Library School: What I'd Fix

It's been a while since I graduated from my Master of Librarian and Information Science program (in 2001) but I just read "The future of library education: reflections of a newly educated librarian" from Open Shelf, and it made me think back to my glory days on campus learning to do what I've been doing ever since.  Specifically, I was thinking about what I would have preferred in the program:

A better understanding of what the program and each course was going to focus on: practical skills versus theory.

As it said in the inspirational article above, "library schools could better communicate to students exactly what parts of their education are intended to target" each.  These are professional masters degrees so a certain amount of both is required:  we need to be able to both do the job and know why we're doing it so we can maybe do it better.  It would be ideal if every course, regardless of subject had a clear balance of each.  In my experience, some courses had it and others didn't, and my school seemed to particularly focus on the practical skills when I was yearning for more theory.

More education on the collections management side.

My current position (and previous position, and probably several future positions) is in collections management and other technical services functions.  Sure, I had a reference resources course but having worked with resources, vendors, publishers and all the technology involved, I've found that I've had to learn much of it on the job.  Part of the problem is certainly the fact that electronic resources were still pretty young in 2001, but I don't recall learning anything about the publishing industry, in general or regarding specific players.  Evaluation of resources would have been very useful, even in general principles since they shouldn't have changed that much despite the resources themselves changing.

More information about the details of the library school's focus.

A not-too-recent blog entry stated that "it really does not matter which library school you attend".  I beg to differ.  It might not matter whether you come from a "top rated" school or not (although this article basically says that it's pretty much the only thing that matters in most fields), but there are certainly differences between library schools that, when I was applying and for many years after graduating, I didn't know at all.  But in speaking with colleagues from various institutions, particularly ones that were actually smart enough to look into the matter before handing over the tuition dough, library schools can differ greatly.  Some are best for producing mass quantities of just general librarians, whereas others are more suitable for those looking to continue on with a PhD; some have a great Archivists' program, while others are better for public librarians.  Perhaps this has changed since I was really looking into choosing a school, but, just like with any institution of higher education, marketing yourself as a solution for everyone when you aren't isn't good for you or your students.

Don't worry about making the argument for the program being a good investment or not.

Honestly, this was never really a concern of mine but I see it more and more in higher education.  I'm not sure a Master of Library and Information Science program or the like could be described as a good investment (sometimes yes, sometimes maybe, sometimes no) but I'm not sure it really matters.  Heading down a career path shouldn't be considered in the same way as sizing up stocks and bonds.  Deciding to take a certain academic or professional program that tends to lead to a certain career is all about whether YOU will be able to at least live with it if not enjoy it.  You don't have to like the company that you're investing in, at least not as much as you're going to have to like the job you may be doing for the rest of your life.

Make it less about books and more about information.

Yes, I know that we all like books (see the first paragraph from "So You've Decided to Go to Library School"), but we shouldn't be basing our choice of a profession on such a stereotypical understand of what librarians do.  Libraries are, and always have been about more than just books.  Yes, we can take advantage of the public's seemingly permanent connection between libraries and books, but if we don't make a bit of a connection with other things, then the second society loses their love affair with the dusty old tomes, we're toast.  In fact, in some libraries, books aren't even the thing the collections budget is spent most on.  I would like to see more focus on the Information part of the MLIS than on the Library part.  Don't get me wrong, I like that it's in the degree name (I don't like the MIS or the, shudder, MI) but I would gladly get rid if it if that's what it took to make our profession a little more respectable.

Ok, so I've had my rant.  What do you think?  What would you change (or not) about librarianship education?

The connection between evolution and library science

Is there a connection?  I've been thinking about the possibility for probably the past year year now and reading chapter 10, "Life's Own Code" from Glieck's "The Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood" has suggested it to me.  (The following chapter -- "Into the Meme Pool" -- would have done it if I had been a little slower.)

In a way, libraries could be thought of as "anti-evolution".  Not "anti-evolutionary theory" but rather working against the force of evolution.  As it is in meme theory, ideas have a life of their own, literally not figuratively.  Concepts, plans, images, theories, etc. have "survivability" and replicate themselves and can be thought of as surviving, or better yet, thriving the more copies there are of them and the more they are replicating themselves.  The idea of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a particularly successful.  My grocery list from last week, not so much.  So what do libraries collect?  Ideas encased in containers, in a way, frozen in time.  The librarian's job is typically two-fold:  preservation and access.  We collection valuable resources to "save" them from the wilds of the information wilderness, but then also house them in such a way as to allow people to look at them and use them as they see fit.  The analogy to genetic evolution could be something like a zoo, animal conservation area, or even cryogenic lab.  We house books, journals, videos, etc. in a safe place, away from the damage that could be done to them while in the hands of the users, publishers, society in general.  And then we provide a controlled environment for the ideas inside those "idea-holders" to come out and play, or more accurately, reproduce.  When patrons read a journal article, skim through a textbook, watch a video, practice a piece of music, what they are doing is producing an inexact copy inside their mind, in effect, allowing the meme(s) to multiply and escape the confines of the collection.

So libraries are both anti-evolution, in that the organisms are stored away to ensure non-replication (or rather non-imperfect-replication) and pro-evolution, in that the organisms are allowed to reproduce, and in fact, the storage is done for the express purpose of continued and "appropriate" reproduction.

Our job as library workers is made easier and more difficult by the differences in reproduction of ideas as compared to living organisms.  Pure replication is easier of course, so that maintenance of content is made possible by the practice of perfect replication (e.g. LOCKSS).  On the other hand, any replication is easier so that more control and therefore more work is necessary to ensure that unwanted replication doesn't happen (e.g. loss of "old versions" that some shareholders such as publishers may consider valueless but may have value to others).  It's easier to "freeze" content in containers unlike cryogenically storing animals or plants (e.g. archiving old electronic journals).  On the other hand, extended storage without active involvement can involve loss of content as well (e.g. unsupported formats and/or technological failure).

What does this mean for librarians?  I'm not sure.  Perhaps thinking about the work of librarianship in this way can help us prepare for the inevitable disintegration and/or substantial alterative of content.  If we consider the ultimate goal of librarianship is to ensure a certain kind of "idea mutation" then it puts preservation and access assurance into a slightly difference light, doesn't it?

Happy Open Access Week!

From "Open Access Week Preview," Information Today, October 15, 2012

Organizations around the world are gearing up to celebrate Open Access Week, officially held Oct. 22–28, 2012. For most institutions, Open Access Week is a way to increase the visibility of open access among scientists, researchers, librarians, university faculty members, and students. At the same time, it also provides opportunities for open access practitioners to exchange knowledge and share ideas. Open access means free, unrestricted access to and reuse rights for scholarly research, either through publication in open access journals or by posting copies of the peer-reviewed version of articles into open access repositories. This year’s theme for the week is Set the Default to Open Access, intending to make open access the norm in journal publishing rather than the exception. An increasing number of libraries, publishers, research funding agencies, NGOs, and other organizations are hosting workshops, speeches, and other types of events; launching advocacy campaigns; kicking off new initiatives; and participating in ongoing shows of support.

It should go without saying that I am in support of Open Access (OA) efforts.  There is one aspect of how OA is currently being spoken of that bothers me however.  It seems like most of the conversation about OA in my experience, at least in terms of viability and sustainability is how it will be paid for, and although I don't know the actual breakdown, it seems like most full or partial OA journals are funded by author (or author-related institution) paid fees.  IMHO, this is neither effective (leading to some unsavoury publishing efforts or putting up a barrier to new authors) nor necessary.  Just like much of academia, the funds required to get things done are paid indirectly:  people volunteering time, expertise or resources, or institutional support.

Enough of my complaining though...  Happy Open Access Week!  Spread the word and support OA yourself!

Teach by NOT teaching

According to a relatively recent article in the "Journal of Learning Sciences" (learned of from Time magazine via Lifehacker), we are doing a disservice to our students and workers when we 'making learning easy'.  Kapur and Bielaczyc found that, in comparing students with and without direct teacher-involved instruction, those without consistently outperformed those with in post-tests.  On the one hand this is counter-intuitive:  when I'm building a barn, it's probably going to take me longer and I'm probably going to do a poorer job if I'm all alone than if my friends and neighbours come and help me.  It's easier to climb stairs than a rocky cliff.    But on the other hand, we tend to place more importance (and therefore internal resources such as attention, confidence, memory, etc.) on things that were difficult to achieve if for no other reason than we don't want to feel like we've wasted our time or, worse, looked foolish wasting our time.  Here is the summary of how to use this nugget of info in practice (from the Time magazine article):

First, choose problems to work on that “challenge but do not frustrate.” Second, provide learners with opportunities to explain and elaborate on what they’re doing. Third, give learners the chance to compare and contrast good and bad solutions to the problems.

Sounds like good advice.  As a parent, this suggests that I should back off a bit from helping my kids figure out homework or difficult new concepts.  As a librarian, this suggests that we should do our best to find that middle ground between challenging and frustrating info searchers and that perhaps we be more involved in the learning review steps, perhaps by providing venues and/or tools support such review.

[ Read Lifehacker's "The More You Struggle with New Information the More Likely You Are to Learn It" then Time magazine's "Why Floundering Is Good" then, if you have time and access Journal of Learning Sciences' "Designing for Productive Failure" ]

You need a collection retention policy and you need it now.

Here are my notes from the OLA 2012 session #319: "Developing a Collection Evaluation & Retention Policy" (February 2, 2012 from 9:05 AM - 10:20 AM, in the Ontario Room of the ICTC) (handout / info) by Annie Bélanger and Ben Robinson from U of Waterloo.

• Think of it as a "retention" not "weeding".
• Almost to the extreme of "One book in, one book out".
• Need buy-in from all people involved.
• There are many methods/tools for evaluation.
• Check out http://subjectguides.uwaterloo.ca/evaluation for the toolkit.
• eResources need to be 'weeded' just as much as print (or rather will be).
• Need continuous communication with people involved.
• Use your current collection development policy as the starting point of your retention policy.
• Evaluation depends on the person evaluating.
• Listen to faculty to some degree.
• Hesitation tends to be due to lack of clear priority.
• Identification of what must be kept is the identification of what must not be kept.
• This kind of project can help make faculty and VP Research aware of library space issues.

This was an interesting and well done session but I guess I expected more in terms of detail about what evaluation criteria and retention criteria are viable for certain situations.  The most important take-away from this was that weeding (or rather retention-related activities) must be done and done systematically.  I completely agree which is standard practice when dealing with subscription-based electronic resources given the regular costs involved.  But print resources and purchased electronic resources have regular costs too whether they are obvious or not and such costs must be controlled.

Yeah, I'm looking at you, Single Search Box.

I'm torn about developments in search functionality these days.

Yes, the one-search-box interface is here to stay and if libraries and information resource developers don't get on the band-wagon, we will all miss the boat.  Users want simplicity and nothing's simpler than one box you can type whatever you want into and results and thrown back at you.  But, given current technology, the single search box can NOT provide better results than a more functional interface with more options.  Searching is about communication:  the user is trying to tell the system what he/she wants and the system responds with what it thinks is appropriate.  Too little information and the system either doesn't know what to do or simply guesses.  And, too often, too little information means the user is assuming a whole bunch of information.  The system doesn't (or more accurately, the system designers don't) necessarily have those same assumptions.

One objection to this might be, "But what are 'good' or 'bad' results? Can you make that kind of judgment?  Aren't all results either useful or not?  And isn't it just the user that must decide this in the end?"  This is all valid.  Usefulness IS the value in results.  It's what makes them good or bad.  This is not a case of moral value but utility of the results.  And yes of course it's the user that must decide in the end but, by definition, the user cannot perfectly judge results.  They're searching because they don't have the answer.  Hopefully, while putting pieces together, they can make a more knowledgeable assessment of the results but in some cases the user may just be judging them on whether they LOOK like their good.  So there are limits to how much the user is able to be the final judge.  But there must be a judge otherwise what are we doing by providing search results (or any kind of library resources for that matter)?  There must be some kind of assumption that results can be objectively determined as useful or not based on user input otherwise there's no point in developing a computer system to take such input and spit out results.

The other objection is that the library is not here to make things purposely difficult.  If there is an easier way of doing something, why shouldn't we provide it?  Those against the single search box may describe providing one as 'pandering' but aren't all efforts to make things easier a kind of pandering?  Where's the line beyond which such developments become a negative thing?  And again, this is basically true.  We should be making things easier.  Particularly in this age where putting up barriers may serve only to scare users off.  But there are plenty of cases where simply giving the users what they want, even giving your paying customers what they want is inappropriate.  In education, students consciously want a perfect grade.  We may suppose that what they want in the end is an effective education but if you gave every student the choice between a free A+ and an well-earned B-, the vast majority would choose the former.  I have no doubt about this.  Wouldn't you?  Especially in this increasingly competitive education and job market.  But educators do not simply hand over perfect grades despite this desire because that would defeat the purpose of teaching.  On a similar note, we cannot simply hand over free search results when it's clear that this is not the best way of searching.  This results in more garbage and less quality and, in my opinion, leads either to a misuse and misunderstanding of the information found, or more work on the part of the patron.

What single searching should do when used properly is simply backload the work farther down the line, which may work better in the long run (i.e. the novice user gets an idea of the info available early on which can then inform the search strategy) but unfortunately gives the impression that what pops up first at the top is what they were looking for all along.  A savvy user should recognize that more work is necessary but wouldn't the savvy user be fine with a more advanced search interface to begin with? If they know enough to recognize good and bad results, they should know enough to aim toward good results in the beginning.

I guess my point is that single search box interfaces are necessary but imperfect as we now use them.  Perhaps this is not really an argument with anyone serious about the topic at all.

Canadian publishers want two paychecks

I would like to get a complete list of the publishers represented by Access Copyright.

It seems to me that, from my perspective as a collection development librarian, the take-away from the fact that there are so many publishers voluntarily working with Access Copyright (over 600) is that they want to get revenue every way they can.  This is only natural and I can hardly blame for-profit companies (or even non-profit society publishers and university presses who need to justify their existence to administration or membership) from trying to get an extra buck.  But on the other hand, they can't blame us for wanting to both pay less and to pay in a more straightforward way.  Getting paid directly for use via with often complex license agreements and then getting paid again for something that could have easily been negotiated through those original license agreements seems a little underhanded, particularly because the second payment has not typically come out of the library's budget (but certainly has an impact on it eventually).  This not only is like "double dipping" but undermines the library's reputation with university administration since it suggests that we are not capable of managing all resource use and cannot be trusted with copyright issues.

My recommendation is that we merely take this into consideration.  For those publishers that are affiliates of Access Copyright and therefore bring in revenue that way, such a relationship should be considered a negative when evaluating their resources.  Reputation and cooperation are considered and this is just an aspect of both.  It should not be an over-riding variable since there are plenty of other things to take into consideration but it must be a variable.

What's the big deal with the "Big Deal"?

Right now, in the Canadian academic library world (and beyond to some degree as well), there's an ongoing discussion regarding the value of the Big Deal.  What's the Big Deal?  It's basically bulk purchasing of electronic journals from a specific vendor which saves time, money (per title at least), and workload processing these resources.  The concern is whether this deal is actually such a deal in the end and when does it stop being so.

My opinion about this is that the problem rests not with the vendor or the deal but with both budget stagnation in academic libraries and with our failure to truly evaluate value on resources like ejournal packages.  The former issue seems primarily a problem with the thought on the part of university administration, government agencies and the public that, because "everything is online now", why should we be paying more for information?  We should be paying less, right?  That's not true obviously.  The latter issue comes from the complexity of assigning value to these resources individually by journal title say, or even moreso, as a huge package of thousands or tens of thousands of titles.  There are too many variables (list price, usage, differing usage style by subject discipline, non-transparency of past and future pricing, variable industry pricing, institution size, etc.) to be able to put it all together into one figure that can then be compared to the value figure for other resources/packages or even to be used to signal when (and why) to cancel, acquire, renew or resubscribe later on.

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.

Tidying up my blog's tags

It's been bothering my for a while now.

I use Google's Blogger for this blog and it has a handy "labeling" tool for entries which are then linked and displayed for easy access to various similarly labeled entries.  It's a good function for the tagging practice that most people engage in.

But I'm different.  I can't remember whether I started tagging when I first created the blog but eventually, I recognized the main problem with simple tagging.  Most people use simple keywords to describe things -- politics, news, announcements, etc. -- and this is mostly fine.  However, as your list of tags increases, ensuring that everything is tagged consistently and comprehensively becomes more and more difficult.  At some point, you may accidentally start using a slightly different spelling at one point which will then start splitting your collection in two.  Or you may start using a different word altogether.  This may be a mistake or may even be intentional (e.g. using near synonymous tags like politics and government) seeing a difference in the entry that initially gets the new tag, but will also start splitting your content.

Also, as the list grows, appreciating the various types of tags becomes more difficult.  We tend to use different categories of tags:  subject descriptors and format types being the most common, but possibly describing audience preferences, included elements, or even subjective qualities.  Again, with a short list, this is fine, but, as the list grows, your ability to mentally juggle all the concepts you had in your head when you starting using each term becomes strained.  Did you use the "news" tag to describe news items you are posting, or commentaries on "The News"?  Or was it a misspelling of "new" and this was for newly discovered tools?  If you weren't vigilant enough in choosing your terms carefully (and I'm not sure any of us could be) then you will run across this problem eventually.  My solution to this was to make tag type explicit, using extended tags such as "Subject: Ethics" or "Type: Commentary".  Even then, sometimes I would forget what I meant exactly by a certain term and realize that two tags I've used should be merged.

However, given all that, I'm succumbing to standard tagging practice.  I'm converting all my tags into simple terms and phrases, trying to make it obvious what I mean but not "extending" my tags to clarify tag category.  My reason is mostly for space.  Blogger gives only a limited number of characters in the label field so using extra characters necessarily limits the number of tags I can use.  I'd rather have higher tag resolution (more tags per entry) than clearer tags.  This space-saving measure also helps in the tag cloud displayed in the side bar, and makes the list of tags in each entry a little more readable.

Finally, the purpose of this entry was not primarily to describe my retagging project, but to explain the existence of the "(checked)" tag.  This refers to entries I've looked at and am now happy with in the context of this effort.  When I'm done, I'll delete them all.

A librarian who actually DID read the whole library!

Finding the right book for the right kid is a tricky job for any school librarian.

It's easier, of course, if you're read the whole library.

That's just what Blendon Middle School librarian Karen Yingling wanted to do, pledging to read all of the library's hardcover fiction books. Nine years and more than 6,000 books later, she's finally done.

...

The busy librarian even has chronicled every book she's read since 2006, along with a short review of each, on her blog, Ms. Yingling Reads (msyinglingreads.blogspot.com).

I don't know if it was a good idea to actually fulfill the myth of the librarian reading every book... On the other hand, perhaps it was good since news like this might point out that she is a singular exception to the normal state of affairs.

Whatever the result, she did make me laugh: "Reading the 6,000-plus books was a long and sometimes bumpy road, Yingling said. She loved the funny books, but trudged through the fantasies starring talking animals."

[ Quotes and thought provoked by "Volume (d)one: Librarian reads entire collection" by Brett Nuckles from Columbus Local News on February 23, 2011 ]

Libraries are in trouble

The governor of the US state of California wants to "cut all state funding for local libraries – about $30 million", "erase funding that allows libraries with fewer resources to borrow books from more affluent facilities. Brown's budget would also cut off support that helps libraries hire staff, buy books and maintain hours of operation..." thinking that they will "push more libraries to adapt to a new era of online information."

However, "[m]any libraries have hesitated to acquire more digital content because of the annual service fees – on top of the purchase costs...". So budget cuts are meant to encourage public libraries to do things that they mostly avoid doing due to insufficient budgets. Wait, what?

Apparently, the popularity of libraries "may not last as more information hits the Internet for free." A self-proclaimed supporter of libraries said "he would stop using libraries if he could cheaply access the expensive legal textbooks that he needs." And that's going to happen soon, right? Right?

[ Quote and the motivation to write this from "Jerry Brown's plan may alter how libraries are used, funded" by Jack Chang from The Sacramento Bee on February 19, 2011 ]

Librarians are what we did before Google

...although I'm not sure there's a 100% correlation.

From Gary Brown's "What did we do before Google?" apparently

We drove to the library, or at least called the library, and asked the librarian to look it up in any of the thousands of reference books she had at her disposal.

But she wouldn’t do it millions of times, of course, which is what is happening on the Internet.

And she wouldn't be answering many questions like

"'How can you tell if your frog is pregnant?' and 'Where can I find an attractive older man?'"

Or worse.

There's two ways to look at this change in the state of affairs. We wouldn't have wasted much of our time searching for answers to silly questions, and would hopefully have developed a sense of what was worth the search and what wasn't. On the other hand, are there any truly silly questions if we don't know the answer and think that we should have one. I guess it's good that we have both now. We don't have to waste time and resources on potentially unproductive searching since silly curiosity can usually be sated with a quick keyword search. Society's time and resources can be better put to supporting the search for answers that might actually help someone.

Righteous.

[ Quotes and inspiration from "What did we do before Google?" by Gary Brown from Hopestar.com on February 16, 2011 ]

Construction over collections and custodians.

From the article discussed.

Libraries and politics. The former can never get away from the latter and the latter saves thinking about the former when they need the "traditional" vote.

Library budgeting always gets me. I find there are three major library budget lines: collections, operations and capital. The first is what the library is holding, the second is running the library and almost entirely goes into paying staff, and the last is the building itself.

I would have to argue that although most people would think that collections, the books and journals and CDs and whatnot, are the most important, I think that paying for good staff and paying them well win every time. You have to have both of course, but a great collection and a mediocre staff will piss off more patrons than a mediocre collection and great staff. I would focus on getting the best people working in your library before pumping money into filling it up with resources. The problem is that, of the two, donations and special funding are always going to collections before operations. It's a rare day when someone wants to fund a special librarian position, but everyone thinks that bringing in the boxes of books from their garage will mean the world. It's much easier and satisfying to give money to the library to "buy more Judaica". Not that it's unwanted. But the more books on the shelf, the more funding is needed to get it processed, keep it organized, patch it up when it's torn, help others find it, etc.

To top it off, the part of library funding I think is least important (at least in terms of customer service), capital projects, namely building new libraries, seems to take priority any time it comes up.  It makes sense of course.  The money is, in the case of school, public and academic libraries, coming from the government, and when buildings are being built, politicians like to take advantage of it.  Funding a new renovation, a new wing, or even a new library building is a one-time splurge that can really look good for an incumbent.  Ensuring funding for staffing for years into the future doesn't communicate well to a public that barely understands what those staff people are doing anyway, but a construction project is big, obvious and a special event.

I'm all for progress.  I like new technology, new ways of doing things and refreshing things to liven up users' experience of a thing.  But I also like rational behaviour.  Too often budget spending seems to come randomly as if on a whim.  And never being so comfortable as to be able to look any gift horse, be it pony or Clydesdale, in the mouth, who are we to question money that blows in and blows away again.  Take it while it's here though it may never come again.

[ Inspired by "Super library arrives as hundreds of others face closure" by Maev Kennedy from guardian.co.uk on February 6, 2011 ]

Spider-Man 2.0

So I guess there will be a new restart of the silver screen Spiderman series. From one of the "Comic Book Movie Fansites" called "Sir Edward and Spidey", we are treated to what "would be [the author's] perfect cast for the Spider-Man Reboot" with a blog entry entitled "Spider-Man Reboot Fan Cast ( 'A Not Too Shabby' 2.0!)"

I like this use of "2.0". It's not just a 2nd edition but a renewal of the 2.0'ed thing in question. It's not just a second step in a positive direction but a rethinking of the first step taken. It's both. I like it.

[ Check out Sir Edward and Spidey's full cast suggestion for the new Spiderman movie. ]

Informational dishonesty in religion

I just came across the Huffinton Post article "What's the Least You Can Believe and Still Be a Christian?" by Martin Thielen from January 22, 2011. He tells an anecdote about a friend who wants to switch from atheism to agnosticism (with a suggestion of a little more) by understanding what is minimally necessary for Christian belief. The article focuses on the important problem of the "negative press" for the Church in terms of sexism, homophobia and other issues. For example, you don't have to believe "Woman can't be preachers and must submit to men" or "God loves straight people but not gay people" but you need to believe in "Jesus -- his life, teachings, example, death and resurrection."

My problem is with this kind of argument, namely "Religion isn't [insert bad thing you thought religion was]; religion is [insert good thing you think religion ought to cover]," is that it does not mention any suspected connection between the two. There are reasons for why so many denominations of Christianity have elements of sexism. The religion is based on the historical interpretations of a text written about practices from the Bronze Age. Even if the interpretations and the text were not written in times where women were undervalued (to say the least), it's still all about a time when they were.

There's also the claim that you don't have to believe that "Good Christians don't doubt" to be a good Christian. But if you have one necessary belief that you must hold in order to be a Christian, good or bad, wouldn't doubting it stop you from being a good (or bad) Christian?

What seems to be more basically true is that religion requires belief without evidence or even rational justification to a degree for non-religious "belief". This bypass around evidence and rationality would let through other bad intellectual habits like prejudice, sloppy arguments, and extremism. If you don't need good reasons for some beliefs, you can get away with not having them for others.

I am not arguing that there does not exist good and bad religious or, more conservatively, better and worse religious modes of practice. What I don't want people to get away with is presenting an argument for something without revealing the weaknesses in that argument. When you fail to mention them, I get suspicious. If you're not hiding them and don't think they are a threat to the point, then bringing them up shouldn't hurt and might help convince the reader/listener.

Did I miss anything? Did I arrogantly judge the argument with my closed mind? Tell me. I'm all ears. Well, not all.

Librarian as rejuvenator

Sometimes librarians, by doing their job as it is supposed to be done, can bring life back into an institution.

In the late 1940s, Nichols Library lagged woefully behind the times. The book budget didn’t go very far, the place shut down every Wednesday and calling to make an inquiry was impossible because the building had no telephone.

That all changed when Miriam Fry took over as head librarian. With longtime friend and colleague Katherine Finkbeiner, they brought the facility into the 20th century.

...

“She was always so proud of the fact that the library in Naperville was consistently voted the best library in America,”

You go!

[ From "Ex-librarian helped modernize Nichols" from Naperville Sun ]

Obama 2.0

Came across a reference to "Obama 2.0", the 2.0 of which, in this very anti-Obama piece, seems to mean reinvention in a very manipulative way.

Barack Obama has begun yet another process of reinvention on the road to reelection.

Will he succeed in bamboozling voters once again?

...

He may be cold-blooded, but he is a chameleon who can change the way people perceive him.

...

A clue to Obama's ability and willingness to adapt can be found in the words of his book Dreams from My Father. There he mentioned only one book, Malcolm X's autobiography, and wrote that Malcolm X's "repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me." Therein lies the clue to Obama's plan to rebrand his own image. A man who can fake a Southern accent, the story of how his father came to America, and the story of his parents' being inspired by the Civil Rights march in Selma to conceive him has no problem morphing for political purposes.

We are about to watch the extreme makeover of Barack Obama in real time.

It doesn't seem like a swipe at "2.0" itself but rather an attack on a politician playing to his audience. (So, for a supposed political news writer, Mr. Lasky seems awfully naive. That's what politics is, isn't it?)

[ From "Obama 2.0: The Reinvention Begins" from American Thinker ]

Japan's Economic Bubble 2.0

On January 16, the Japan Times says that:

Japan is now on the verge of a new economic bubble for the 21st century... While the 1980s bubble was a homegrown development, bubble 2.0 is expected to be inflated by factors at home and abroad... The world is paying attention to Japan's stock markets... There's more interest in Japanese property now...

So, "2.0" equals the next big instance of something substantial in recent memory.

[ From "Almost time for Japan to break out the bubbly for bubble 2.0" from The Japan Times Online ]

Web 2.0 an obstacle for parental filters

A survey by the European Commission has found that parental control programs aimed at keeping children safe online do not function well with Web 2.0 sites, smartphones or games consoles... this at a time when 31 percent of European youngsters access the Internet on their mobile phones and 26 percent go online via game consoles. In addition, content from Web 2.0 sources like social-networking sites, forums, blogs and instant messaging also frequently slipped through the safety net.

[ From "Parental Control Programs Perform Poorly With Web 2.0 Sites" on PC World (emphasis added by me) ]

Not really surprising. In fact, I would suspect that some of the success that any of these kind of functions may have with traditional ways of accessing online material is due to the stronger emphasis on the problem areas by web developers/designers. That's where the money is so that's where the content is. And efforts to block content might be an issue that developers might not really support.