Last thought: take the *printers* out of the library and see what happens. Daniel ------------- Daniel CannCasciato Head of Cataloging Central Washington University Library 400 E. University Way Ellensburg, WA 98926-7548 dcc <at> cwu.edu
No argument from me on the organization myth ... Certainly connecting people to stuff is a strength and of value ... And to me outreach is where we should focus our efforts. On the other hand, saying that nobody would show if we took out computers is like saying it'd be a ghost town if we didn't have tables ... It's true, but not a value judgment on the profession. Tim Rogers 919-946-1674 Sent from my iPhone On Apr 30, 2010, at 4:04 PM, Laval Hunsucker <amoinsde <at> YAHOO.COM> wrote: >> Does all this mean that librarians also have >> to disappear as well? > >> I don't think so, because in my experience, >> information does not organize itself, . . . > > I'd say, myself, that nobody's gonna get anywhere > worth getting, until we finally abandon the absurd > myth that librarians organize information. ( As > opposed to -- kind of -- organizing ( surrogates of, > references to, metadata for, . . . ) documents > containing collections of statements and the like > that have the potential to lead to the construction > of information when absorbed and cognitively > processed by individual human minds. ) >(Continue reading)
Laval Hunsucker wrote in part: "I'd say, myself, that nobody's gonna get anywhere worth getting, until we finally abandon the absurd myth that librarians organize information. ( As opposed to -- kind of -- organizing ( surrogates of, references to, metadata for, . . . ) documents containing collections of statements and the like that have the potential to lead to the construction of information when absorbed and cognitively processed by individual human minds. )" I like this distinction. I think it is clarifying and places the activity of knowledge and information creation, or just plain understanding, in the proper locale - - between the ears of our patrons. She also wrote: "The hypostasization of information is what got us into the ugly and hopeless situation in which we find ourselves," which I mostly agree with, but I view the situation a bit more optimistically. [ I looked up the term hypostatization: "to treat or regard (a concept, idea, etc.) as a distinct substance or reality"; nice.] I also liked the equivocation: we sort of organize surrogates of information (documentation in various formats), because the inconsistency in what we do for bibliographic record creation must be acknowledged. Lessening that inconsistency is part of the battle to provide better catalogs, the interface being a problematic area as well. But as I wrote, I'm optimistic about our potential in both areas. Daniel -- -- Daniel CannCasciato Head of Cataloging Central Washington University Brooks Library 400 E. University Way Ellensburg, WA 98926-7548(Continue reading)
Laval Hunsucker wrote: <snip> I'd say, myself, that nobody's gonna get anywhere worth getting, until we finally abandon the absurd myth that librarians organize information. ( As opposed to -- kind of -- organizing ( surrogates of, references to, metadata for, . . . ) documents containing collections of statements and the like that have the potential to lead to the construction of information when absorbed and cognitively processed by individual human minds. ) </snip> I don't understand this sentiment at all. You are saying that libraries have *not* been organizing the materials they have been responsible for? And they haven't been doing so for over a thousand years? Then how does anybody find anything when you go to a library, which have materials from all times in all languages in all formats? Certainly we use surrogates, such as metadata, to allow extra access into the materials in our collections, and there are lots of reasons for that, but in a physical library, the materials themselves must also be organized for retrieval as well, as anybody who has gone to get a book off the shelf learns when that item is not where it is supposed to be. And when you continue: <snip> Exactly. Of course. To individual humans, each for her- or himself. That's the only way it could possibly ever work, in the past, in the present, or in the future. </snip> I can't agree with this either. Most people can't organize their own papers or their checkbooks. How many people xerox the same thing three or four times because they can't find their copies, or they can't remember whether they xeroxed it in the first place? If people have a few dozen books and magazines, they don't need any organization at all. But when it becomes hundreds or thousands, it is much harder to simply(Continue reading)
The point seems to be that you don't grasp, or perhaps choose not to acknowledge, the difference between information ( the process, or perhaps even result, of being informed -- a phenomenological/cognitive matter, the difference between a prior and a subsequent state of understanding in a given human mind, or in Bateson's terms "the difference that makes a difference" ) and what you're now calling "materials" : what I called "documents". This is in fact a large and ( pragmatically as well as philosophically ) significant distinction. The former cannot be organized for anybody else by librarians, or by whosoever. The latter can, obviously, be organized for ( access by ) other parties. This is what librarians have been doing, and doing fairly well, since at least the time of Ashurbanipal. It only, at best, muddies the waters -- while fatuously bolstering our ego's, I suppose, and that seems sadly in fact to be the purpose -- to say, in organizing materials (documents) and/ or their surrogates and metadata etc., that we are in the process of "organizing information". Quite absurd. If you, as did Daniel, carefully consider the term "hypostatization", you may better come to see what kind of manoeuvre is involved here. It was no accident that I chose(Continue reading)
Laval Hunsucker wrote: <snip> The point seems to be that you don't grasp, or perhaps choose not to acknowledge, the difference between information ( the process, or perhaps even result, of being informed -- a phenomenological/cognitive matter, the difference between a prior and a subsequent state of understanding in a given human mind, or in Bateson's terms "the difference that makes a difference" ) and what you're now calling "materials" : what I called "documents". This is in fact a large and ( pragmatically as well as philosophically ) significant distinction. The former cannot be organized for anybody else by librarians, or by whosoever. The latter can, obviously, be organized for ( access by ) other parties. This is what librarians have been doing, and doing fairly well, since at least the time of Ashurbanipal. It only, at best, muddies the waters -- while fatuously bolstering our ego's, I suppose, and that seems sadly in fact to be the purpose -- to say, in organizing materials (documents) and/or their surrogates and metadata etc., that we are in the process of "organizing information". Quite absurd. If you, as did Daniel, carefully consider the term "hypostatization", you may better come to see what kind of manoeuvre is involved here. It was no accident that I chose to use exactly that word in my response to your previous post. </snip> I hesitate replying to this since the topic is rather arcane, but I simply cannot accept the idea that librarians do not organize information. I believe I understand what you are saying, it is just that I disagree with it. I don't believe I am committing any fallacy here (I may have committed fallacies elsewhere, but not here!) The basic question is to determine "what is information?" While I agree that on some level there are feelings and ideas that necessarily must remain only inside people's heads, they nevertheless must be shared with others to be considered as *information*. After all, "information" comes from "inform" which strongly implies sharing of some sort from one person to another.(Continue reading)
I'd substitute the word "knowledge" for your use of "information" and then agree with most of what you are saying. Knowledge includes a context for information. Michael Mitchell Technical Services Librarian Brazosport College Lake Jackson, TX michael.mitchell at brazosport.edu -----Original Message----- From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB <at> LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Laval Hunsucker Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 4:17 PM To: NGC4LIB <at> LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] If Academic Libraries Remove Computers, Will Anyone Come? The point seems to be that you don't grasp, or perhaps choose not to acknowledge, the difference between information ( the process, or perhaps even result, of being informed -- a phenomenological/cognitive matter, the difference between a prior and a subsequent state of understanding in a given human mind, or in Bateson's terms "the difference that makes a difference" ) and what you're now calling "materials" : what I called "documents". This is in fact a large and ( pragmatically as well as philosophically ) significant distinction. The former cannot be organized for anybody else by librarians, or by whosoever. The latter(Continue reading)
Barbara Fister writes about higher education administrators' views of academic libraries in the May 1 issue of Library Journal: http://bit.ly/cc83z6 Bernie Sloan
Take the printers out of the library and we could possibly make a little profit selling flash drives. Janet Swan Hill, Professor Associate Director for Technical Services University of Colorado Libraries, CB184 Boulder, CO 80309 janet.hill <at> colorado.edu ***** Tradition is the handing-on of Fire, and not the worship of Ashes. - Gustav Mahler -----Original Message----- From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB <at> LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Daniel CannCasciato Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5:09 PM To: NGC4LIB <at> LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] If Academic Libraries Remove Computers, Will Anyone Come? Last thought: take the *printers* out of the library and see what happens. Daniel ------------- Daniel CannCasciato Head of Cataloging Central Washington University Library 400 E. University Way Ellensburg, WA 98926-7548 dcc <at> cwu.edu(Continue reading)
I recently posted something to NGC4LIB about an LJ article discussing higher ed administrators views of academic libraries, and I forgot to include a subject line. The list software won't let me re-send the posting with the subject line added (it thinks it's a duplicate posting). So here's the link to the article in the May 1 issue of LJ: http://bit.ly/cc83z6 Bernie Sloan
RSS Feed9 | |
|---|---|
19 | |
41 | |
17 | |
21 | |
8 | |
96 | |
16 | |
23 | |
19 | |
14 | |
26 | |
70 | |
18 | |
20 | |
27 | |
33 | |
17 | |
21 | |
38 | |
44 | |
143 | |
88 | |
62 | |
127 | |
32 | |
103 | |
85 | |
47 | |
165 | |
59 | |
70 | |
95 | |
125 | |
161 | |
257 | |
121 | |
311 | |
212 | |
77 | |
90 | |
100 | |
252 | |
285 | |
258 | |
41 | |
102 | |
83 | |
287 | |
138 | |
389 | |
186 | |
39 | |
37 | |
29 | |
49 | |
189 | |
106 | |
69 | |
96 | |
117 | |
122 | |
86 | |
139 | |
227 | |
196 | |
79 | |
77 | |
335 | |
337 | |
175 | |
121 | |
507 | |
192 | |
97 | |
124 | |
144 | |
207 | |
173 | |
177 | |
286 | |
92 | |
99 | |
269 |
