Lumps and Splits

1. Weinberger writes at some length regarding the work of Carolus Linnaeus and the organization of biological information. Much like the Dewey Decimal System, Linnaean classification was a very important development in the organization of knowledge, but also inherently flawed because of the knowledge context in which it was created, i.e., prior to the work of Darwin. Post your thoughts to your blog.
2. Weinberger presents Ranganathan as the equivalent of Darwin for Dewey. What are your thoughts, impressions, comments regarding Ranganathan's Five Laws and his Colon Classification System? Post your thoughts to your blog.

1

Respect.

I considered leaving my answer as just that single word because that is the only word that comes to mind when I read of Linnaeus and the fact that he did it prior to Darwin’s work just makes it more impressive for me.

One of the aspects of science that I find most beautiful is that research is constantly changing what we “know”. Sooner or later, we find that even some of our most treasured scientific truths are “flawed” in some sense – sometimes shown to be incorrect but more often found to be incomplete. New technologies bring about new data and eventually new information and new knowledge.

I’m so impressed by people like Dewey and Linnaeus that break new ground in their fields. We need not trash their work in order to see progress in the area of classification but we can honor it and build upon it as we discover and create better systems.

2

In the previous post, I expressed concern that Dewey might be an interesting but overwhelming dinner guest. I feel like Ranganathan is a soul mate. I’ve done some other reading (just a little for some other courses – not any major reading) about him and I’m so impressed by his great mind for classification as well as his passion for people and how they access information. One of my greatest joys in life – before I was a librarian and now that I am – is when I can play a part in matching up an information seeker with a resource that they find valuable. I can’t do all the research myself but I can help every single person that comes seeking information. In this way, I can participate in the progress of humanity.

His classification system has flaws (some mentioned by Weinberger in this chapter) but his 5 laws of library science inspire me in my study and in my work. In my opinion, they have stood the test of time and I wouldn’t change anything about them except to update the word “book(s)” to “resource(s)” or some other relevant term since information is no longer found only in books as it was in Ranganathan’s time. In these few words, we are called to openness, accessibility, stewardship, efficiency, and creativity.

Ranganathan’s Five Laws of Library Science

1. Books are for use.
2. Every reader his [or her] book.
3. Every book its reader.
4. Save the time of the reader.
5. The library is a growing organism.

The Geography of Knowledge

1. What initial thoughts, reactions, impressions, questions do you have after reading this chapter?
2. What are your impressions of Melvil Dewey after reading this chapter from Weinberger?
3. Weinberger refers to a “memory palace” on page 52. Share an example of a mnemonic device that you have created and used to help you remember important information.
4. What are your thoughts on Weinberger’s point that the Dewey Decimal System cannot be fixed, p. 56? How should libraries respond?

 

1

First of all… I really like this book. Looking forward to the rest of it… nice choice as a textbook, I think.

DDC sometimes gets a bad rap. I completely understand its limitations and bias but I’m always drawn to things that “just work” and DDC still works today despite its drawbacks. It is not theoretical, but it is helping millions of information seekers around the world find resources every single day. I would love to see some major revisions in the 200s but I doubt we can expect large changes to fix the religious bias anytime soon. I certainly don’t think that Dewey was trying to be biased. In fact, after reading more about his background in this chapter, I feel like he was actually somewhat enlightened for his time. Of course we know now that Buddhism should have a more “respectable” position in a classification system but Japan and China were only opening to the West in the second half of the 19th century – the very time that Dewey was creating his classification system. Whatever classification system we come up with next that solves DDC’s limitations will undoubtedly be laughed at by our descendants – perhaps because we didn’t leave enough room for the religions of the native peoples of Alpha Centauri and Andromeda.

2

The more I learn about Melvil Dewey, the more I fluctuate between thinking he would be a fantastic dinner guest or the worst dinner guest ever. I don’t think the night would end with me thinking that it was “nice” but either extremely positive of extremely negative. I am certain that I would enjoy learning a great deal from Dewey but I’m increasingly concerned there would be little dialogue and conversation but just Mr. Dewey speaking on and on. I really admire that he built a classification system that still holds up today. I would love to know what he would change about it if he were to revise it today.

3

When I need to memorize things, I often move around a familiar place such as a room or a park as I memorize. This way I can associate the things I need to memorize with physical places and objects that I already know without thinking. If I forget something from a list, I will usually know where it is supposed to be in the list and can leave a space and then re-trace my path in my mind as time allows. After practice, it is possible to assign the items to memorize to physical places and objects but not actually have to be in that location – it just becomes a mental map.

4

A little further on past the statement “it can’t be fixed” is the answer. We cant fix it because, as Weinberger says (on page 61 of my ebook version):

There is no end to it [the revisions]. The Dewey Decimal Classification System can’t be fixed because knowledge itself is unfixed. Knowledge is diverse, changing, imbued with the cultural values of the moment.

So true. It doesn’t invalidate DDC as a viable option for libraries today, but simply reminds us that there will be no perfect classification system that fits all needs. Personally, I’m very interested in the theoretical sciences and believe that information professionals may move closer to designing perfect systems in the future and I very much hope to be involved in those discussions. But the fact remains that DDC does work – it helps people find the information they desire. I’m more annoyed by the increasing number of digits to the right of the decimal than I am that several categories could use major revision. Those long DDC numbers don’t fit on the spines of our books!

I have followed with great interest how some school libraries have done away with DDC and more or less made up their own subject groupings and shelved books accordingly. Many libraries have done this with fiction – shelving by genre instead of just author’s last name – and some smaller libraries (primarily school libraries) are seeing an increase in reading after shunning DDC for their non-fiction and grouping books by whatever sections work best for that particular library. I’m not ready to make that change yet but I’m going to keep my eye on this trend.

Module 4 lecture comments

Information literacy

In my previous post, I ended with a mention of helping students of all ages move beyond reproducing data in their research assignments. I'm not exposed to enough of the students' final products to say how common this is but I have observed it in my limited exposure. This lecture began with a reminder of an information literacy model that our school advocates called Big6. We also use the simplified version for younger children called Super3. Since others may find Big6 useful, this is the link to the Big6 website.

I have received some very basic training about Big6 (actually my training was with Super3) in a professional learning session but I need to learn more and will do so through continued PL sessions and/or my own initiative. I am not aware of competing models but the decision to change models is outside of my job so I will commit to making the best use of what we have already adopted and giving feedback where appropriate. I have not observed the Big6 vocabulary in use very often as the students engage in research projects and seeking information. The Big6 model seems to contain some good tools to help students process information and I would like to see its principles become part of our teachers' and students' regular vocabulary while seeking information. The Big6 website says,

The Big6 Skills are best learned when integrated with classroom curriculum and activities. Teachers and library media specialists can begin to use the Big6 immediately by:

• Using the Big6 terminology when giving various tasks and assignments
• Talking students through the process for a particular assignment
• Asking key questions and focusing attention on specific Big6 actions to accomplish.

At this point in my career, I do not often teach but I will follow these tips as much as possible.

Big6 may not apply to all situations but it is a great example of a tool to use in developing information literacy. However, Big6 is not enough. At the end of the lecture, Dr. Roland mentions that Big6 "might be just one component" of what we mean by information literacy. 

Library 1.0 and 2.0

I liked Dr. Roland's summary of Library 1.0 when he said "The role and function of the library was very simple: collect the books that had the most answers, catalog those books correctly, create a card catalog - an information retrieval system - and then just sit back and wait for the library patrons to match their information need with the library collection, check out the book and then return it in the proper time."

The computer age has forced/allowed libraries to create greater value to patrons through shared catalogs and expanded access to materials and, therefore, information.

In slide 7, Dr. Roland says that we will learn about 4 major information behavior models. At the risk of sounding overly eager, I'm energized by this opportunity to learn about these models. I think learning about these models will prove helpful to me personally but also as I try to help others access information. 

21st Century Librarian

Found here, this article and video is fantastic. As with the librarian featured in the story, I believe that books are still highly relevant. I also agree that the modern school library should be central to carrying out the school's mission and that librarians have a responsibility to help students of all ages navigate the "information ocean". While books are still important, we must think deeply about how the library supports information literacy and provides value to teachers and students. I was interested when Dr. Roland shared a slide where he talked about the possibility of universities offering Information Literacy degrees in the future. I believe my own personal information literacy to be quite high (or is it fluent?) and we already teach K-8 about information literacy but I'm not sure I could come up with nearly enough content to teach even one semester of college level (or high school level) information literacy. Clearly, I have more to learn.

I loved the explorers website that was filled with inaccurate information and I'm sure we can use that in some grades this next school year.

In a great example of how the library blends its ancient mission with modern information needs, the article states, "Combining new literacy with the old, Ms. Rosalia invites students to write book reviews that she posts in the library’s online catalog. She helped a math teacher design a class blog. She urges students to use electronic databases linked from the library’s home page."

Conclusion

The final slide is a nice diagram of the scope of information literacy topics. Roland says that the Big6 (which is quite comprehensive and requires a fair amount of training for teachers and students) is probably just the top right part of the diagram. The diagram clearly shows the vast scope of information literacy across so many fields and topics... ethics and wisdom to creating new knowledge to evaluating and organizing. Simply taking the various topics shown on the diagram would go a long way towards planning out those high school and college courses and even full degree programs.

Module 3 lecture comments

Definitions of information

“The reduction of uncertainty” – Shannon and Weaver, 1948

This seems true. I suppose it is. I prefer statements that are positive in nature – in this case something more like “The increase of certainty” but I guess that Shannon and Weaver have it correct here. Their version is more consistent with the scientific method and deals more with falsifiability than my more “positive” version. As we gain information, we will reduce the amount we don’t know about something. Isn’t that the same as saying the we increase the amount we know about something? Thinking while typing here…. and sometimes more information makes us less certain about things we thought we knew, right?

“A difference that makes a difference” – Bateson, 1979

Those 6 words don’t mean very much but Dr. Roland’s explanation clarified things a great deal. The example of something happening that is outside of our normal sphere of knowledge, e.g. an appliance breaks down, is a good one because we realize our need to gain information to create a different situation.

“A coherent collection of data organized in a particular way that has meaning” – Ruben, 1988

Previous definitions implied “data” but this one explicitly mentions the term and adds “organization” to the definition. It hints at the growing volume of data we were seeing in the 1980s and reminds us that without organization, information is difficult to generate.

“The meaning that a human being assigns to data by means of the conventions applied to that data” – Stallings, 1988

This also mentions “data” and introduces the importance of context (Stallings says “conventions).

“We know that we are continually subjected to a huge range of sensory inputs and internal experiences of sensations and thoughts. In fact, almost anything existing in the universe, that can come into human and other animals’ purview, can be experienced as information – a bird call, our friend’s ‘hello,’ the rock we trip over, the intuition we have about the honesty of someone we are talking to, a book we read.” – Bates, 2006

Certainly, we are, as Dr. Roland says, “we are - every one of us – walking, talking, living, breathing information processing machines”. Sometimes a bird call is data but I suppose that sometimes it is information – and the context of that bird call within my own experience is what makes the difference between it being data or information. I’m intrigued by Dr. Roland’s mention of us being information sharing machines through modern social networks.

Data and information

I appreciate the time spent on calling librarians to consider the individual needs of information seekers. As library and information professionals, we not only need to know the difference between data and information, but we also need to understand the various ways in which individuals will engage with data and make sense of it. The simple question, “do you think this is what you are looking for?” is GOLD. It seems good to me that we remember that we do not hold all the answers ourselves but that we can be a resource to help people find data and unlock information that is meaningful to them. If we have the proper attitude (Roland says “learn to accept your ignorance”) we can be very helpful even with questions which we have no personal knowledge about because we value the question itself and the information seeker as an individual with a need.

I have seen a great deal of student work that simply reproduces facts/data, e.g. a report about Germany. I’d like to be able to learn ways in which I can help students go beyond reproducing facts so their work can actually impart information to others and perhaps increase their knowledge. I plan to work on this in the upcoming school year. I do not know the best way to help all of the students but think that asking good questions will be a key component.

Nathan Shedroff Model of Understanding

Download and review this short explanation of Shedroff's Model of Understanding.

I think that the diagram is a good representation of the reality of data, information, knowledge and wisdom. I’m not aware of competing models so I could be persuaded of some faults in Shedroff’s model but it seems like a good representation to me. I did search for competing models for a few minutes but did not find anything which to use to compare and contrast with Shedroff’s model.
Below, I will share some thoughts about a few parts of the model.

	The image on the left is from the Information section of the text accompanying the diagram. I don’t necessarily disagree with the content but I’d like to see some examples to help clarify the premise. When Shedroff says “In fact, the culture of IT… is precisely the problem” (2nd sentence) my skeptic alarm starts looking for a citation or at least an example. I’m not only interested in this entire model of understanding as a librarian and student but because I’m a de facto IT team member in my school and I certainly don’t want to be part of the problem!
	In this section, Shedroff is talking about how difficult it is to communicate knowledge from one person to another. I feel fortunate to be at a school that has recognized how stunted a child’s education is if the teacher is merely a data or information delivery device. The administration has recognized this weakness and is working with teachers to create a culture of experiential learning for students. I see this not only as a staff member but as a parent of 4 students in my school. My children just finished 2nd, 5th, 8th, and 11th grade and each of them were presented with many opportunities to learn from experiences in and out of the classroom. I don’t know that Shedroff’s model is a driving force behind this emphasis, but I see it working in practice. Each of my children are given the opportunity to be producers. They produce original data and they deduce information from existing data. I see a direct relationship between this production and knowledge ultimately acquired.
	I did not have time to expand on my comment regarding orality in a previous post. I’m glad to see orality mentioned again. I don’t want to overstate its importance but perhaps it isn’t possible to do so because it is precisely so important. In this time of instant data delivery via print/internet, I fear that we may forget just how important it is to communicate orally and share stories in order to build knowledge. It is a good way to integrate others’ experiences into mine and therefore maximize my ability to gain knowledge. I’m once again thankful that orality is an important tool used by teachers in my school. When I observe classroom teachers, they regularly pause instruction and ask the students to talk with one another about the topic. This creates a good foundation for lifelong sharing of stories with others.
	This has also been my experience – that wisdom is birthed in the crucible of self-reflection and confronting our own limitations. It does indeed take a great deal of courage and is difficult to persist through the process but is ultimately worthwhile. As a person gains wisdom in some area, they can be a valuable guide for others but must remember that such wisdom came through a process and that it cannot usually be transferred directly to another person. A guide can help provide experiences that will allow others to have opportunities to generate knowledge and wisdom of their own. The humble guide can also gain additional knowledge and wisdom from these shared experiences.

Birth of Wikipedia – Jimmy Wales TED Talk

1. Did this video change your opinion or reinforce your opinion about Wikipedia? Why or why not?
2. What do you think of Wales’ comment that an encyclopedia should be radical rather than safe and stodgy? Should the same philosophy apply to libraries?
3. What do you think about the Wikipedia policies on neutrality, truth, and objectivity?

 

Did this video change your opinion or reinforce your opinion about Wikipedia? Why or why not?

I already had a good impression and positive opinion of Wikipedia. I understand the common complaint that since it is so easy to edit that the information may be less trustworthy. So does Wikipedia. However, if the user is careful to check the references given in the Wikipedia entries, they should find links to quality sources and overall help research.

This video (which I had not seen before) reinforced my positive opinion. I was glad to hear Wales talk about the Bush/Kerry controversy. Although I wasn’t particularly interested in that specific controversy, I liked hearing how Wikipedia handled such issues. I have found Wikipedia to be refreshingly neutral and agree generally with Wales statement:

The real struggle is not between the right and the left -- that's where most people assume -- but it's between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks. And no side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on either of those qualities.”

Wikipedia is very “hit and miss”. Some articles are very thorough and complete, others need a great deal of work. I’m regularly surprised that the entries I have reason to access are as good as they are. I’ve frequently used Wikipedia in Chinese although many articles do not have Chinese entries.

What do you think of Wales’ comment that an encyclopedia should be radical rather than safe and stodgy? Should the same philosophy apply to libraries?

I’m always the guy that answers “both” to either/or questions. That is my answer here, too.

Wikipedia was pretty radical at the time of this TED Talk - 2006. Is it still considered radical today? Thinking about this assignment prompted me to sign up for an account at Quora. I’ve heard about it for several months now and from looking at the site today, it might make Wikipedia look a little “safe and stodgy”. I’m OK with this. I still love Wikipedia and I’m glad to see it maturing and broadening its reach and impact. Maybe the most radical thing about Wikipedia now isn’t that the content is user edited or that it is digital but that it is improving access to that content.

Just today, Wikimedia Foundation and Indian mobile operator Aircel announced that Aircel customers can now access m.wikipedia.org and zero.wikipedia.org with no data charges. This is significant and radical, in my opinion.

From the linked article:

“It is our mission to provide free access to knowledge for everyone in the world,” says Amit Kapoor Senior Manager, Mobile Partnerships, at the Wikimedia Foundation. “It’s only fitting then that today we announced our first Wikipedia Zero partnership launch in India, the world’s second most populous country.”

Free access? That is radical. And awesome.

What do you think about the Wikipedia policies on neutrality, truth, and objectivity?

From the Five Pillars of WIkipedia:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.

This seems very reasonable to me and gives Wikipedia more credibility. Since the number of pages and editors is high, it sometimes happens that an article is not neutral. That is understandable. It is worth noting that any person may address the problem of neutrality on an article by editing it directly and/or marking it as not NPOV and/or flagging statements with a “citation needed” flag.

To summarize, I do not expect sources of information to be completely unbiased and I factor possible bias into my access, reliance, and use of information from various sources. I find Wikipedia’s openness about their goals and the possibility of bias in some articles as an admirable one.

Module 2 lecture comments

a. “Knowledge in the Age of Abundance”
b. “From Script to Print”
Write a post in your blog with your thoughts on these lectures.

 

Knowledge in the Age of Abundance

Did I overlook a link to the Weinberger LITA keynote? I’ve had a busy week and I could have missed it but I did find the address here: http://litablog.org/2009/11/david-weinberger-video-lita-forum-2009/
The embedded video didn’t play for me but I downloaded the video and was able to view it. Dr. Roland’s lecture summarized it nicely so it may not be necessary to watch the video in order to comment on the lecture.
I took an interest in the concept of “good enough”. Weinberger did take some questions (at least 2) about this. By “good enough”, Weinberger says that our networked age is pretty good at providing information that is “good enough” for most needs. It probably can’t answer which restaurant is the *best* restaurant in a certain city but you could most likely find enough information to know if you’d like to try a restaurant or not. Since most people would just be trying to decide on whether to go to a specific restaurant or not, the information is “good enough” to assist with the decision.
Google (Yahoo is most popular in Taiwan actually) searches often produce these “good enough” results for most of the things people want to know most of the time.

• What time is it in Paris?
• How old is Paul McCartney?
• What is the entry fee for Stonehenge?

But “good enough” results are “good enough” most of the time but not all of the time. What do information seekers do then?
I also took interest in Weinberger’s mention of “stopping points”. So true! Each unclicked link beckons to be clicked! Wikipedia’s “random entry” link leads users on all kinds of information journeys.
When thinking of the amount of information available at our fingertips in mere seconds, I thought of this wonderful clip from comedian Pete Holmes. “We know everything but we aren’t a lick smarter for it.”

 

From Script to Print

Hmmm…. I’m up against the deadline here… just a few minutes… and I’m not sure I have much to say about this. At least not in a coherent, thought-out, post.
I’m thinking:

• I have taken a lifetime of crayon availability for granted.
• I’m glad to hear orality mentioned. In my work as a missionary, we have found that even in a highly literate society (Taiwan literacy > 95%) that most people still prefer oral learning and transmission over print.
• The telephone is old but still awesome. Oral. Full-duplex.
• Texting is half-duplex. not oral. hmmmm.
• I enjoyed the lecture. I actually listened to it 2 times and parts of it more than 2 times. I absorbed it more like it was a history and anthropology lecture.
• It probably isn’t possible to overstate the importance of the printing press.
• I did really appreciate that the lecture didn’t just end after mentioning all the main points but it ended with a “so what?” question. IMO, “so what?” always needs to be asked. It is is relatively easy to point out how the status quo isn’t perfect… but what should/can we DO?

must submit this….. one minute to deadline…………….

Joints of nature: Carving turkey and giving water

What are your thoughts on Weinberger’s last sentences in this chapter: “Now we know that not everything has its place. Everything has its places – the joints at which we choose to bend nature”? Write about some of the joints of nature that are important to you in what you “know” about life and the world. For example, your religious and/or political beliefs.

I liked reading about this idea that everything has its places. I thought that the explanation using the carving of a turkey was well chosen and highly illustrative. I would contrast the carving of turkey at the joints with how fowl are often cut here in Taiwan – typically with a massive cleaver cutting the meat into handy bite sized pieces (before cooking). This results in nice bite sized pieces that are easily picked up with chopsticks and the small pieces allow for very rapid cooking which is beneficial regarding time and some flavors. But every piece, obviously, has a bone in it. Not a bone like a turkey drumstick, but a sharpened weapon-like piece of bone that is ready to shred your gums if you aren’t practiced and careful. Cutting along the joints that nature provided has some clear benefits.

One “joint of nature” that is important to me comes from a religious text but I interpret it to be a universal truth.

Matthew 25:34-40

New Living Translation (NLT)

³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. ³⁶ I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’

³⁷ “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? ³⁹ When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

⁴⁰ “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’

(from biblegateway.com)

The way I read this text, I believe that Jesus is teaching about the minimum standards that he expects humanity to meet. I don’t think that he is speaking only to Christians or to monotheists and I don’t think that “the least of these” are any particular group of people, either. Food, water, community, clothing, care and concern: these are good and necessary in all cultures and in all times and for all people.

Mortimer Adler – alphabetization and “inherent… inner connections”

1. What are your thoughts on Mortimer Adler’s stance against alphabetization? What do you think he means by “inherent in all things to be learned we should be able to find inner connections”?

Which order is correct?

A: 雞牛豬
B: 雞豬牛
C: 豬牛雞
D: 豬雞牛
E: 牛雞豬
F: 牛豬雞

Would it help if you knew the pronunciation?

雞=ㄐㄧ

牛=ㄋㄧㄡ

豬=ㄓㄨ

How about if we romanize the Chinese pronunciation?

雞=ji

牛=niu

豬=zhu

But what if we use a different (and yet perfectly valid) romanization scheme?

雞=ji

牛=niou

豬=jhu

What if we use the English translations of these characters?

雞=chicken

牛=beef

豬=pork

The concept of alphabetization in Chinese is nonsense. It simply doesn’t exist. But what about dictionaries? Chinese dictionaries could be ordered in a few different ways. Probably the most common order is based on a fundamental part of every character called a radical plus the number of strokes it takes to write the part of the character that is not the radical.

Clearly alphabetization has a number of practical uses but as multilingual library cataloging and metadata and cooperative cataloging increase, librarians will see many limitations. The example I gave with the Chinese characters shows that alphabetization is simply not the answer to organizing the world’s information.

I think robust machine readable metadata is a key to organization. Alphabetization can be a *part* of such schemes, but we should also look beyond it.

I suspected that Weinberger clipped the quote so I searched for the phrase in question and found a quote that provided a little better context. Here’s a screencap from Logic and the Organization of Information by Martin Frické at Google Book.

I doubt very much (but don’t know for sure) that Adler found alphabetization to be useless. Rather, I think he was hoping to help encourage the classification of knowledge based on inherent connections, patterns, and relationships. Interestingly… these are some of the very words used to describe the principles and usage of FRBR.

A single place or multiple places?

2. Weinberger writes on page 14 that the digital world allows us to transcend the fundamental rule of everything having its place because things can now be assigned multiple places simultaneously. This speaks to the very core of library current and continuing existence. What are libraries doing and/or need to do to transcend this fundamental rule in order to stay relevant to information users? Do libraries need to do anything at all?

I’m not going to buy multiple copies of a book just so I can put it on the shelf in every conceivable location where it might like to be found. I’m new to this field (librarianship) but I suspect almost no one does this.

What we already have in my library and I suspect in most libraries is an OPAC where we can have a single record that corresponds to a single resource but the record can be located using multiple access points. Therefore, even though the resource is a single physical item such as a book, a DVD, or even a digital computer file, the resource can be located in a variety of ways.

Having multiple access points is great but does create some of its own issues especially related to how the resource is cataloged. Let’s look at an example for subject entries for a particular record.

• The record might display too few subjects. This happens when a cataloger fails to enter subjects that the resource actually contains information on. An information seeker may search for a topic but not locate the resource because the catalog doesn’t contain the subject term although the resource itself does.
• The record might display too many subjects. This happens when a cataloger includes subjects that are not given proper treatment by the resource. This will cause a resource to show up in search results but then not provide value to the information seeker.

In both cases mentioned above, the record and the resource it refers to are less relevant to the information seeker than is desired.

My experience with other libraries is not enough to prescribe universal solutions but I know that in the library where I work our patrons would benefit from a systematic check-up of our database – especially for older or less common materials that were originally cataloged in-house in the past. I do sometimes try to update these records when I come across them, but it is often difficult to squeeze in such work along with regular duties.

Below is one such item from our catalog. Besides the fact that this item is probably a good candidate for weeding, it is lacking several things that we would like to see in every record:

• a summary so patrons can find it in a keyword search
• a cover image
• 3-5 authorized subjects (typically Sears)
• a book from 1911 that is not weeded may also benefit from some additional information that will help an information seeker know if it may be relevant to their needs.

Libraries and Bookstores: Helping people find what they want

1. Weinberger writes about the difference between finding what you want and discovering what you want within the context of a bookstore. Do libraries do a better job of helping people find and discover what they want or not?

I can’t remember the last time that I went to a physical bookstore to find a specific book. I love to go to bookstores but I just can’t recall that I’ve been to one for a specific item since I began buying books on the internet 100 years ago. That’s 100 internet years ago – not regular years.

However, I almost always have a specific item/topic or – at the very least, a genre/style/type – in mind when I hit the library.

I enjoy both experiences… the open ended browsing at the bookstore AND the ability to search for and locate exactly what I want at the library.

In a previous SLIS course, a colleague mentioned this Kroger grocery store commercial as a good example of how libraries might do a better job of helping people find and discover what they want. Granted… the commercial is long on the intangible dream of meeting customers’ needs (and hopes and dreams) and short on the specifics but surely we can figure out the details in our particular libraries.

Here’s the key line for me: “when you find something you didn’t even know you were looking for.”

I’m sure some libraries are helping patrons in this exact way, but I’m more certain that bookstores don’t make a profit if they aren’t selling items that customers didn’t know they were looking for.

The library catalog – typically an OPAC these days – is a great tool for helping people find what they know they want. Most of my patrons (K-12 students, teachers, parents) know how to make a basic search via keyword, subject, author or title. They can also search by series but our series entries have significant gaps so that isn’t always as effective or commonly used. What most patrons *don’t* realize is that almost all of our cataloged entries have hotlinks to related items such as other materials by the same author, of the same subject matter, or in the same series (if we’ve cataloged properly). I’m sure it would be helpful for us to show (or remind) our patrons of these catalog features from time to time.

This relatively simple step can have 2 immediate positive impacts:

1. It serves as a point of contact between staff and patrons which reinforces our desire to be seen as helpful problem-solvers.
2. It directly aids patrons to find information that they didn’t necessarily know that they wanted.

The next 5000 days - transparency and privacy

In 2007, Kevin Kelly gave a talk about the development of the WWW and its impact on the world in its short life… a mere 5000 days. He predicts some ways the web will develop over its next 5000 days. The web is now about 7000 days old and will not be 10000 days old until 2021. Kelly’s predictions still have time to come true but how are they faring so far?


I understand Kelly’s fundamental predictions to be that the web will become much more personal for users and that it will become increasingly common to link ideas and data rather than pages or computers.
This is certainly already happening and for the purposes of this post I’d like to address how the web has become more personal.
In his talk, Kelly says:

If you allow Google to, it will tell you your search history. And I found out by looking at it that I search most at 11 o'clock in the morning. So I am open, and being transparent to that. And I think total personalization in this new world will require total transparency. That is going to be the price. If you want to have total personalization, you have to be totally transparent.

My Galaxy S3 came with a service from Google called Google Now. It promises “The right information at just the right time.” When I found Google Now on my phone I checked out the settings and then Google Now told me to just use my phone… live my life… and it would give me info as it learned more about me. And that was the price – as Kelly mentioned in his talk. For Google Now to be of use to me, I had to allow it to access my email and my location and my contacts and my search history – basically, my entire digital life.
Is the price too high? I’m not sure yet.
By using Google services, I’ve already agreed to be transparent about many things that I wouldn’t tell any other strangers. So in that sense, I’ve already decided the privacy cost is worth the benefit of using the services provided. Shortly after I started using Google Now, I received an email from my mother that included her flight itinerary for an upcoming trip to Taiwan in several weeks time. Since it was my mother, I, of course took very clear notes on paper about her flights. However, when I looked at my phone around the time of her departure, I found that Google Now had taken notes of the flight information as well and remembered it for several weeks. I received a small, unobtrusive notification that Flight UA### had departed. It showed an estimated arrival time and by clicking the notification I could track the flight.
For the most part, I welcome our digital overlords but I was somewhat surprised at what Google Now knew and how much time had passed since my mother’s initial email and the time when Google Now reminded me of the flight.
As of today, Google Now knows all my favorite sports teams and what sorts of local places I like to frequent. If I read a news item at Google, it will notify me of updates to the story at a later time. If I search for a topic that Google thinks might be research related then it will give me a notification asking if I would like to continue my research on “Children’s books about bullying”, for example.

What are the implications for libraries and information centers?

As with so many innovations, there is great opportunity and great concern. My personal experience above is not unlike those that libraries and information centers will encounter or have already encountered.
As the web has become more personal, libraries and information centers have greater opportunities to connect with patrons in highly customized ways. These experiences can be pleasing for patrons but they must understand that these personalized services can limit privacy. Libraries are defenders of freedom and privacy and although that seems unlikely to change soon, the environments in which libraries exist can threaten privacy in unforeseen ways.
It seems to me that as long as individuals understand what they are sharing and who has access to that information that all parties involved can be treated fairly and with respect. Anything that gathers information by stealth methods is of concern to me.