An idea concerning moving library collections from 'ownership' to pure 'access'

Just read through the slides from a 2011 presentation by Colin Koproske entitled "Redefining the academic library: managing the migration to digital information services, part I: planning for transformation and the future of ebooks" and I have to say something:  I am convinced.  I don't know whether it was the slide or just the ideas rolling around in my head finally falling into place, but I think I am sold on patron driven access (PDA) (which was basically what the slides were about).

I had a lot of the usual concerns about PDA:  controlling cost, ensuring a good collection, preventing gaming of the system.  But the one slide about moving from an ownership model to an access model is probably what brought me over to the dark side.  Having read a Rick Anderson article on Scholarly Kitchen a while ago, which was effectively about PDA, the idea of moving from "just in case" to "just in time" has been brewing in my head.  Although I don't agree that librarians are particularly bad at judging future quality (in fact I think we are uniquely qualified, more so than any other professional), the fact of the matter is that there is too much change and uncertainty nowadays to be able to do effectively and sustainably.

You may notice that I actually wrote patron driven "access" instead of acquisition.  Well, I'm not sure I'm sold on the acquisition part.  I mean, if the point of PDA is to provide a resource when demand is there and to not be building a "legacy" collection, why purchase the item?  Perhaps a pattern of patron use does predict future value better than a devoted selector (arguable) but there will be an end to that value.  Even great present patron use can't predict future use far into the future and with the information universe exploding as it is and will be, this will be increasingly true.  If use is required now, then provide access now.

What I'm suggesting is the 'pay per use' model basically.  I have not read much about the effectiveness of this model (more additions to my reading list) but I do see one big straight off:  control of budget.  If you give access to resources to your patrons and are billed per use by them without vetting that use in some way, who knows how much you will be spending per year?  This could be controlled by having an account with the vendor from which fees are withdrawn.  Access is provided (and displayed) when there is sufficient funds in the account and removed when insufficient.  Perhaps, once a certain level of usage of the contents of a package were reached, access would be guaranteed for the rest of the year?  Who knows.

Financials could easily get out of control in this model or at least stay quite unpredictable and difficult to react to (e.g. what to do if your patrons surprise you and use up all the money in the account early in the year?) so some experimenting would have to be done.  The vendors' resources could also be called upon since, because their revenue would be based on usage, they would be motivated to increase usage by your patrons as much as possible.  I am never happy with the idea of injecting advertising into the scholarly environment (ethical considerations here) but the fact is that advertising is already strewn through the information universe and trying to keep companies out of campus seems increasingly futile.  Why not harness their motivation and resources and allow them to sponsor programs, services, staff, etc. on campus and allow them to drum up usage?  Librarians are always bemoaning how hard it is to get the faculty and students to listen to us when we say how useful these expensive resources are...  perhaps we could use some help.

This is just a blast of an idea that I had while eating lunch today, so perhaps I've missed something obviously flawed with my thinking.  Feel free to blast back.

It's simply misconceivable!

I had a bit of a chuckle reading through the List of common misconceptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions) on Wikipedia the other day.

I recently read something about someone trying to correct something in a Wikipedia entry based on his current research who then had his correction removed and a good finger-wagging explanation of the Wikipedia rules given to him.  Their point is that Wikipedia is not the place for cutting edge fact and that only commonly held and therefore well documented information.  The direct quote was something like "Wikipedia is not about what's true.  Wikipedia is about what's verifiable."  Now I can understand their point (although I'm not sure this is the best strategy especially if they do not let users know this in even a subtle way) but it seems to conflict a little with their having a page listing common misconceptions, doesn't it?  If these are truly common, then they represent the popular opinion and until they become the UNpopular opinion, wouldn't the truth be considered a bit too cutting edge?  I'm afraid that Wikipedia rules cannot reasonably contain both the cake and the eating of this particular cake.

The other odd thing is that many of these "common misconceptions", to my mind, aren't really misconceptions but rather misunderstandings of the words being used.  Take for example, the page's second point under Astronomy:

Black holes, contrary to their common image, do not necessarily suck up all the matter in the vicinity.

It's explained that black holes do have a specific mass and therefore can have less that other stars making them less "sucky" in terms of gravitational pull.  Perhaps they think that most people have this image of black holes just continually sucking in all matter from everywhere regardless of how far away it is.  Perhaps that IS what most people think but the crucial "truthiness" in this hinges around the word "vicinity".  I think the point about black holes (and I am no physicist) is that there IS a vicinity (i.e. the space inside the event horizon) in which black holes suck up all matter.

There's also the fact that "The United States Supreme Court did not actually rule that tomatoes are a vegetable, instead of fruit, in the botanical sense" despite some thinking that it did.  Or that "The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity" while certainly many people like to pull that one in anti-evolution arguments.  These are, at base, problems with the public misunderstanding the meanings of words, not the concepts.

This would all be fine if this was it.  I could mentally translate "list of common misconceptions" to "list of common faulty word usage" but for a line that stands out in this list:

"Irregardless" is a word.

And for proof, someone has basically given the fact that it's in the dictionary.  It's used commonly enough to qualify as a word.  I'm not sure I like that idea, that there's a number of times said or people saying it beyond which any given configuration of sounds becomes a word.  In that case "um" has been a word for a long time.  Ok, even granting that, I guess what most people SHOULD say instead of "it's not a word" is that "it shouldn't be a word".  That's what I'm thinking when I hear it used.  "Why are you saying that?  If you stopped for just a second and listened to what you're saying, you'd realize that there's no point in saying 'irregardless'!  So just stop!"  Ok, fine it's a word.  That doesn't mean that it means what you think it means. Please stop saying things like that before some reasonably intelligent lifeform passes over Earth because words like that disqualified us from being labelled 'advanced'.  That and 'orientate'.  /shudder

xkcd's "First Post"

From xkcd's "First Post".

The truth... with no salt.

From a Lifehacker "Ask the Readers" column entitled "When Is It Appropriate to Fake a Phone Call?":

Sometimes we want to be ignored, and our phones do a great job at isolating us from the world. But is it appropriate to fake a phone call just to ignore someone, or should we approach that confrontation head on?

 I was a little disappointed (yet not surprised) when I first read this.  My immediate reaction to this is never-even-though-I-may-do-it-myself.  Appropriateness is only one of the reasons why we do things and although my opinion is that it is not really appropriate to do it, I may find myself resorting to such measures occasionally.

It's basically lying, right?  We all know lying is wrong.  I think most of us think that lying is wrong "just because".  It almost is.  There's not much more to the wrongness of lying beyond the lying part.  Lying is wrong because it's an untruth.  Truth is valuable is untruths are not.  Untruths in the place of truths, i.e. lying when someone thinks you are telling the truth, is harmful.

We all live our lives based on information:  information we take to be true.  When driving through the city, you assume that it is true that the traffic lights are going to be helping you, the other drivers and the pedestrians take turns moving through the same space.  You assume that the information your teachers and/or parents tell you is true.  If you read a non-fiction book or article, you assume the information is correct and true.  In all these cases, you can see quite clearly that, if the assumption of truth was misplaced, obvious harm could be done to you or the ones around you.  There would be traffic accidents, wasted time and money, broken trust, embarrassment, and more incorrect assumptions that could lead to further harm.

But maybe we don't need to worry about minor "white lies"?  Perhaps not.  There's no obvious immediate harm done when telling someone that "those pants don't make you look fat" or in pretending to be in a conversation on the phone to avoid an unpleasant situation.  In fact, there are immediate rewards for doing so:  compliments always make people feel good, and it's great to avoid discomfort, particularly social discomfort.

However, white lies build up.  The more people dishonestly tell you that those pants look good on you, the more likely you are to wear them in situations in which looking good is your goal.  If actually looking good is required in these situations (and not merely thinking that you look good), then you will not only fail but perhaps do so without being able to understand the reason why afterward, increasing your chances of failing again in the future.

I'm certainly not advocating complete universal honesty.  And I'm not going to stop telling you your pants look amazing.  But suggesting that such socially necessary lying might be appropriate because of practical concerns is certainly inappropriate.  If we are going to lie to others, the least we can do is be honest with ourselves when we do it.  It's a lie.  It might lead to harm.  It might be contributing to a greater harm than we think.  Take responsibility for your choice.

The Law vs. Looking Stuff Up

From Slaw's "English Court Jails Juror Who Used Internet Search":

"English news sources reported yesterday that a three-judge panel of the High Court found Theodora Dallas, until recently a university lecturer in psychology, guilty of contempt of court and sentenced her to six months imprisonment. ... Dallas was on a jury trying a case of grievous bodily harm. The trial judge had given jurors clear instructions not to look up matters connected to the trial. At home, she searched the term "grievous bodily harm" and then put it in conjunction with "Luton," producing a result that showed the defendant had once been charged with (and acquitted of) rape. Dallas told other jurors during their deliberation what she had found in this way, with the consequence that, when this breach was reported to the trial judge, the trial was stopped."

I'm torn about this. On the one very obvious hand is the attempt by the courts to guide the process down hopefully more objective and legal pathways. We all know that what we read, especially in the media, affects how we perceive and judge future information. The requirement seemed pretty clear what they were expected to do, or rather NOT do.

But then again, isn't this a little like asking someone NOT to think about a purple elephant? The request cannot help but encourage the behaviour. Internet access is everywhere: at work, at home, in our coffee shops, on our phones, etc. I personally use it every single day. Without Internet access, I don't have a job. And that's true for more of us as time goes by. Although I can understand the legal motivation to continue trying to restrict people in this way, I'm not sure it's sustainable. It will eventually be impossible to securely control the information access any one person has except by pretty extreme means.

Perhaps the best way to combat "bad information" tainting a process is to provide good information instead of NO information.  We would have less motivation to seek out that which we don't think we need.