what's good about the "priests" is that they are "good elitists": good elitists are eager to serve their clientele, and always eager to encourage inquiry and learning.
***
It goes way back:
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." -- Socrates
***
Didn't Cutter say 100 years ago, "I cannot help thinking that the golden age of cataloging is over, and the difficulties and discussions which have furnished an innocent pleasure to so many will interest them no more." (bottom of the page).
***
I was thinking about this the other day. I'd say we're just now entering the Iron Age of Cataloguing. But, hey, there's still pleasures to be had, innocent or otherwise.
***
I thought the Nerds would become the Priests.
Have you ever read “The Integral Trees” by Larry Niven? The high priest in the society is called the Prof and his acolyte is called the Grad.
***
End of thread. There was no conclusion to this conversation, but maybe you should draw your own conclusions? Besides, who’s to say who the correct prophet will be? There was a lengthy discussion first regarding the Library of Congress Working Group’s report and the response by Thomas Mann.
LCWG's report and Mann’s response to the report gives background information to the above discussion thread.If you are interested in reading more about this topic, visit the links given above.
.
.
.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
March Madness - of a different kind
March Madness for this librarian means one week of a book sale, one week of illness and one week of spring break. Get this all behind me and I'll get something posted again. I've got something really good lined up. Come back in a few days and hopefully I'll have it up.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Busy week
I've got a busy week this week. Friends of the Library dinner Tuesday night, Book Sale that starts Tuesday and goes all week and a Work Day on Thursday. If I survive the week I've got some library humor I want to post. "I'll be 'bach'!"
Monday, February 25, 2008
New Cousin
Reading my friend's Genealogy Blog reminded me that a new "cousin" found me a couple of weeks ago.
The phone rang and the caller said "Are you (so-in-so) from Barber County, Kansas.?" Uh, well no, not really. I don't live there. "I found your name on a genealogy post regarding NG." Oh - yes, well, he's my husband's grandfather... BB, the caller did find who he was looking for. As it turned out he tried an old email address of mine that I don't have any more, so he went Internet searching and found my phone number.
It turns out we are not really related at all. He's not even related to my husband. Not technically, but he is connected. I hope you can follow this: Norman was married three times. His second wife is my husband's great-grandmother. Norman's first wife was Alice. Alice later married a Hart. Hart's grandfather had a brother, who was the ancestor (great-grandfather?) to my caller. Did you get that? Basically, the tree forked; went up and came back down again on the other side and rooted. Turns out he had information I didn't and vice versa. I also put him in touch with a half cousin of our's who would be connected to my caller, because she connects to Norman through the first wife, Alice.
I haven't heard from BB now for a week or more. We were emailing and mailing there quite heavy for a couple of weeks, but life has calmed back down to normal. It showed me, though, that I need to get my home computer situation turned around and upgraded. But I won't have time for that till later this summer. (See: "Announcement," my last post.) Boy - I miss doing my genealogy!!!
The phone rang and the caller said "Are you (so-in-so) from Barber County, Kansas.?" Uh, well no, not really. I don't live there. "I found your name on a genealogy post regarding NG." Oh - yes, well, he's my husband's grandfather... BB, the caller did find who he was looking for. As it turned out he tried an old email address of mine that I don't have any more, so he went Internet searching and found my phone number.
It turns out we are not really related at all. He's not even related to my husband. Not technically, but he is connected. I hope you can follow this: Norman was married three times. His second wife is my husband's great-grandmother. Norman's first wife was Alice. Alice later married a Hart. Hart's grandfather had a brother, who was the ancestor (great-grandfather?) to my caller. Did you get that? Basically, the tree forked; went up and came back down again on the other side and rooted. Turns out he had information I didn't and vice versa. I also put him in touch with a half cousin of our's who would be connected to my caller, because she connects to Norman through the first wife, Alice.
I haven't heard from BB now for a week or more. We were emailing and mailing there quite heavy for a couple of weeks, but life has calmed back down to normal. It showed me, though, that I need to get my home computer situation turned around and upgraded. But I won't have time for that till later this summer. (See: "Announcement," my last post.) Boy - I miss doing my genealogy!!!
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Announcement
At our last Faculty meeting, which was February 12th, Dr. J. C. (academic dean) read my resignation to the faculty. This is about a month earlier than when these are usually done, but it was prompted by a pre-mature announcement from another organization about my husband being called as pastor to a church in Arkansas. Well obviously it would be next to impossible (on this salary anyway) to live in Arkansas and work in Kansas City, MO. So I will be leaving the end of the school year, probably around the end of May to mid-June. My last working day will probably be the last Friday of the month, then I'll have tacked on what vacation days are left.
We are both looking forward to this move, but it will be an emotional departure to leave CBCTS. It's been a good 7 years for me, and hopefully for them as well. I have probably learned more than I have given. At least I feel like I have. But I hope I have helped this institution in some small way to further the education of students and therefore their future ministry.
Already we are spending every other weekend in Arkansas at the church where he has been called to pastor. I am even writing this tonight from the hotel where we are staying. We came down early Saturday to look at houses. So the transition is already in the works.
I know the Lord already has in place who is going to follow in my footsteps. He also already knows where He will lead me next in looking for employment in our new area of residence and ministry.
What will be the future of this blog? I haven't decided as it is named after the mascot of CBCTS. I may see if I can successfully change the name, or continue under the same, or leave it and start another. Time WILL tell! Stay tuned.
We are both looking forward to this move, but it will be an emotional departure to leave CBCTS. It's been a good 7 years for me, and hopefully for them as well. I have probably learned more than I have given. At least I feel like I have. But I hope I have helped this institution in some small way to further the education of students and therefore their future ministry.
Already we are spending every other weekend in Arkansas at the church where he has been called to pastor. I am even writing this tonight from the hotel where we are staying. We came down early Saturday to look at houses. So the transition is already in the works.
I know the Lord already has in place who is going to follow in my footsteps. He also already knows where He will lead me next in looking for employment in our new area of residence and ministry.
What will be the future of this blog? I haven't decided as it is named after the mascot of CBCTS. I may see if I can successfully change the name, or continue under the same, or leave it and start another. Time WILL tell! Stay tuned.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
New website for christian devotions
Christianity.com has a neat website for studying the bible online. I just came across this today on Facebook.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Loren Jewitt Adams
It is a fact of life that everyone at some point and time will leave this earth for eternity. It’s the nature of life as we move through it to make friends and as events come and go, lose touch with those same friends.
This is the case with our friend, Loren. Once I left for graduate school 8 years ago we did not keep in contact with him like we once had. I was thinking of him again recently off and on and decided to see if I could track down his phone number. I once had it memorized but I’ve not only “slept since then” – I’ve had long nights of doing homework when I didn’t sleep. So that bit of information escaped. I could find nothing.
I finally contacted the local library in the town where he lived and where I also worked before going to grad school. On Valentine’s Day I had a response. Loren had passed away a year and a half ago. This has really hit me rather hard. I was sad to hear of his passing but probably just as sad for not knowing about it at the time.
I was “there” when his mother died; we were “there” when he had to go to a VA hospital and home again; I was “there” when he remarried his 2d wife, and divorced her again. I saw him go through struggles with his boys and his step daughter and grandchildren. But we weren’t “there” when he died. My heart ached for him as I knew his burdens and heartache could be carried by our Lord, but yet he was “too educated” to need a saviour. He could not accept things by faith, he had to have an explanation for everything. I couldn’t outwit his academia.
He was a widower and a divorcee; retired military; and lived alone. He had two errant sons and a brother who didn’t know me. So I figured the only way I would hear about his passing would be if anyone at the library would think of me at the time. Understandably, they didn’t. I mused more than once whether or not I would ever hear about his passing whenever he would die. I was afraid I wouldn’t. I didn’t.
Loren had a huge wealth of knowledge when it came to genealogy and computers – both of which were a big help to me. He was influential in my getting our first computer. It took me 3 mos. to get my genealogy on. There were many a call to Loren for help – both over the phone and hands-on as well.
He was very involved in the genealogy community. He volunteered at the LDS church; he was a member of the local genealogy society as well as our state organization. He sponsored the local county website for the USGenWeb project. He taught classes both locally and statewide as well. He qualified and joined many other genealogical organizations as well. He was proud of his contribution in the military and witnessed some significant history during the 50’s and 60’s. But I think he was most proud of his Kentucky Colonel certificate he received as he used that in his email address: "kycollja".
The saddest part of this story is that he has probably passed into eternity without knowing the Lord Jesus as his saviour. And, I don’t think I was a very good witness in sharing with him the Good News he needed to hear.
Loren Jewitt Adams, born 5 September 1936, died 4 July 2006.
This is the case with our friend, Loren. Once I left for graduate school 8 years ago we did not keep in contact with him like we once had. I was thinking of him again recently off and on and decided to see if I could track down his phone number. I once had it memorized but I’ve not only “slept since then” – I’ve had long nights of doing homework when I didn’t sleep. So that bit of information escaped. I could find nothing.
I finally contacted the local library in the town where he lived and where I also worked before going to grad school. On Valentine’s Day I had a response. Loren had passed away a year and a half ago. This has really hit me rather hard. I was sad to hear of his passing but probably just as sad for not knowing about it at the time.
I was “there” when his mother died; we were “there” when he had to go to a VA hospital and home again; I was “there” when he remarried his 2d wife, and divorced her again. I saw him go through struggles with his boys and his step daughter and grandchildren. But we weren’t “there” when he died. My heart ached for him as I knew his burdens and heartache could be carried by our Lord, but yet he was “too educated” to need a saviour. He could not accept things by faith, he had to have an explanation for everything. I couldn’t outwit his academia.
He was a widower and a divorcee; retired military; and lived alone. He had two errant sons and a brother who didn’t know me. So I figured the only way I would hear about his passing would be if anyone at the library would think of me at the time. Understandably, they didn’t. I mused more than once whether or not I would ever hear about his passing whenever he would die. I was afraid I wouldn’t. I didn’t.
Loren had a huge wealth of knowledge when it came to genealogy and computers – both of which were a big help to me. He was influential in my getting our first computer. It took me 3 mos. to get my genealogy on. There were many a call to Loren for help – both over the phone and hands-on as well.
He was very involved in the genealogy community. He volunteered at the LDS church; he was a member of the local genealogy society as well as our state organization. He sponsored the local county website for the USGenWeb project. He taught classes both locally and statewide as well. He qualified and joined many other genealogical organizations as well. He was proud of his contribution in the military and witnessed some significant history during the 50’s and 60’s. But I think he was most proud of his Kentucky Colonel certificate he received as he used that in his email address: "kycollja".
The saddest part of this story is that he has probably passed into eternity without knowing the Lord Jesus as his saviour. And, I don’t think I was a very good witness in sharing with him the Good News he needed to hear.
Loren Jewitt Adams, born 5 September 1936, died 4 July 2006.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Leadership Now Website
Found another website from a friend's blog. (Thanks, JR.) Good Stuff! I also added it to my misc. links.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Unshelved - 100th Posting
I have heard of this a long time ago, but once again came across the webpage for it. So here it is. I have also added it to my misc. links.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Information Responsibility
In a world of high tech, librarians today have an even heavier responsibility in carrying out their duties. Besides providing unimpeded, uncensored information, we need to be accurate as well. It was once said ‘the pen is mightier than the sword.’ When we read something in print we tend to believe it as being true. There is a proverb that says something to the effect of, whoever tells the story first tends to be believed as telling the truth – whether they are or not. Wars and historical events have risen and fallen based on what someone has written.
In teaching college students, I have included how one can determine if a webpage is accurate in making them internet-savvy. A good example of this is the IRS refund emails that are circulating, with website attached. The real IRS symbols are used as well as legitimate words that should take you to government links. But in just a few short minutes of investigation one can tell this is not a true government site. “…be wise as serpents, harmless as doves.”
All this to say: – last week I posted the article on Starbucks. Well, I found out that at least two people read my blog. Maybe you are one of the two. If you’re not, did you believe what was posted? Did you forward it on to someone else without verifying it? Do you know if it is true or not? Two people commented on the story as being false, as substantiated by Snopes.com. No one else commented one way or the other. This story is being circulated by email forwards by well meaning citizens who themselves took what they read as gospel. “Why would someone write something like that if it weren’t true,” you might think. That’s a very good question. And as librarians it behooves us to make sure that we not only provided uncensored, timely information but also accurate information.
This little experiment proves that we all sometimes fall down on the job one time or another. If it’s not this situation, it may be another. Some were on top of their game and checked things out for themselves. But others I suspect either believed it or at least don't bother to see what was true and what wasn't. Beware, Be Accurate, Be Professional.
In teaching college students, I have included how one can determine if a webpage is accurate in making them internet-savvy. A good example of this is the IRS refund emails that are circulating, with website attached. The real IRS symbols are used as well as legitimate words that should take you to government links. But in just a few short minutes of investigation one can tell this is not a true government site. “…be wise as serpents, harmless as doves.”
All this to say: – last week I posted the article on Starbucks. Well, I found out that at least two people read my blog. Maybe you are one of the two. If you’re not, did you believe what was posted? Did you forward it on to someone else without verifying it? Do you know if it is true or not? Two people commented on the story as being false, as substantiated by Snopes.com. No one else commented one way or the other. This story is being circulated by email forwards by well meaning citizens who themselves took what they read as gospel. “Why would someone write something like that if it weren’t true,” you might think. That’s a very good question. And as librarians it behooves us to make sure that we not only provided uncensored, timely information but also accurate information.
This little experiment proves that we all sometimes fall down on the job one time or another. If it’s not this situation, it may be another. Some were on top of their game and checked things out for themselves. But others I suspect either believed it or at least don't bother to see what was true and what wasn't. Beware, Be Accurate, Be Professional.
Monday, February 04, 2008
The ever popular Starbucks did this?
*Recently, Marines in Iraq wrote to Starbucks because they wanted to let them know how much they liked their coffees and to request that they send some of it to the troops there. Starbucks replied, telling the Marines thank you for their support of their business, but that Starbucks does not support the war, nor anyone in it, and that they would not send the troops their brand of coffee.
So as not to offend Starbucks, maybe we should not support them by buying any of their products! I feel we should get this out in the open. I know this war might not be very popular with some folks, but that doesn't mean we don't support the boys on the ground fighting street-to-street and house-to-house.
And if that isn’t bad enough, when the Twin Trade Towers were hit, the firefighters and rescue workers went to Starbucks because it was close by, for water for the survivors and workers, and Starbucks charged them! ! !
*(from the Kansas City Star)
My opinion: example of capitalism taking advantage of the hand that feeds it, the shooting it. If it weren't for those boys "over there" and all the ones before, Starbucks wouldn't have the privilege it has to operate in this country with all its freedoms.
So as not to offend Starbucks, maybe we should not support them by buying any of their products! I feel we should get this out in the open. I know this war might not be very popular with some folks, but that doesn't mean we don't support the boys on the ground fighting street-to-street and house-to-house.
And if that isn’t bad enough, when the Twin Trade Towers were hit, the firefighters and rescue workers went to Starbucks because it was close by, for water for the survivors and workers, and Starbucks charged them! ! !
*(from the Kansas City Star)
My opinion: example of capitalism taking advantage of the hand that feeds it, the shooting it. If it weren't for those boys "over there" and all the ones before, Starbucks wouldn't have the privilege it has to operate in this country with all its freedoms.
Monday, January 28, 2008
winds of change
The winds of change are a-blowin'! I'm dying to "tell you" but I do need to put it off a little while longer. But we're excited (my husband and I). We spent some time last week on this mystery. We got in a nice little bit of rest and relaxation at the same time in a beautiful setting. With it always comes worrying (oops, "be anxious for nothing") about timeline and dovetailing. Good things are happening and beginning to happen.
Stay tuned. :-)
Stay tuned. :-)
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Depersonalize
It is so easy to let our emotions get in our way of making wise decisions and directing our reactions. But one must strive to maintain objectivity when reaching for a goal.
I have steadfastly, for some time now, contended that a cataloger, even without a degree or previous experience needs to be paid more than any other entry level staff position in this institution.
I have researched, compared, and reported my findings to my A. D. He even agreed with me that they should start out at a higher level. The business manager shot it done because it’s not the current policy.
However, policies should serve the people not dictate/rule over them. Today I was encouraged to learn that the administration is going to review how the wage rates are determined. Hopefully this will end up with “this” entry level job getting paid more then “that” entry level job. It’s not always apples to apples. In fact, hardly ever is.
…Sometimes it’s a fruit salad! (whatever that means!)
I have steadfastly, for some time now, contended that a cataloger, even without a degree or previous experience needs to be paid more than any other entry level staff position in this institution.
I have researched, compared, and reported my findings to my A. D. He even agreed with me that they should start out at a higher level. The business manager shot it done because it’s not the current policy.
However, policies should serve the people not dictate/rule over them. Today I was encouraged to learn that the administration is going to review how the wage rates are determined. Hopefully this will end up with “this” entry level job getting paid more then “that” entry level job. It’s not always apples to apples. In fact, hardly ever is.
…Sometimes it’s a fruit salad! (whatever that means!)
Monday, January 07, 2008
Policies, politics and frustrations!
In “Library World” especially in the academic realm, it is well known how we continually struggle with ‘the powers that be’ in trying to get accomplished what we see as a need in the library – whether it is who has the final say in what is bought for the collection, to the need for changes in facilities, to recognizing the level of work library staff people do (whether professional or paraprofessional) compared to other office workers in other departments.
Such was the case recently here. I lost my cataloger of over 2 years to a better paying job. She was finally worth her salt but, alas she was gone! She is a divorcee and is therefore the only source of income for her household-of-one. In preparing to hire a replacement, I was attempting to convince folks the need to pay a cataloger more than just an entry level amount. On top of the convincing task I had, we are also a private, small institution therefore our pay scale is low anyway. When I discussed this with my academic dean, he asked me to do some research with other like institutions and report back to him. This was also broadened to include my need to replace my circulation supervisor that quit last August. The research was done and handed in.
In the meantime, the dean has had his own world events to deal with which ended up increasing his load this semester, not to mention the stress. Now throw Christmas vacation in the mix.
I found someone to hire last week and went back to him for a decision. We came up with a dollar amount and I then was given the task of talking to our business manager. I contacted him, gave him the information and was greeted immediately with “but that’s not our policy” – end of sentence! I told him I did not like being the ‘middle man’ and suggested that he get with the academic dean and discuss it with him. Two minutes later the phone rang and the b. m. said “it is $X.” Okay – I told him. That was such a quick response that I would be willing to “bet” there was no discussing about it between the two individuals. It was probably more of a one way conversation of this is how it’s going to be. Period.
Well, I tried. Life is too short. But I have an appointment with the a.d. later this week, and I know I will have his full attention. So, I am going to pursue this one more time. I don’t die easily. I know there are times you’ve got to buck the system. Policies are made to serve the people, not dictate. Me-thinks we have a dictator here.
Such was the case recently here. I lost my cataloger of over 2 years to a better paying job. She was finally worth her salt but, alas she was gone! She is a divorcee and is therefore the only source of income for her household-of-one. In preparing to hire a replacement, I was attempting to convince folks the need to pay a cataloger more than just an entry level amount. On top of the convincing task I had, we are also a private, small institution therefore our pay scale is low anyway. When I discussed this with my academic dean, he asked me to do some research with other like institutions and report back to him. This was also broadened to include my need to replace my circulation supervisor that quit last August. The research was done and handed in.
In the meantime, the dean has had his own world events to deal with which ended up increasing his load this semester, not to mention the stress. Now throw Christmas vacation in the mix.
I found someone to hire last week and went back to him for a decision. We came up with a dollar amount and I then was given the task of talking to our business manager. I contacted him, gave him the information and was greeted immediately with “but that’s not our policy” – end of sentence! I told him I did not like being the ‘middle man’ and suggested that he get with the academic dean and discuss it with him. Two minutes later the phone rang and the b. m. said “it is $X.” Okay – I told him. That was such a quick response that I would be willing to “bet” there was no discussing about it between the two individuals. It was probably more of a one way conversation of this is how it’s going to be. Period.
Well, I tried. Life is too short. But I have an appointment with the a.d. later this week, and I know I will have his full attention. So, I am going to pursue this one more time. I don’t die easily. I know there are times you’ve got to buck the system. Policies are made to serve the people, not dictate. Me-thinks we have a dictator here.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Will e-books put old books out of business?
I just read an article (see URL) that talks about e-books and the coming and improving technology of having books online and downloadable, and what that will do to future authors – both those with narrow audience appeal and those bigger authors who like the idea of not having to share the wealth generated by their success.
The author’s point all came down to e-books eventually becoming successful and books as we have known them in the past as becoming obsolete. I think I would disagree with that point. Being a librarian and “keeper of the books” doesn’t completely have anything to do with my opinion. It’s more of realizing the nature of high technology today and what it’s going to do in the future.
Think about it for a moment. With every new invention, innovation, or change in technology it is always toted as the newest, biggest and of course the best. Information will last forever on this new “whatever.” Then within in a decade or sometimes even less another new form of digitization comes out. Look at the history of technology. We have gone from transistor radios, LP and single records, reel to reel cassette tapes, & 8 tracks (which were short lived), to audio cassettes, compact discs (“CD’s”) iPods and MP3 players, with many others and many variations in between.
Every time a new technology is introduced, a whole new industry has to be invented to support it. But not with books. A book is a book is a book. Now, I don’t deny the various qualities of books over the years, (and centuries). Books produced on pulp paper in this last century don’t hold a candle to the one’s from previous centuries. But all in all, book technology is a much more stable technology than “hi tech” is. We have books that go back for centuries and are still discernable and readable. Even cave writings are ‘readable’. How many people can still listen to their 8-track, (provided they even own one)? Every time a format changes in technology, you have to transfer your information over to the new technology or you lose it; it becomes useless in its former state.
Okay, on the aside here, I do sometimes think “they” purposely try to make something obsolete to force the creation of new jobs, or the generation of making more money. But that’s another issue.
Then we are dealing with lost information.
Hopefully, we will not get so taken up with technology that we – in our hurry to stay up with the times – don’t throw out all those books, because they take up too much room, or they cost too much money to maintain, or… whatever, only to discover that when they did and the ‘new’ technology has become unstable and is upgraded, we discover we have lost information that will never again be regained - unless we want to repeat history and go through the Dark Ages and out again.
It scares me when I think of all the union catalogs are thrown out because we have it on-line now. (Okay – that’s a librarian’s thing.) What if the OCLC WorldCat database crashes? They have now reached over a billion records. How long did it take to get to that many the first time? How long do you think it would take to do it all again? It wouldn’t be done overnight, that’s for sure. Okay, so they have backups. But it’s all the same technology. What if – for some reason, not too unreasonable – something goes wrong with that technology? What then? You can’t look a CD and ‘see’ what information is stored on it. You can a book.
Hopefully we’ve learned that lesson not to do that. Let’s not get carried away here and throw away the baby with the bath water (baby being the Information and bath water being the technology it’s sitting in.) Our new technology is a wonderful thing and it has done things for our world, cultures, economies, governments etc that even the inventors never dreamed of. But as wonderful as that is, we need to step back, take a look at all of the history of information and analyze the statistics of it all, it’s impact and it’s potential for disaster. Now, I’m not meaning to sound all “doom and gloom” about technology. I love it. But let’s not get in a big hurry here.
So will books with pages you can turn be completely replaced by the e-books technology? E-books may become very popular and more accepted by the grassroots populace, but doing away with old books completely? I don’t think so.
The author’s point all came down to e-books eventually becoming successful and books as we have known them in the past as becoming obsolete. I think I would disagree with that point. Being a librarian and “keeper of the books” doesn’t completely have anything to do with my opinion. It’s more of realizing the nature of high technology today and what it’s going to do in the future.
Think about it for a moment. With every new invention, innovation, or change in technology it is always toted as the newest, biggest and of course the best. Information will last forever on this new “whatever.” Then within in a decade or sometimes even less another new form of digitization comes out. Look at the history of technology. We have gone from transistor radios, LP and single records, reel to reel cassette tapes, & 8 tracks (which were short lived), to audio cassettes, compact discs (“CD’s”) iPods and MP3 players, with many others and many variations in between.
Every time a new technology is introduced, a whole new industry has to be invented to support it. But not with books. A book is a book is a book. Now, I don’t deny the various qualities of books over the years, (and centuries). Books produced on pulp paper in this last century don’t hold a candle to the one’s from previous centuries. But all in all, book technology is a much more stable technology than “hi tech” is. We have books that go back for centuries and are still discernable and readable. Even cave writings are ‘readable’. How many people can still listen to their 8-track, (provided they even own one)? Every time a format changes in technology, you have to transfer your information over to the new technology or you lose it; it becomes useless in its former state.
Okay, on the aside here, I do sometimes think “they” purposely try to make something obsolete to force the creation of new jobs, or the generation of making more money. But that’s another issue.
Then we are dealing with lost information.
Hopefully, we will not get so taken up with technology that we – in our hurry to stay up with the times – don’t throw out all those books, because they take up too much room, or they cost too much money to maintain, or… whatever, only to discover that when they did and the ‘new’ technology has become unstable and is upgraded, we discover we have lost information that will never again be regained - unless we want to repeat history and go through the Dark Ages and out again.
It scares me when I think of all the union catalogs are thrown out because we have it on-line now. (Okay – that’s a librarian’s thing.) What if the OCLC WorldCat database crashes? They have now reached over a billion records. How long did it take to get to that many the first time? How long do you think it would take to do it all again? It wouldn’t be done overnight, that’s for sure. Okay, so they have backups. But it’s all the same technology. What if – for some reason, not too unreasonable – something goes wrong with that technology? What then? You can’t look a CD and ‘see’ what information is stored on it. You can a book.
Hopefully we’ve learned that lesson not to do that. Let’s not get carried away here and throw away the baby with the bath water (baby being the Information and bath water being the technology it’s sitting in.) Our new technology is a wonderful thing and it has done things for our world, cultures, economies, governments etc that even the inventors never dreamed of. But as wonderful as that is, we need to step back, take a look at all of the history of information and analyze the statistics of it all, it’s impact and it’s potential for disaster. Now, I’m not meaning to sound all “doom and gloom” about technology. I love it. But let’s not get in a big hurry here.
So will books with pages you can turn be completely replaced by the e-books technology? E-books may become very popular and more accepted by the grassroots populace, but doing away with old books completely? I don’t think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
