Sunday, 22 Jul
Crawford, Walt. Cites & Insights 7 (9): August 2007 [pdf]
An excellent issue covering the LIS literature; authority, worth and linkbaiting (Britannica, Gorman, et. al.), disagreement and discussion; and ethics and transparency.
I think you did a fine job, Walt. As I said elsewhere (probably as a comment on your blog), I was/am interested in any direction in which you took the topic and continued the conversation. Thank you!
The Good, the Bad, And the ‘Web 2.0′. Full-text version of an Andrew Keen and David Weinberger “Reply All” debate at the Wall Street Journal online.
I would like to say that Andrew Keen is a fool; but, perhaps, he doesn’t actually believe that tripe he was spewing. Of course, if that is the case then I’d have to call him something worse.
Such a shame he argues so much like Gorman. Both men have important ideas that need to be considered and they are either cluelessly or intentionally burying those important ideas in their rhetoric, name calling, and ridiculous argumentation.
On the other hand, I gained a large amount of respect for David Weinberger by reading this “discussion.”
It is rather fitting that I read this piece today (after printing it 3 days ago) after reading the newest Cites & Insights.
I thought this comment from Weinberger fit extremely well with Walt’s (and others) thoughts on authority:
Knowledge is generally not a game for one. It is and always has been a collaborative process. And it is a process, not as settled, sure, and knowable by authorities as it would be comforting to believe.
Sunday - Monday, 22 - 23 Jul
Raber, Douglas. The Problem of Information: An Introduction to Information Science. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press, 2003.
Read ch. 1 - 2.
Pretty good so far, but is somewhat sloppily edited. Some are perhaps a matter of style, while some are just sloppy. I can’t find the most offensive one at the moment, but here is one that is a matter of style, perhaps.
Remember, the indeterminacy of signs and the phenomena they represent do not derive from the fact that they cannot be determined, but they can plausibly and usefully be determined in a variety of ways (24).
Alright. The sentence is fairly clear, but I had to do a double take due to the contrastive clauses (sorry, don’t know the technical terms). In my world I think it would be much clearer to say “…from the fact that they cannot be determined, but that they can plausibly and usefully be determined….” Without the second “that” I feel that the sentence lacks force and that the 2nd clause does not match the strength of the 1st clause. Perhaps you disagree. That’s OK.
Here’s a definite example of sloppiness:
The implication that there exists both good and bad information in turn raises questions regarding the criteria are applied in judgment (42).
That sentence clearly needs a “that” or the “are” changed “to be.” Another sentence in ch. 1 had both an “in” and “of” when either would have been fine, but not both of them. None of this sloppiness has resulted in incomprehensibility yet, but I would argue that when the mind is busy picking out these sorts of things and/or being forced to re-read something just to parse it correctly that comprehension is reduced.
The contest that concerns here us turns on several questions (45).
Despite their fundamental and profound differences, however, there are some important common threads bind these metaphors together (46).
WTF? This text has a serious issue with “that!” I sure hope the editing gets better quick or I’m not reading this much further. What a damn shame as this looks to be an important book on “the problem of information.”
Tuesday, 24 Jul
Raber (above).
Read ch. 3 and began ch. 4.
Neill, S. D. “The Dilemma of the Subjective in Information Organisation and Retrieval.” Journal of Documentation 43 (3), Sep. 1987: 193-211.
Cited by Raber in ch. 2.
Is an attempt to bring “together the views of Brenda Dervin and Karl Popper on subjectivity and objectivity as these relate to information use” (abstract). I wasn’t so impressed and I do not really see how it supports the claim Raber uses it to support, or, perhaps, I should say that I do not think I see it claiming what Raber said it does.
Wednesday - Thursday, 25 - 26 Jul
Raber (above).
Finished ch. 4. / Read ch. 5 - 6
Thursday, 26 Jul
Yee, Martha M. and Michael Gorman. “Will the Response of the Library Profession to the Internet Be Self-Immolation?”
This is Martha Yee’s written testimony to LC’s Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. It was posted to AUTOCAT in multiple parts and then a link appeared to a copy posted on the James Madison University cataloging wiki.
Thankfully, Christine Schwartz posted a link to it on her blog Cataloging Futures.
Friday, 27 Jul
Hillmann, Diane I. “Adding New Skills to our Skillset.” July 2007.
Found at Cataloging Futures.
Raber (above).
Began ch. 7.
I have kept reading this book despite the poor editing — it only gets worse — because I find its message important. I will probably finish the book because of this message. It could have been so much better with some quality editing, though. Words are frequently missing; sometimes they even affect the meaning. There is also some stylistic editing I would argue for in a few places.
My main concern, though, is that “This book was written with beginning LIS students in mind” (Preface, vii). I find that highly questionable. If Prof. Raber is blessed with beginning students who are capable of critically following and engaging with his arguments in this book then he is truly blessed.
I am not saying that beginning students could not gain something from this text, but that for most students to be able to profit from it in more than a cursory manner requires some previous time spent with many of the concepts in the book, whether conceptually, experientially, theoretically, or however you want to say it. That is, the text assumes too much familiarity with a plethora of deep issues; none of which is itself free of problems.
The “problem(s) of information” is deep, perplexing, and highly intertwined with many concepts, most of which are equally deep, perplexing and enigmatic.
Hesitantly recommended.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Laura // Aug 1, 2007 at 11:14 am
I’d be more than happy to stone Mr. Raber with copies of The Elements of Style–actually, I’d say what he needs is not a few extra thats–he needs to start over and avoid the passive voice. As I’ve said before, life seems to short to me to spend time reading bad writing–but then, in the end, I probably care more about writing than I do about librarianship, and I admire your perseverance and dedication.
2 Mark // Aug 1, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Hey Laura,
It turns out there is more than a few thats missing. I started marking the frequent missing words and they are plentiful. I suspect that it is more the publisher’s fault. It’s just too frequent and too varied to be a style issue.
Reading this reminded me that I despise justified left and right margins, but then I realized that I read lots of things just fine that are. While I prefer left-only justification, what I despise is crappy justification programs. And this book is close to the bottom in quality for thart. I wonder if perhaps the justification program isn’t just going, “Hmmm, if I just delete this 2- or 3-letter word I can make this line fit better.” (Not to anthropomorphize the program or anything.)
As for passive voice, well, you can throw a style book at me if you want, but I don’t mind it so much. It used to be a major “problem” for me as I wrote primarily in passive voice. Maybe I still do. No one has complained lately, though.
Passive vs. active voice is one of those style things that I don’t get as well as I should. Each certainly has their place in communication, but I think the rule is just another one of those overrated rules, such as, do not end a sentence with a preposition. Why the hell not? Cause some overeducated Brit (of a certain class) said so and we adopted it. That’s a dumb reason.
I used to be a lot more prescriptivist about some things, but after learning more about the development of language use (and particularly English) and especially the rise of grammar education of a universalist (English-speaking scope) I say the hell with them all.
Your comment did make me wonder why I may not be using passive voice as much anymore; and I believe that to be the case. I think it is because I am far more attuned (ethically and otherwise) to saying “this did/caused that” than I used to be. Thus, I imagine that I more naturally use the active voice to ascribe responsibility for something than I used to.
I seem to speak/write about myself a lot and using the passive voice to talk about oneself is a bit odd, isn’t it?
Again, I think I could learn more about the use of active vs. passive voice, but passive does not bug me at all *unless* someone should be getting the credit/blame for something.
What bugs me far more is when people use the active voice to talk about what libraries do. Libraries don’t do diddly! They just are. I don’t like that kind of talk about corporations either, but at least by law they are quasi-people.
Perhaps when people talk about libraries like that the problem is not the active voice but who is being given the credit for the doing.
As for my perseverance and dedication, I have to admire it myself some days, but I do think there is an important message in this book. And I’m not so sure it can be found many other places. If it can, I would only be able to stumble over it as I doubt the issue is indexable. Certainly not under current systems. The LCSHs for this book are Information science and Information theory. I can just imagine how many books and articles have those index terms that: a) I could care less about; and b) do not cover the topic of primary concern in this book.
Maybe when I when the lottery I can pay Prof. Raber to write a 2nd edition, pay you to serve as primary editor, and I can copy edit and serve as a “translator” of the content for the people. Oh, and buy a proper justification program or, even better, hire a boutique printer to do it right!
On one hand, I like your idea about life being to short to read bad writing, but on the other, there are too many things I want to know in this short life to wait for someone else to write them well. And if I am going to humor myself into thinking that I just might do the job, then I need to learn the ideas first.
Thanks for making me think, Laura. I just hope I haven’t talked myself out of an invite.