I'm posting a short excerpt from Sarah Long's article on recruitment, as I suspect there are some people who will disagree strongly with the premise:

"The average age of librarians working today is between 46 and 50. It's easy to deduce that there will be a great number of retirements in the next few years.

There is much concern in library circles about what is going to happen as the retirements take place. Recruiting more people into librarianship seems to be the obvious answer."

I may talk about this issue in my next full show, but suffice it to say that this does not correspond to my experience either as a job seeker or as a person in an organization with plenty of retirement age staffers.

Look for more CiL audio commentary later tonight...

After some reflection, I wanted to ramble a bit more about using an agreed-upon tag to collocate resources related to the upcoming Computers in Libraries conference. Writing this post also gives me the opportunity to test out the MT TechnoratiTags plugin, which couldn't be much easier to implement and use is proving to be more of a pain in my buttocks than I had imagined.

Anyway, I must admit to some frustration at the lack of feedback and discussion about using a common tag across the various folksonomical sites, such as Flickr or del.icio.us (sorry for the lack of hypertextuality, but it's late and I'm lazy). Still, I'm confident that this is a good idea and that, as information professionals, we need to insert ourselves into the folksonomies turf and show what we can do with our "Information Organization and Access" skills. We're already lagging behind other efforts in this domain. Exhibit A: the Northern Voice blogging conference. They had the complete package: a conference website built as a blog, updated before, during and after the conference; an aggregator featuring all of the participating bloggers at the conference; AND organized tagging. Granted, there was no discussion about the tags, just an edict from Ronald Tanglao declaring northernvoice to be the tag of choice, but the results are undeniable. Here are the aggregated results of the northernvoice tag in Technorati, Flickr (658 photos!) and del.icio.us.

Applying this to content related to Computers in Libraries seemed like such a commonsense idea to me, but I realize now that I may have been presumptuous on a few different levels.

First, in all likelihood, no one reads this blog anymore given my extended hiatus and lack of worthwhile content. Totally understandable, although those of you who kept me in your aggregator were immediately alerted to my return. There are also probably some who are only subscribed in their podcatcher and therefore miss any of the text content (any feed I subscribe to with my podcast aggregator, I also subscribe to in Bloglines).

Second, most people aren't going to this particular conference and therefore couldn't care less. OK, fair enough, but I'd still like to know what term you'd use to search for content related to the conference. I like to believe that we do this kind of collocation for the particular benefit of those who can't be there in person, making those perspectives essential.

Third, most people, even in the blogosphere, are not necessarily "early adopters" and therefore haven't really participated in any tagging-based sites. Thus some education might be in order, although I don't fancy myself the ideal candidate. Still, I'd be happy to guide anyone who expressed interest.

As the Northern Voice conference demonstrated, consensus tagging is only one part of the picture, but it's the part I've tried to motivate, however unsuccessfully. I'd love to see Information Today (or anyone with the skills/resources, for that matter) take up the reins and demonstrate that the LIS world is not going to be left in the dust when it comes to organizing digital resources.

Incidentally, with the publication of this post, there should be a Technorati tag page for cil2005.

It's interesting to see jessamyn and Sarah Houghton both addressing a topic I posted here over a year ago, namely, the Distributed Library Project.

Despite my sentiments, the project is growing legs. In addition to the Bay Area effort (linked above), there's a wiki related to a British effort in developing the project. On the wiki, there's a Slashdot comment that I quoted which, to a degree, makes it seem like I am the "incensed librarian" being referenced. Not exactly, but it could have been me, if I had been clever enough to come up with a Distributed Lavatory Project.

Anyway, I think my initial reactions to the project still apply. So read 'em, if you're so inclined.

I was reading a fairly interesting New York Observer article about the culture of the Netflix queue, of which I am an active participant, when I came across the following passage (bold is mine):

"I hector people to use it, kind of embarrassingly," said Robert Levine, a former senior editor at Wired, now a freelance writer. "A friend of mine was complaining she was late in returning a DVD to Blockbuster, and I was like, 'Why would you want someone charging you a late fee?' It's not like the late fees are so financially onerous, but they send you a notice that it's late in the mail. And then you have to go in and pay. If they could just take the fucking late fee from my credit card, it'd be fine. But then you have to go into the store and wait in line again. I mean, it's like getting in trouble with the library. I don't understand why anyone puts up with it."

I'm sure I don't need to analyze the faults of Mr. Levine's analogy for you, but his comments raise a compelling point: why don't more libraries allow patrons to pay their fines online? Why, if we are going to maintain financial penalties, do we not provide all possible means to settle up? Isn't the burden of having to pay the fine taxing enough?

Am I the only person finding many fewer recognizable names on the Council Ballot this year as compared to last year's? How am I supposed to select 34 people from a list of 93 unknowns in some sort of reasonable time span? Especially when everyone has the pro-library platform. Oh, so you "plan to support initiatives to increase funding for libraries?" Funny, so do 92 of your closest ballot compatriots. What an unbelievable coincidence! "ALA should be a strong advocate for libraries." Wow, controversial and edgy. Really taking a stand. "Better salaries for librarians." Well, at least you're talking to me, rather than at me.

In the end, I'll probably just repeat last year's methodology: public librarians rule. If name recognition has any bearing on the election (and I find it hard to imagine that it doesn't), I'll bet Michael McGrorty has a legitimate shot at election. Which reminds me, I need to send him a library card.

It was one year ago today that I made the following senseless remark:

"Oh great, another blog.

Oh yeah, he's engaged too.

Well, now he's married, he works and he owns a home. What a difference a year makes. The people I've met and opportunities that I've been offered as a result of my modest publishing efforts here at Open Stacks have far outdistanced any preconceptions I may have had. To those of you who've inspired me, a heart-felt thank you.

So let's honor this anniversary with some good old-fashioned congrunting. Warning: This post published late at night without proper editing. Read at own risk.

Day two at the Computers in Libraries begins with a keynote by David Seuss. Again, the theme is unintended consequences of technological development. His main premise is that technology inevitable has greater impact than the early developers/practitioners ever conceptualize. He uses this paradigm to look at the development of web search technology.

The intent of web search: to make everything accessible from one interface. The unintended consequence: obscenely bloated databases that produce search results of little to no relevance for the user. Priorities for library community (information organization) and search engine community (cash flow) are at odds. Seuss sees the future as lying in personalization of the search engine. Choose your own searchable sources using your own experience and discretion. Sounds good if you have either a) experience or b) discretion. I think that's a lot to ask of the user. [Note: There are microcosmic versions of this approach already in practice, such as the Trusted Blog Search Tool, which allows you to limit your search to the blogs you read.]

During the keynote, I couldn't help but watch Jenny multitask away on her laptop, while never missing a beat on the keynote presentation. We move to the back of the room, so she can plug in during the day's first session (not only was this conference lacking wireless, it was sorely lacking electrical sources). The move to the back of the room is auspicious as it affords me the opportunity to meet Michael Sauers, whose name I recognize from a variety of online encounters.

First session is a presentation of an AI client being used for virtual reference at a medical library (I think, don't quote me on that). Session is a little dry at first, but livens up when the client is put into action. Very cool and much closer to my vision of online reference. Not quite The Librarian from Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, but a step in an intriguing direction.

Second session is entitled "Supporting KM with Weblogs," presented by Michael Angeles of urlgreyhot.com. I always find discussions of blogging at the organizational level compelling, although there isn't too much new information for me through this session. He discusses three different strategies for enterprise weblogging: centralized, decentralized, mediated. He defines these strategies by two parameters: publishing tools and classification/search solutions, which is to say, by methods of input and methods of output. The right choice depends on the size and ecology of your organization.

Sometime during the morning, I meet Will Richardson, but I can't quite place it within my timeline. His presentation on Weblogs in the Classroom looks like it was probably quite interesting.

Lunch with my colleague was a nice opportunity to catch up and digest some of the earlier proceedings.

After lunch, I went to watch Michael and Robert give their presentation under the vague title, "Organization Perspectives." This is not normally the kind of presentation I would have selected, but I really wanted to see Michael speak and I had no idea what was to come. This session was really two presentations in one. The first section, presented by Angela Ballard, discussed technology training as an integral part of organizational culture and needing to be treated as such. She discussed the need for administrators and trainers to stay plugged-in to the impact of on-going training and to prioritize training that meets the organizational mission and goals. She appropriately mentioned the need for trainers to stay current in both the technology AND training fields. One idea that she presented that both my colleague and I appreciated was the idea of presented application software in context. That is, rather than another Intro to Publisher class, teach a class that shows how to create a desk schedule in Publisher. Task-oriented classes with practical applications. Point well taken.

Michael and Robert's presentation is both simple and remarkable. The main theme: Celebrate Staff with Technology. If there's one thing I'd like to see my library try and do (other than Federated Searching and Aggregated Subject Guides), it's use technology to highlight our wonderful staff. How did Michael and Robert accomplish this goal? By creating an absolutely stunning video featuring Madonna's Ray of Light. The video featured footage of every (willing) employee amongst the library's numerous branches. Not just front-line librarians, but facilities, security, cleaning crew, pages, clerks, and, of course, the administration. Every department was highlighted and celebrated. The video received a standing ovation from the staff when they presented it and received accolades from this audience at this session. Some people raised copyright questions about use of the song, but others were ready for it to be presented in front of the entire ALA conference. This video was a marvel, but other libraries could use the same mentality in simpler ways. How about a featured employee on your web site? And again, not just librarians. Celebrate everyone who makes your organization run.

Next session reveals the redesign of the SUNY-Stony Brook Health Sciences Library web site using the Plone content management system. I was hoping this was live, so I could check it out in greater detail after the presentation, but no such luck. I'm fascinated by Plone as it seems powerful, dynamic and highly extensible, so I enjoyed seeing it deployed in the library context. It's probably a bit beyond the current needs/ecology of my organization, but I think it would streamline our efforts at collaborative content creation, so it may be worth a closer look.

I base my final selection of the day on my new role as overseer (for lack of a more official title) of ILL within my organization. This session looks at an effort to unify the ILL efforts of New Jersey's libraries through the creation of a virtual catalog. Kentucky already offers a virtual catalog (thanks Jenny!), so I'll be interested to see if we are taking advantage of this great ILL resource. What seems unique about the New Jersey effort is the creation of a union catalog to accommodate the holdings of smaller libraries and allow them to participate easily in the lending process. The requesting interface is also intuitive and easily used by end-users and librarians alike.

After a long day of learning, I head to the hotel room to decompress, but am distracted by the sight of Gary and Jenny chatting in the lounge. Not wanting to miss a opportunity to chat with those toward whose achievements I aspire, I join the fray. Moments later, we are joined by search engine guru Greg Notess. These three just know way too much about search, so they make for a fascinating conversation.

Eventually I find myself chatting solo with Greg and a few minutes late for the library bloggers dine-around. Running down the hill to Thaiphoon, I see the group has already assembled. I meet some new folks, including the elusive, yet legendary Chris Zammarelli and Fox News librarian Jerry Kirschner. Good times, lively chat (rarely about library blogs) and some tasty food, including some amazingly good post-meal ice cream at Larry's.

Not particularly tired after dinner, Andrea and I retreat to the lounge and discuss careers and life for a while. Eventually, I decide to head up to bed. And then I saw exactly what I had been seeking. Michael Sauers had somehow found his way into a conversation with some of the conference aristocracy, including conference chair Jane Dysart. I had determined earlier that I was not going to pass up an opportunity to get into these kind of conversations while I was at the conference. So remembering that Michael was in the lounge as it is one of the few wireless-friendly locations in the hotel, I approach him under the guise of confirming his wireless success. Seconds later, I was sitting in a circle with Roy Tennant, Stephen Abram, Darlene Fitcher, Frank Cervone and Jane Dysart. This is why I'm loving the conference scene. And they all seemed interested in what I had to say.

At one point, Jane asks if Michael and I could add an RSS feed to her blog. Could we? We'll do it right now. I felt like I was participating in a historic moment. Jane couldn't thank us enough for our help. By the end of the evening, Jane and Darlene are encouraging us to submit proposals for Internet Librarian in November. Food for thought, no doubt.

Well, that was enough excitement for one day and this is enough writing for this day, the one year anniversary of my presence in the blogosphere. Thanks for reading.

OK, as promised, a laundry list of experiences, reflections and comments from my recent adventures in D.C.

Preface: Conferencing is all about networking and I met some amazing people at this conference. I've mentioned before that after almost a year in the blogosphere, I'd never met a single one of my online acquaintances. Can't say that anymore and I couldn't have been more pleased to share company with all of my cybercolleagues.

So without further adieu, an extended recap of the first day of CiL.

Opening keynote by Clifford Lynch touched upon a number of interesting topics centered on a theme of the "unintended consequences" brought on by technological development. One of the more provocative ideas he mentioned was a recognition that not all things written are read by humans (consider search engine crawlers as an example). He asked us to consider how publishing and writing might change if it is done with machine reading and automated fact extraction in mind.

After searching in vain for the library blogger contingent before the keynote, I stumble across Steven (already an old friend, even if only in cyberspace) and Jenny. Happy to have finally made some connections, I follow them to the first session where I have the privilege of meeting Michael, Aaron and Andrea.

First session is very inspiring. David King of the Kansas City Public Library discusses the conversion of his library's collection of Internet links to a series of subject guides in the vein of About.com. He showed how a search for Harry Potter would pull up a page containing not only catalog holdings, but relevant web links, library and local events, etc. Unfortunately, it's not live yet, but the user-centered focus on aggregating local resources was a compelling approach.

Next session covered federated searching, sometimes known as metasearching. So many good reasons to consider federated searching, which, for those unfamiliar with the term, allows a user to search multiple heterogeneous resources through a single search interface. The presenter discussed how federated searching addresses the issues of "prior knowledge" (where the user must know how to choose resources to be effective) and "multiplicity of effort" (where the user must replicate the search repeatedly in different databases). Using a single interface that produces a list of results from different databases also facilitates resource discovery. The most promising revelation from this session was that this technology is already in use at King County Public Library. Why not at mine?!?!

Lunch time means a trip to Pennsylvania Avenue for a meeting with Blogdigger's Greg Gershman. He's an interesting guy and the stuff he does has enormous potential. Steven and I have been particularly intrigued by his Blogdigger Groups, which allows creation of a group blog by aggregating feeds from the sources you select. For an example, check out Steven's Librarian Blogs or my Indiana Blogs! page. Greg has been very receptive to feedback and I've enjoyed being a small part of the development of this particular tool.

After lunch, I went to a session that dealt with usability testing. Not too much here, but a few things that reinforced what I already know. Jargon is bad and it's even worse than most think. Just remember that "library catalog" is incomprehensible to a large percentage of users and you'll have the idea. I was mostly interested in the methodology they (being the Penn State University Libraries) used in testing their site. They did a task-oriented comparison of different site arrangements and navigational structures. Capture software was used to record mouse movement, keyboard strokes and running audio of the user's experience. They conclude that site navigation systems are at the core of site efficiency. Nothing too surprising about that.

Last session of the day was the first (and as fate had it, only) chance to see Steven present, alongside two other experts in the domain of "keeping up": Gary Price and Rita Vine. Rita presented a list of top newsletters for staying current with Internet search, most of which I am already well familiar. Steven ran through his 10 step program for keeping current, and again, I already know his perspective on currency, but enjoyed his rapid-fire presentation manner. And he did mention me in his presentation as co-conspirator on Blogsource, so that was an exciting moment for my ego. Gary talked about a wide variety of resources and demonstrated how he keeps track of over 700 sites using Web Site Watcher. He also mentioned that ResourceShelf now provides a full-text RSS feed and I couldn't help but applaud.

The most telling moment of the whole conference came during the question-and-answer portion of this session. After all of the discussion by both Steven and Gary about RSS, an audience member stands up and asks "What is RSS?" And I'll be darned if half the audience didn't applaud at someone asking a question that they all had been harboring the whole time. Wow. It's easy to forget that not every librarian lives and dies by the same set of technologies. Those who are thoroughly acquainted with OpenURL may never have seen an aggregator before and vice versa. And similarly, you can't assume that just because you've presented introductory material on a topic any number of times, there won't be new faces in your crowd. I learned more in that moment about technology in libraries than in any other time at the conference.

After the session, I introduced myself to Rita and Gary. I don't remember too much of that conversation, except for the moment when Gary thanked me for writing that article I wrote last summer. I didn't even mention it, but somehow he remembered. Amazing individual.

Wednesday evening means the legendary "Dead Tech" panel, which explores dead and emerging technologies in libraries. I had heard a little about this session and was told it was not to be missed. And Jenny was on the panel, so it was a no-brainer. What no one mentioned was how "loose" the presentation would be. I'm talking about panelists with beers in hand and almost every panelist having some sort of shtick related to the theme "Fear Factor." It was pretty silly with a number of the panelists mentioning Steven in some affectionately disparaging fashion. Of all statements made over the course of two hours, none stuck with me as strongly as the declaration by one panelist that Virtual Reference was a dead technology. Hasn't even been born in my library and perhaps it never will be. It was a statement much discussed over the next two days.

The late night activity took place at Zorba's Cafe with some falafel, hummus, red wine and good Hoosier-centric company. A long day that finally ended with some much needed sleep in preparation for day two. More to come...

A post on the new NexGen Librarian Blog directed me to the following article:

Hanging Indents and the Reference Librarian: Offering Productivity Software in the Public Library - "This article explores ways to expand the public library's mission, and that of the reference librarian, to include offering word processing on public access computers. The author defines access to and the ability to use word processing software as a form of literacy and links this to the library's established role in promoting literacy. This article also provides anecdotal information about introducing this software at a public library system."

This student-written article draws its title from a provocative statement: ' "I did not go to library school to end up teaching people how to make hanging indents,? said one indignant librarian, as her library prepared to add productivity software to PACs.'

You'll probably not be surprised that I categorically oppose the subtext underlying this narrow view of librarianship, as does the author. Rachel Mendez explores the idea of library as learning center, in all its myriad manifestations. How obvious it seems.

Yet she aptly draws attention to the obstacles that we face internally in trying to pursue this common-sense (for me at least) objective. As Walt is well aware, I buy whole-heartedly into the mission of information literacy for all, but it is far from a common thread amongst librarians. Ms. Mendez's exploration of information literacy in the context of offering education in productivity software is interesting in and of itself. More significantly, it serves as a reminder of the larger organizational inertia that adds challenge to that pursuit.

In my nightly browsing, I came across this post, the contents of which I find quite disheartening:

"Ok, I hold a student position at the medical library and my boss is this super conservative republican lady. It was Friday afternoon and me and a coworker were just sitting around waiting for the clock to tick 6 P.M. so we could go home, then I get a phone call and after I got off the phone the conversation with the co-worker went something like this:

Does that sound like harassment? The comments were all made in a non-threatening tone and just as a friendly chat between co-workers. Now I know that if I was to come out my boss would not be comfortable with me being gay and I do think she would either make it difficult for me to work here or would give me less hours for work next semester. Probably even at the time when she wasn't at the office."

It's sad that his concern is quite reasonable. And to see such an atmosphere of intolerance manifest itself in an environment that should be known for its respect, if not celebration, of diverse identities, backgrounds and viewpoints is tragic. Of course, the author and his co-worker could be off-base in their perception of the boss, but a workplace culture that even suggests intolerance, especially on the managerial level, makes me cringe.

Got an interesting comment from Richard Soderberg that I wanted to share with you, in the hopes of eliciting some comments:

"I'd like to hear more from the library community about the shared and private ontologies being developed at del.icio.us; I'm crysflame on delicious. Glad to see that it's filling a need in such a relevant demographic :) I wonder if librarians are, by default, more attracted to del.icio.us than other folk -- being a librarian myself, and also having found it completely addictive to use."

Well, my ontology is woefully lacking as it essentially created on the fly, based on the things that I am cataloging (literary warrant, baby!). Unfortunately, I'm the type that could categorize an item one way on the first day and then forget my thought process the next day, left to wonder what the heck I was thinking (or where that article about ontologies went). I'm sure a little time spent reconsidering my previous choices would serve me well in the long run.

To the second question, of course librarians are drawn to del.icio.us. The opportunity to categorize our online reference sources and share them with an unsuspecting populace will always be a draw.

BTW, since Richard is a librarian, that would make floating atoll a library blog. Better go toss that up onto Blogsource.

Walt certainly has generated a lot of comments lately. I was catching up on my aggie reading and noticed some commentary on the commons-blog regarding a definition of the term Information Commons. But I lost focus on the thread when I saw Walt remark that "At this point, "information commons" just isn't a way I pull all of this together, just as I continue to be unconvinced that "information literacy" means much of anything (although a couple of old and dear friends are heavily involved in that movement) and also continue to regard the "digital divide" as more hype than substance. (Geez, have I alienated everyone now?)" (bold emphasis is mine).

I was quite surprised since, in my naive mind, information literacy is a very clean distillation of what appeals to me about librarianship. Sure, the term is so much bibliobabble, much like "Interlibrary Loan," "Selective Dissemination of Information" or even "database." To me though, it succinctly synthesizes what I've come to regard as a fundamental goal of librarianship.

A quick definition: "...information literate people know how to find, evaluate, and use information effectively to solve a particular problem or make a decision---whether the information they select comes from a computer, a book, a government agency, a film, or any number of other possible resources." 1989 ALA Presidential Committee on Information Literacy Final Report.

Somewhere along the way in the grande olde days of grad school, I realized that I, first and foremost, needed to become that person myself. Second, I needed to empower others to "use information effectively to solve a particular problem or make a decision." That was my whole raison d'etre and my driving force as I selected classes and subsequently, a career path.

So I guess I'm mildly stunned to see what amounts to my motto/creed (note blog description) summarily dismissed as devoid of meaning by someone I respect. And I suppose I'm too young to recognize Information Literacy as a movement, rather than an essential, fundamental objective. Maybe I'm just enchanted with its progressive and idealistic ring. All I know is that words and phrases such as these are only useful in so far as they successfully communicates ideas, and the phrase Information Literacy has done a whole lot of communicating to this librarian.

I followed a link from Peter Scott's Library Blog to check out a magazine called New Library World. Thanks to the free access to full-text, I was able to read, in the most recent issue, an interesting article entitled "Job satisfaction among library managers: a cross-cultural study of stress, freedom and job conditions" by Neils O. Pors. Of course, the title spoke to me, given my current position.

The article discusses a survey of British and Danish Library Managers and tries to draw conclusions about how nationality and cultural differences play into the concept of job satisfaction. I'm going to save you some time and pull some summary observations entirely out of their context.

"Age and job satisfaction appear to be independent of each other."

"Overall no difference in job satisfaction in relation to gender was found."

"A tendency to a higher degree of job satisfaction among managers in academic libraries is found."

And the stunning revelations: "Overall, there is a very strong correlation between the level of job satisfaction and the amount of stress."

"A low degree of stress goes together with much freedom in the job."

There are actually some interesting observations that deal with the differences in Danish and British culture, but those of you genuinely interested will seek out the article anyway. However, I had to share the conclusion: "The author feels it is extremely important to raise the job satisfaction of managers. It would be a significant part of the organisational culture with implications for staff satisfaction, recruitment for managerial positions and recruitment of new staff. Managers' job satisfaction is probably one thing that permeates the whole organisation and influences the psychological climate to a great extent."

To which I say, huzzah!

Well, it seems that Nanette's post articulating a number of her issues with library blogs has rubbed some people the wrong way. So much so that Nanette felt compelled to address the issue again.

Now, not every one took offense to Nanette's remarks. My commenters thought she made some good points, as did Jessamyn, Peter and a few of the commenters in the reactionary posts listed above.

I tried my best to hold forth from commentary, in order to avoid being instantly characterized as kin to "the Smelly People of the World" or the "huffy, pissy easily-offended troglodytes." But I just can't help myself.

First, inflammatory responses should come as no surprise. Write inflammatorily - expect inflammation. However, it does seem that people felt personally attacked by Nanette. Why exactly - unless she struck a chord? What surprises me most is that anyone would feel the need to strike back on a personal level. I've seen some pretty rude words bandied about in regards to Nanette's character. Folks, if you thought she was talking about you, then at some level, she probably was, but in the most general of contexts. Are you really that insecure about your blogging? Well, maybe you are...and that's OK too.

Enough about that...on to Nanette's three inevitable hate-worthy elements of library weblogs (excerpted...apologies for potential loss of context...you can always read the post yourself) and why they just might be off-based. But first, let me concur that at least one of these three elements pervades just about every library blog, including Nanette's, the library blogs to which she chooses to link, and of course, my own.

1. "Every day, approximatly [sic] thirty librarians or wannabe librarians write some half-assed weblog entry bitching and moaning about how they don't wear their hair in a bun or say "shhh." It would be great if they threw all that energy into something productive and meaningful."

Or into bitching and moaning about other library blogs. Hmmm...what was that about productive and meaningful uses of energy?

2. "poorly-written anecdotes about interactions with surly, smelly, or otherwise offensive patrons at the [circle one] ref desk / circ desk / public access internet computers."

We can debate the uneven quality of blog-writing all day long. I, for one, use too many pointless adverbs, but on the other hand, I make an effort to check my spelling before publishing (see 1). To this complaint, I must simply comment: judge not, lest you be judged yourself.

3. "The same links to whatever Ashcroft or Meese or whatever conservative flavor-of-the-week is saying about librarians...Is some jerkoff's column in his online super-duper conservative webzine really worth the energy we throw into ranting about it? No, it probably isn't. I suspect it is worth about as much energy as pondering the image of librarians."

It seems that most reactions have been directed at the first two complaints, but this seems to me to be the riskiest assertion. There appears to be two points contained within this one rant: a. excessive link duplication and b. unnecessary, pointless confrontation with the right-wing pundits.

a. While I'm not a huge fan of pure link-dumping (despite my occasional engagement in same), I think that there is something important to be gleaned just from the number of different people who link to a story. That's why Popdex and Blogdex are seen as such useful, powerful tools. The more librarians (and the more different varieties of librarians!) that link to a particular story, the broader professional implications one might infer said story to have. This is far from foolproof logic, but may help one make decisions about which stories bear the greatest urgency for the profession.

b. Along similar lines, addressing the rants of those expressing anti-library or anti-librarian sentiments is of paramount urgency to the profession. I don't understand how it could be any other way. Blogging has the potential to be influential. Why let the pundits have all the influence? Should we expect others to voice our opinions for us?

Do I have a point with all of this rambling? Sure. As someone who has read many, many library weblogs over the past year (many more than Nanette herself, I reckon), I can safely say that Nanette makes some valid observations about them. There is a lot of redundancy and ranting. But I refuse to see this as negative.

Perhaps I'm a library blog apologist. I accept that role gladly. One of the glories of library blogging is that it demonstrates both commonality and difference within the profession. The tendencies towards redundancy and ranting often reflect the commonalities. Posts like Nanette's demonstrate that there are differences. Both are ultimately worthy of consideration and dialogue, encouragement and celebration.

Although I have to admit I quite fancy the idea of repurposing unsold books to make roadway material (Toll road built on pulped fiction), I can't help but think that there are more than a few libraries who could use some deeply-discounted books. Then again, who are we to get in the way of public safety? (And besides, who has shelf space for books that no one wants?)

With all of my shameless promotion of LIS bloggery, I would be remiss in not redirecting you to a different perspective:

I hate library weblogs.

Over at TechnoBiblio, Steph mentioned that the Web needs some weeding, due to the prevalence of old information and broken links. She goes on to talk about the ability to conduct searches for recently updated content. Having read the post, I found myself wondering what the weeding of an online reference collection might entail.

For example, let's say that you maintain both a general collection of subject-specific links and a physical collection covering the same topics. It seems to me that the motivations and approaches to weeding these collections might be quite different.

When I weed my collection, one significant consideration is whether the book is ever used (please note public library bias). Well, what's the online equivalent...a click-through? Would I eliminate the links that no one ever clicks on? (And at the risk of betraying my ignorance, is this easily measurable?)

What about space considerations? We often weed to make room for newer materials. In a physical space, it's both a practical and aesthetic issue. Do the same constraints apply to an online link collection? Or is an online collection's size determined mostly by the librarianly ideals of selectivity balanced with breadth and/or depth?

I, of course, have no answers...only more questions.

I wonder how lii.org deals with the issue of weeding its ever-growing collection. I'm sure they know which links are broken, but do they know which resources aren't used? Does it matter, based on their objectives? Probably not, as I would imagine that the more classic reference source evaluation factors take center stage: currency, authority, accuracy, and all of your other grad school favorites. Perhaps weeding an online link collection shares more with an academic library weeding approach, but having never worked in that environment, I'll open the floor to the wisdom of others.

Howdy everyone. You can blame my absence on this pesky World Series, but in trying to catch up, I came across some interesting stuff.

There's been plenty of talk about comment spam lately, particularly amongst Movable Type users, myself included. Since I've installed Jay Allen's MT-Blacklist, I haven't had a single incidence...until yesterday. But this wasn't the garden variety "phentermine and viagra" comment spam. Nope, this was from a PhD student promoting a weblog covering the Invisible Web.

Now, I have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, the content is interesting, relevant and I'm glad to know about it. However, the author is using my comments as a publicity source, without providing a comment relevant to the discussion. So I won't link directly to this individual's blog, but invite you to check out the last post's comments for the URL.

Having mentioned the comments on the last post, I should add a pronounced "Wowzer!" My innocent little suggestion turned into quite the discussion. There were mentions of blogs, wikis, indexes and collaborative information systems. And all I wanted was a little more discussion of what librarians do, when they do what they do. Let's not get too fancy here and take all the fun out of it.

Oh, and here's an excerpt from an article that sums up some of my sentiments about the Librarian Action Figure:

"Nancy Pearl looks like a very nice person and I'm sure I would like her if I met her. So, my disappointment isn't with whom they picked as the model, but the way she is presented. She is dressed in what could be described as predictable librarian clothes -- a conservative suit, probably extremely comfortable shoes and glasses. I'm sure it is the shallow part of me that makes me want this, but I wish she could look snazzier -- you know, shiny or elegant or glittery -- so maybe some girl somewhere might see her and say to themselves: Wow, I want one of these, she's cool; or something like that. And she would then want to be a librarian because her action figure looks not only intelligent and capable, but also exciting and brave and modern.

I know appearances can be deceiving and so Ms. Pearl is probably all of those. But I wish it was easier to tell by looking."

And since I expect to get my chance to meet her soon, I'll let you know.

You know what I find lacking in the LIS blogosphere? I see a fair amount of writing that mentions different reference transactions (refgrunt, anyone?), but I never learn anything about how our diverse collection of information professionals goes about handling these situations.

What proved the be the best source for "the history of music in Oregon during the 1850's?" What sources would you in fact recommend for a patron "researching public health policies?"

Why don't we share more? Maybe we're not willing to have our techniques scrutinized by other so-called experts. That's understandable, but at the same time, I'd like to think I can be accountable for the guidance I provide. Plus, by sharing our approaches with the blogosphere, we're likely to hear alternate ideas from our brilliant cohorts. Perhaps there'll be some lively debate. Who can say for sure? All I know is that we have a lot to teach each other, the kind of insight you just can't get in a few hours of a grad school course.

We have an opportunity to propagate more than our opinions about Ashcroft and OCLC (although these are clearly worthwhile pursuits that I have no intention of abandoning). Rather than saying over and over again that free-web search engines are not necessarily the best approach, let's start demonstrating it. We are not guardians of arcane knowledge, but information guides of the first order. So quit guarding your knowledge and let the guide in you shine through.

I recorded my initial reaction to Mr. Lowry's column this morning over at LISNews and thought I'd share it with you, in case you hadn't stumbled across it.

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.

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."

{Jestful CIPA commentary}

As evidence of the inefficacy of filtering, Simon says (sorry) that he couldn't access Library Stuff at work due to the filters on his computers. He was unable to identify the offensive elements, but I'll be damned if I don't at least try.

Of course, Steven is a dirty, dirty man and the phrase "get the stuff every day" is just fraught with innuendo unacceptable for children (whether it's visible to filters or not). Other questionable phrases? You bet.

"C'mon and join the party" - 1-999-LIBERRY. Our 'professionals' are online and waiting for you.

"will not be reading Harry Potter" - No kid should ever see those words together!

"attending the Dixie Chicks concert" - That's un-American!

"tool" and "nuts" - No comment

From the OPML list:

"Big Pink" - Whoa, nelly!

"Good' Sharewood" - Yikes!

"Fuzzystuff" - Hmmm....

"Open Stacks" - How dare he!

"Agnostic" - Well, that's the last straw. To the blacklist with you, Steven M. Cohen!

{/Jestful CIPA commentary}

So there's this article today linked from LISNews about Passaic's (NJ) consideration of turning over library operations to LSSI. Now I've commented on privatization before, but this time it's the relationship between the city and the library that raises my ire. To wit:

"It's being rushed through without much attention and thought. We've only had the last three weeks to look at it," said library Director Kathleen Mollica, referring to a proposal from LSSI. "Apparently, the city has been looking into this since February."

"Before we suggested this to the library trustees, we wanted to make sure that this was the right thing," he said.

Excuse me? What qualifications do you have to make that decision, Mr. Schaer (who serves as the City Council President)? Heaven forbid the library be involved in the needs assessment.

It gets worse:

To encourage the nine-member board to vote affirmatively, Schaer and the council offered to add an extra $50,000 to next year's library budget.

Well, whoopty-doo! That's almost enough to pay someone with the qualifications to make such a decision. Almost.

Add to this equation a mayor who is heavily in support of privatization, yet does not possess a library card:

"We need better things, better equipment. And I think that's the way to go," he said.

Note the vagueness. He appears less qualified to speak to the issue than the guy surfing porn in the computer lab. At least the board president is honest:

"I have no judgment at this moment as to whether this is a great idea or a lousy idea," he said. "More understanding of what the proposal is needs to be clarified."

Well, I wouldn't go looking to the City Council for answers.

I'm sure I'm not alone in fearing for the citizens of Passaic and mourning the imminent demise of their public institution.

Jessamyn links to this article written by Senator Orrin Hatch in defense of the Patriot Act. The article is, not surprisingly, chock full of vagueness and sidestepping. While there are many passages worth picking apart, this one really caught my attention:

"Nothing in the Patriot Act threatens our cherished Bill of Rights. In fact, the act is expressly designed to enhance our nation's fundamental freedoms. Moreover, despite the steady drumbeat of opposition by some groups, none of them has cited one instance of abuse against our constitutional rights, nor one shred of evidence to contradict the fact that these tools have saved American lives by preventing terrorist attacks against our people."

Well, Senator Hatch, how convenient that there is no evidence, when the Patriot Act goes out of its way to prevent said evidence from ever being produced. Can you say "gag order," Mr. Senator?

Similarly, Mr. Senator, where is this evidence to support the "the fact that these tools have saved American lives by allowing law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent attacks on our country"? Let's try not to condemn "unsupported arguments" by offering unsubstantiated rhetoric.

I saw this post on Extranet: Library looks at going private. It's this part that really raises my ire: "No one calls it privatization. It's more accurate to call it 'outsourcing,' said a representative from Library Services Systems Inc., ..."

Let me be the first to dispute the claim that no one calls it privatization when you turn over all public library operations to a private interest. This is exactly what I would call privatization, just like Patricia Schuman did five years ago*, and you know what? In the long run, it's not gonna work, just like it didn't work in Hawaii.

The reason is simple...public management is accountable to public interest and private management is accountable to the bottom line. How convenient that someone from LSSI would argue the purely euphemistic term "outsourcing" is somehow more accurate. I'm not saying that there are not appropriate and beneficial applications of outsourcing, but turning what is essentially a community center over to outsiders (who bring little or no genuine community interest) undermines the whole conception of public libraries, as far as I'm concerned.

*Schuman, Patricia Glass. "The Selling of the Public Library." Library Journal
123(August 1998):50-52.