Walt Crawford asked a few questions in the most recent Cites & Insights 5:12, Nov 2005, which I will address here.  You should go read the entire issue, though.  Good thinking and writing as usual.

Maybe all of this is irrelevant to C&I readers. Do you believe the most widely read library bloggers act as gatekeepers—that they do or can manipulate "information cascades," controlling the way we think about library issues? I’m skeptical, at least in our little corner of the blogosphere (4).

Do you really want to know what some array of strangers concluded about an article—or do you want to be guided by a handful of "trusted strangers," the bloggers you believe offer good advice (5)?

I’m going to take the 2nd question first as it is an easy one, although you should read the article to get a sense of context.  I would much prefer the latter.  I want to know what people with whom I have some context, and possibly contact, think and value.  I could care less what the hoi polloi think.  I could care less what is the biggest selling movie or CD, or the most watched TV show, etc.  Similarly, I could care less what the masses think of a piece on the web.  Just as with the rest of pop culture, I am likely to devalue something out of hand the more it is valued by the masses.  And yes, I sometimes find myself liking what is grossly popular.   But seeing that it is a distinct rarity—it is an "elitism" that serves me in good stead.  And no Walt, I do not feel morally superior for it.  It is simply a choice.

OK, now for the 1st question.  Take a deep breath Mark.  "If you can’t say something nice don’t say…."

I have been thinking about this question in a very tangential way a lot lately.  I have been wrestling with the idea of removing most, if not all, of the "most widely read library bloggers" from my aggregator.  Why would I do this?  Because they are generally serving very little purpose for me anymore, in several ways.

Most of them write short posts often, or mainly, linking to other items.  I find many of these on my own already.  Most new to me bloggers I find from the folks who aren’t read as widely.  Also, I prefer pieces that actually say something, something that can be engaged with, or that makes me think.  Many of us keep referring to this blogosphere as a conversation.  I have even used this metaphor often, but I am beginning to move away from it as description because what I am finding is mostly bar conversation, small talk, and out right talking past or around each other. 

An example of the last is the recent "discussions" of the digital divide.  Everyone had something important and relevant to say, but it seemed as if no one was really willing to take the time to see that and to actually have a dialogue on it.  In the end, their view and their way of expressing it was "correct."  I think this is such a shame because if we can’t address the topic amongst ourselves, how in the world is a politician, a policy wonk, or the normal person going to address such a convoluted and clearly controversial topic?

Let’s make a short diversion to Christina Pika’s post "The various uses of the term "gatekeeper."  "A gatekeeper is a boundary person – one who is at the interface of two
groups or domains. The gatekeeper may be the one to open the gate (span
the boundary) or the one to bar passage between domains."

The most widely read folks are the people who are looked to for various reasons.  While I do not want them to be gatekeepers in the latter sense Christina states, I do hope that they might serve in the former sense.  I also hope for much more from them.  Now let’s take a quick aside here.  while it may be unfair of me to expect such things from these folks please notice that I said "hope for" and not "expect."  I expect them to do what they want and what they think works for them.  I realize that I am free to take what they provide or ignore it.  I am simply working through my thought processes here and commenting on what I "see."  I hope that people will feel free to point out flaws in my thinking, or other ways of looking at the issues.  I am still after dialogue in this blogging thing, even if I am expecting less of it than I used to.

So, I hope that they might help guide some of the discussions.  Maybe help to facilitate other voices.  I have seen some of this.  But I often see the opposite.  In one particular case, or maybe I should say 10 now, they have chosen not to participate at all nor to promote the "fledgling" work of others.  Again, their prerogative.  I just hope for more.

If any of them say something of real interest (to me) then I will probably hear about from someone else [See below].

Many of them have pretty much ended up doing mostly self-promotion.  And, of course, they are free to do so.  These are talented people who have much to offer of themselves, and they do.  But I am not getting much from them by seeing their presentation slides.  There is not enough context in these to actually get much from the slides.  You had to be there for the presentations to make much sense.  Again, I hope for more, mostly in the way of dialogue.

There are other reasons but I’ll keep them to myself for now.

Now to Walt’s question—"do or can [they] manipulate "information cascades," controlling the way we think about library issues?"

First, I’d like to tease those two clauses apart a little.  One concern is is this intentional or not?  Another is the active connotation of the verbs "manipulate" and "control."  A third is the difference between the two clauses.

Bypassing the question of intention for a moment, these two verbs imply a certain level of activity.  Might there be a more nuanced way of asking these questions?  Might these results occur without the active sense of an agent causing them?  My answer to both is a "yes."

I also see a difference between "manipulating "information cascades"" and "controlling the way we think."  For one thing, I might be willing to argue that what happens is controlling (in a limited sense) which library issues we think about and only in a much more limited sense how we think about them.

So, I do see some of this happening.  It is often the case that as soon as one of these "widely read library bloggers" put something on their blog that I see the same thing linked to by many others.  "So-and-so said this" or "What’s her name pointed at this."  "Isn’t this cool?"  This often happens with little critical commentary on the part of the linker.  I have certainly linked to some of these folks, but I generally try to add some comments considering it from another angle or, heaven forbid, even disagree with it.  No, no examples because I am keeping this as generic as possible.  I have met several of these "widely read library bloggers" and I like them.  They are good, well-meaning and highly interesting people.

Do the "most widely read library bloggers" intentionally do either?  I sincerely doubt it.  But I do think it happens somewhat.  Again, I’d like to remove the intentionality and even the agent as direct cause.  I’d also like to think that librarians can generally think for themselves.  I know we are only human and that we are susceptible to the same fallibilities as all humans, but if we, as a group, cannot think for ourselves then society is even worse off than I already think.

That’s my answer and I’m sticking to it until you help me change my mind via real dialogue.