Well, tomorrow I'm off to Hilton Head to begin the celebration of my forthcoming nuptials. Be back in about a week with a ring on my finger.
Warning: This post is so long that I have, for the first time, employed the Extended Entry option. Read on...
There's a thread on Slashdot today that promotes something called the Distributed Library Project. The basic premise is that Bay Area people create accounts and list their collections for other's perusal. If the potential borrower and owner can coordinate times, items can be checked out.
Here's the "What is the DLP?" blurb from the project's site:
"The Distributed Library Project is an experiment in sharing information and building community in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Unfortunately, the traditional library system doesn't do much to foster community. Patrons come and go, but there is very little opportunity to establish relationships with people or groups of people. In fact, if you try to talk with someone holding a book you like - you'll probably get shushed. The Distributed Library Project works in exactly the opposite way, where the very function of the library depends on interaction."
Now of course, you're horrified by the assertion that libraries do little by way of community building, as was I. Fortunately, the Slashdot community agrees.
A few good examples:
1. "While this does seem like a cool project, the very premise is a bit skewed. Libraries used to be quite places, talking was always frowned upon, and the librarian was some old 90 year old hag who cared more about smacking people around than passing on knowledge.
Times, my friend, are changing.
It's often acceptible to socialize in libraries now. There are usually designated quiet portions of the library, but for the most part interaction between patrons is allowed. In fact, larger libraries set up study groups and so forth where interaction is ENCOURAGED among patrons who are interested in a similar topic."
2. "Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but our local library [lib.mn.us] has done a lot for fostering community. My wife has participated in the annual poetry contest and readings at the library. We have gotten to know our library staff, met people and our kids have discovered new materials through the connections that they have made at the library. I won't argue that this program has value, but your average local library is community-run, a center for local civic involvement and community programs and projects. The American Library Association puts community involvement at the heart of it's mission."
3. "That's just nonsense. Yes, you can't go walking up to strangers reading and start a conversation but who wants that anyway? There are many opportunities to get to know your fellow patrons. Our county library system has many activities during the day, evening, and weekends, including book discussion groups (for adults, teens, and parent/child), story time for the younger set (so popular that you have to get a free ticket from the circulation desk the morning of the event to get in), board game night for teens...and more activities I can't remember."
As offensive as I find the assertion that libraries don't foster community, I'm more concerned with the proposition that this project is the solution. First, I'm very skeptical of the use of the term community in this situation. It seems that what would develop from this is a very particular kind of community, focused on a technologically-advantaged population (not to mention media-endowed). This is precisely the kind of service distinction (advantaged/disadvantaged) that we as librarians work so hard to overcome.
Then there are other issues that are typically handled through well-considered policies and the judgment of trained professionals (and the excellent paraprofessionals too!). What happens when the borrower damages the book and the lender turns out to be, um, "associated"? Is the "collection unit" going to make an appearance to demand reparations?
What about the utility of a catalog made by its users? From another comment:
"There's a reason that professional librarians go to graduate school to learn how to do essential "librarian" things like cataloging. Any database of this nature will collapse in on itself and be completely useless without things such as language control [loc.gov]. This is another case where a techie with a really good idea should first consult with a professional librarian before trying to re-invent the wheel."
Privacy also comes to mind as an issue. While libraries are working on this continually, privacy is a mixed blessing when it comes to individual exchanges. Setting up a "meeting" to make a "transaction" sounds a bit sketchy to me. The point is that libraries exist as a safe place for information exchange and yes, community building. Putting the means of exchange into the hands of individuals is a novel idea, but the idea of community that it espouses is entirely out of line with my conception.
I leave you with this comment: "Unfortunately, the traditional lavatory system doesn't do much to foster community. Patrons come and go, but there is very little opportunity to establish relationships with people or groups of people. In fact, if you try to talk with someone using the toilet you like - you'll probably get shushed. The Distributed Lavatory Project works in exactly the opposite way, where the very function of the lavatory depends on interaction."
I just learned that Seattle librarian, Nancy Pearl, now famous as the model for the "librarian action figure," will be paying a visit to our library to talk about her new book. Not only am I invited to attend, it is expected of all managers. Hurray!
For the first time, I was fooled by a post linking to Marlee's blog. Aaron at Kennebunk had a "link via Open Stacks" and I foolishly thought to myself, "I don't remember linking to this." And right, I didn't. Of course, my confusion was abetted by the gracious link to this blog in the sidebar (Thank you!).
BTW, Aaron, I saw that you're offering New Books at KFL as a web page. Now tell me that isn't screaming blog format with accompanying RSS feed? Mmm, tasty.
Wow, I just read over at Blogsource that Humpday Havoc has been censored and will therefore cease to exist. I'm absolutely stunned and dying to know more. They've barely even gotten that ball rolling and have said little that could be called objectionable. Are they being stopped on the chance that they'll get out of line? It sets a pretty scary precedent. I would think my material is on the whole riskier (from an employer's perspective) than their's, wouldn't you? Am I next?
Earlier this month, I posted about another blog by the name of Open Stacks. At the time, the author (Marlee) was seemingly unaware of the duality. I'm pleased to announce that she is amongst us at last!
In response to her discovery, she has generously offered (not only in my comments, but on her own blog as well) to change the name of her blog. One comment from the original post noted that Marlee changed her name to Open Stacks on April 16, 2003 and that therefore, I came first. Actually I changed the name of this blog to Open Stacks on April 26, a full ten days later. So seniority remains Marlee's, but I am admittedly well-entrenched in the association.
In the end, I leave the naming decision to her, but appreciate the gesture as well as the kind words about the "professional" appearance of my little chunk of server space. As Steven pointed out, changing one's blog name will in fact merit a mention on LIS Blogsource. Should that qualify as incentive?
As a footnote to this, Marlee chose her name from McSweeney's Library Science Jargon That Sounds Dirty. If I were to pick a new name from the same list, there would be no contest: Access Point. In fact, it tempts me even now.
Make Marlee feel welcome and go visit her blog.
I have to admit I fancy this idea:
ISSN for Weblogs - You can apply for and use an International Standard Serial Number for your Weblog. Your blog will then officially exist in the worldwide standardized encyclopedia of periodicals.
I'm seriously considering putting in an application. Call it senseless vanity, but I may not be able to help myself.
Courtesy of Lockergnome
In a few short days, my article has elicited some really nice comments and linkage from both within and outside of the LIS blogosphere. I am particularly fond of David Bigwood calling it "the article on WebJunction" as if the article has reached such notoriety that no further explication is necessary. After all, it was even the Library Link of the Day for August 5th.
Anyway, I just wanted to take the time to say thanks for the interest and support.
Well, I discovered today that a librarian named Marlee is also using the name Open Stacks for her blog. She has been active since last year, which gives her substantial seniority. At an earlier point, there would have been no question as to my response: I'd have thought of a new name. But now I'm not so sure. I think I'm sufficiently associated with the name that changing it now wouldn't be the most prudent decision, especially given my newly published article and recent addition to LISFeeds. Do you concur?
That little article I wrote for Webjunction has been published.
I'm trying to avoid any pre-emptive commentary about how it might have been different. There's one edit that was made that, having read it again, doesn't sit quite right with me. But that's OK - I had the chance to contest and it didn't bother me then. I'm mostly just pleased that they liked it enough to add it to their site.
Opinions are welcome.