Category Archives: Weblogs

The newest manifestation of my expressions is a year old today

Posted on by

Off the Mark is one-year old today. I’m not really sure whether it should serve as any sort of “true” anniversary as my public blogging started in a different venue in January 2005. Nonetheless, the current instantiation of my personal and professional raves and faves has been around for a year now.

My own domain is actually a year and 3 days old.

I want to give a shout out to LISHost for great hosting for the past year. While there have been some minor issues once or twice, Blake and crew have been awesome about providing an almost immediate and always personal response.

Including this post, I have made 271 posts here in the last year, with 4 more in draft. February (the shortest month, but also Birthday Month) had the most posts with 31, while March had the fewest with 10. November and May both had 30, while all the other months had 20-25 posts.

As for the domain, I have updated the site a small bit here and there and added some things. I have added a rough CV and a page of past writings, academic and otherwise. Oops, still need to link the CV but will do it this weekend as I have to head out to the dentist.

I still need to convert some of the writings to HTML, provide a bit more context for some of them, add some metadata, and add COinS to a few more where appropriate. As for the CV, I am aware that the dates are wrong/missing for the 2 invited talks. I am having a minor issue finding the correct dates for those since they happened before my hard drive crash. Just where is last year’s paper planner is the important question?

I also want to add more of my LIS work—class presentations, bibliographies and a paper or two. Actually, I can’t add more than a paper or two anyway seeing as I haven’t written more than 5 or 6 (certainly less than 10) papers in going on 80 hours of course work. That is odd.

It has been an amazing year in many ways. I blew it a few times in my quest to learn how to engage with others in the public arena that is blogging, while my reporting on the LC Working Group got me invited to be on a panel at ALA and was linked to from ALA Direct. I do think that I have learned a lot and that is the important thing.

So, to whoever is out there … thanks for the honor of a small bit of your time and attention. To those who have commented I offer a very special thank you for the conversation. Those who have taken me to task when I need it, THANK YOU.

May we all grow together, today, and in the future.

Keeping up, why is it always forward-thinking?

Posted on by

Chris Zammarelli, at Libraryola, has a post about keeping up which I found via the LIS Students Ning.

I left a lengthy comment, which I’d like to expand here hopefully. My comment:

 

I’m not sure I have a feel for what you are looking to keep up with, although I do see that your thesis is on e-government and your blog is about “trends in librarianship.” Since my comment is more about the concept of keeping up versus how to I guess that doesn’t matter.

I think you’ve done a good job here talking about the idea of keeping up and have a compiled a good list, for certain sectors of librarianship.

But my point lies elsewhere and I’m not exactly sure why your post is the one to finally trigger the thought … but why does keeping up always mean looking forward?

Sure. I can parse out the terms, the metaphor, whatever. I even agree that is what it’s supposed to be. But what is it when you’re looking back at the literature? Is that research, and only research? I think it is only research in certain situations, and that keeping up should not be restricted to the current or future.

I read an awful lot of library literature and a great deal of it is from the past. Often very past. Only sometimes is it research, I would say. When I am working on a specific project and track down sources for that specific topic/need then it is research. Is it research all of the time, even if it is for pleasure reading, if it material is from the past?

Anyway, depending on your interests, I would say that looking back into our literature is an amazing way to learn about trends in libraries/librarianship (among other things). Might even help you put the current trends into context.

Anyway, just a suggestion prefaced by a question. Good luck with the thesis.

For some reason, Chris’ post made me realize that every post I’ve seen on keeping up never talks about what can be learned from the past and how that can be of assistance in keeping up today (and in the future).

Is it because of the metaphor of keeping up itself? Does the phrase preclude thinking of the past?

Or, is it because everything looking backward is research? I can’t see why it should be. For starters, much research is very forward looking.

The OED Online gives me the following senses of research (there are others but they are irrelevant here):

Noun 1

  1. The act of searching (closely or carefully) for or after a specified thing or person.
  2. a. A search or investigation directed to the discovery of some fact by careful consideration or study of a subject; a course of critical or scientific inquiry. (Usu. in pl.)
  3. Investigation or pursuit of a subject. rare.

Verb 1

  1. a. trans. To search into (a matter or subject); to investigate or study closely. Also, to engage in research upon (a subject, a person, etc.).
  2. To seek (a woman) in love or marriage. Obs. [OK, this is irrelevant, too, but I found it humorous.]

Noun 2 and verb 2 both had to do with re-search; that is, repeated search.

Clearly, there is no temporal stress on past, present or future. Noun 1, sense 3 could be used to describe my endeavors to consume so much of our past literature, but it is rare. The verb sense (1st sentence) could be used to describe my reading as research. It could also very well describe much of what passes for keeping up, as could sense 3 of the noun, and perhaps even noun sense 1. Noun sense 2 fails for my pleasure reading because it is not directed to the discovery of some fact. It could be claimed to be directed, but only to getting a good general overview. And I find it highly doubtful that anyone could parse out general overview into fact.

I am not trying to argue that my reading habits do not constitute research in the more relaxed meanings of noun sense 3 or verb sense 1. It is more that it is not research in the stricter sense(s). Kind of like LIS (LS/IS) is science and, yet, not science either.

My argument is more along the lines of learning from the past is one way of keeping up. For a large percentage of librarians our schooling lasts one to two years, at most. Even counting assignments, much less what else you did between them, how much of the literature did you actually read? How much of it was historical (however you want to parse that out. Well, other than last month’s issue.)?

I sure wish I was more eloquent on these sorts of things, because I truly think that this view is a large part of the problem in our profession right now. And yes, I do realize that many other professions/disciplines are the same. I could care less about that!

So much is being rejected by people who have no idea what they are rejecting or why. Or they think they know why, but their stated reasons are based on unexamined assumptions and outright bigotry.

“My God, it must go! It’s based on the card catalog.”

Well, perhaps it is based on the card catalog (or some other unhip thing), but do you know what problem it solved at the time and, even more importantly, do you know what problem(s) it might be solving right now? Meanwhile, other things are being embraced that were previously rejected with no idea that they were tried and why they did not work out and still won’t, or that perhaps with x being different now they will. But you best know about x and make sure it is different.

Our field is full of trends that come and go. And then they come back! Do some of you who are new or relatively new to the profession wonder why so many veterans are so worn out? Amongst many other things, it is because they have seen the same things over and over and every new “generation” wants to try it again.

Trying again, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. But trying something again with no idea of how or why it failed, or that it was even tried, is extremely disheartening to many veterans. Perhaps some of our library veterans would be more willing to watch and perhaps even assist in trying “new” things if the new folks made it clear that, miracle of miracles, they were actually aware of the past and why things were different now and how that difference makes a difference.

Or, perhaps they are tired of banging their heads against the wall for 30 or 40 years because a real solution was not tried due to a lack of will, money, commitment, or what have you. Perhaps the technology was lacking then. Many of the things that were shown as distinct possibilities from the 1940s-70s are now distinctly doable. But most in our field have no idea what these even are and then they perhaps complain that the CS (and related) folks are reinventing everything we already know. But what is it you know?

I do realize that the amounts of data we have, new encoding and storage formats, and cheaper more powerful technologies have a profound impact on what is doable and what makes a good solution. Clearly, not everything from the past that was unable to get a fair shake needs to be resurrected. But how is one to rule out the possibilities, or borrow a great idea that if twisted just a little is a direct answer to one of today’s problems, if they do not know what went before?

Perhaps you think I’m just rambling or making up stuff here. I’ll leave it to you to decide; you will anyway. But I know professionals who fit both of these descriptions. It has absolutely nothing to do with not wanting to try or do new things! These folks have done more new and innovative things than you are probably going to get a chance to do [assuming demographic trends about career changes]. They are simply tired of banging their heads against the wall and having what they know completely ignored by someone who has no idea what it is that they know, or how that may (or may not) be useful.

Maybe it’s trite. Maybe it’s a truism. And perhaps I’m just plain wrong. But you know what they say about those who refuse to learn from the past.

Rant over. But I honestly do consider much of the reading of the past that I do to be keeping up. Perhaps catching up would be even better. But there’s no way I could sell that to the new “generations.”

Note(s):

I do well know that there are some old curmudgeons out there that would best serve the profession by moving on to something else.

I also see a lot of talk from the younger generations about respect and their work life balance, and so on. You do know that goes both ways, don’t you? [Says the older guy who is looking for some work life balance as he undertakes his new career. Or, in other words, not all new librarians are young!]

Youth, energy, and idealism are valuable assets. But so is knowledge and experience. And all who are chronologically older do not lack youth, energy or idealism.

The rant portion of this post has absolutely nothing to do with Chris Zammarelli! His post only got me thinking about keeping up as forward looking. Once I turned to the past the rest just came along for the ride. I am not saying, much less alluding, that he thinks in the way I am complaining about.

Certainly, my points about the past could use some nuance and some caveats. They are not meant to be conclusive, or overly general. But it is the case that these situations arise. What the percentage is I have no idea. Nor am I really interested in knowing it [pretty much impossible to determine, anyway].

Anyone have any thoughts on why keeping up seems to be only forward looking?

Balanced Libraries: Thoughts on Continuity and Change; a review

Posted on by

Crawford, Walt. Balanced Libraries: Thoughts on Continuity and Change. A Cites & Insight Book, 2007.

I read this book last Wednesday – Friday. In many ways it was like curling up with an old friend. I had read versions of some of the chapters and smaller sections in Cites & Insights, perhaps some of the ideas on Walt at Random, and had read many of the posts from which the citations come in their original form. That said, there was still plenty new here along with the previous disparate ideas being tied together into a coherent whole.

Audience

The audience for this book is anyone interested in the strength—present and future—of libraries; public, academic, school and special. The book definitely belongs in every library that supports an LIS school. Quite possibly, it belongs in every library.

Public libraries with the means to do so might consider providing copies to their board members. Libraries (of any sort) with enough staff to do so could consider having a reading/discussion group around it. Staff in libraries too small to do so can certainly find value in it. That is, there is value for anyone interested in libraries in these times of rapid change. [Although rapid change has probably always been the case in libraries—for the last 150 years anyway.]

But it’s self-published blog, er, stuff!

Let me try and counter one possible objection right now. Some folks may be prejudiced due to the fact that this is a self-published, print-on-demand book. That is simply silly; especially in this case. Crawford is well aware that this was an experiment from the start (16). I, for one, think it is a successful book, but only Walt Crawford can determine if it is a successful experiment.

Walt Crawford is one of the highest cited authors in the LIS literature for the period 1994-2004 based on a study recently cited in College & Research Libraries. I have no doubt this would be the same if one were to shift a few years either way. Assuming that there is some valid reason why he is one of the highest cited authors in our field, it should not matter whether this book is self-published or not. Clearly, many have found value in his writings.

A second possible objection is that the majority of sources cited are from blogs. Oh my gosh! From what? While I, myself, am sometimes critical of the biblioblogosphere, this book would serve as a valuable introduction to library and library-related blogs for the vast majority of librarians who are unaware of them or, at least, uninvolved with them. While we sometimes seem to be speaking only to ourselves, there is much of value being said out here. Sometimes we even manage to have a conversation. No matter where these conversations happen, library staff need to be involved in them. This book is one possible entry into them.

Reviewer qualifications, or lack thereof

In a couple of ways, I am not really suited to review this book. This does not mean that I am unentitled to an opinion or that I cannot find value in it. My situation only means that others may be better situated to comment on its primary value. So be it.

There are many ways to interact with this book, and diverse messages to take from it, as well as different uses in which to put it. As I said, much of this material is not new to me. But the overall structure and coherence is. I found that valuable. I have no idea how the book will strike those not currently involved in the biblioblogosphere. I can only hope that they will follow the author’s advice and follow some of these conversations in full.

The other reason, besides my closeness to much of the material, for my being poorly qualified to review this book is that I am currently in no real position to recommend or implement much of anything that might lead to balance in “my library.”

This is not to imply that I am voiceless or powerless in my job. That would be to greatly misspeak on my part. My student status does not lead to a total neutering. [And both the author and I claimed the audience is anyone who cares about libraries.] I only mean to imply that I have had a limited amount of time to understand the workings of “my library.” In fact, the question immediately arises, “What exactly is my library?” On one hand, it is pretty much the entirety of the whole UIUC Libraries. On the other, that is simply silly. I cannot know much about the whole thing and, in fact, know little about much of it. At best probably, I can look within Content Access Management (cataloging and more). Even that, though, is far larger than my gaze at the moment.

In other words, it is easy for me to read this book because I do not have any real needs to address at the moment. I can merrily read along at a good clip and think, “Great question! Could raise some interesting answers, in practice.” And so on. But I don’t have to answer any of them right now. And that is the hard job. In other words, if you need this book then it ought to take you a lot longer to “read” it than I took.

“Negatives”

Let me point out a couple faults before I get into the book proper. The index is not the best, although I have seen worse. The author has asked that I take him to task for it, but I’m not sure I can. So far I have had little need to use the index and although I have been trained to evaluate indexes (or indices, if you prefer) I don’t see the need to get all empirical here. I have a feeling that there may be some folks who did not get all of their citations indexed. I could be wrong but it seems like Steve Oberg/Family Man Librarian had more than one mention. There are others that seem as if they should have more index entries possibly.

As I said on my own blog as I was reading the book:

My only small gripe (so far) is that while the UI Current LIS Clips does show up in the index, neither Sue Searing or Karla Stover Lucht do, although they do in the text (54). Of course, if I didn’t know these folks personally I probably would not be looking them up. A very small gripe, though.

This was the comment which caused the author to suggest that a reviewer ought to take him to task for the index.

The only other issue with the book that I found is that chapter 11 is poorly edited in spots; although these are all minor issues and do not detract from one’s understanding at all. They are generally small formatting issues: lack of a subsection heading being bolded, a footnote not being superscripted, etc. Again, very minor detractions. Has anyone read any book from MIT Press lately? Now there is some poor editing!

Content

This book is, thankfully, not a self-help book. [Of course, that whole category is an oxymoron. How can a book help itself?]

There are no easy answers here. There are some easy questions; but only a few. Most of the questions are more middling to hard if you actually need to answer them. And if you need a consensus answer then just shift a little more to the hard end.

In fact, there may not even be any answers in the book. The answers can only come through an honest look at your library and its communities’ situations. This is not meant to diminish the book’s contents at all. If you actually expected to find the answer(s) in a book then you may well be in the wrong business.

What this book does offer are many of the questions and some thoughts and discussions around those questions that can help you discover the answers for you and your library’s situation. That is the best any book can do. And Balanced Libraries does that quite well.

  • The book is in 6 or so implicit parts. The first part (ch. 1) gives an overview of balance and how the book came about. It also provides an outline for the rest of the book.
  • Part 2 (ch. 2-4) addresses patron-orientation (and not just to the select), library as place, and existing collections and services.
  • Part 3 (ch. 5-8) is on barriers to change: time and energy, generational generalizations, push back from patrons and staff and why it may not just be blind resistance, and naming and shaming.
  • Part 4 (ch. 9-13) covers more positive aspects of change: extension and improvement of existing services and systems, new services, storytelling and conversation (marketing), competition and cooperation, and assessment and relating those successes and failures to the larger library community.
  • Part 5 (ch. 14) is about how the library worker themselves can achieve a healthy balance in their lives. It is hard to have a balanced library without balanced library workers.
  • Part 6 (ch. 15) “Change and Continuity” is the conclusion.

I found this to be a well-balanced book on a theme which cuts across many factors that are impacting libraries and library workers (and their communities) of all sorts today.

Despite my few caveats above as to my qualifications to review this books true usefulness, I think that there are few libraries or library workers who would not benefit from reading this book and thinking about its application to their situations. Perhaps we ought to have a “One City, One Book” type reading and discussion group in the library community centered on this book.

A (small) secondary benefit of this book is that is may introduce many a library worker to some fine writing and conversations that happen here in the biblioblogosphere [and, yes, that is an ugly word!]

I guess I ought to add the disclaimer that I have been quoted in this book. When the author first posted the list of who all were cited I was semi-concerned [C&I 7(4) pdf]. “Oh boy! Did Walt catch me saying something silly?” Well, I’m happy to say that I am quite pleased with what he did use. And even though I may have said something about a few of the topics covered in the book, I am pleased to serve a small purpose in the chapter on terminology, shaming and confrontation. Those topics fit in especially well with my thoughts and concerns with “professionalism.”

Nonetheless, I bought my own copy (as it should be) and just as I expect Walt to tell me when I’m wrong, off-base, silly or whatever I know he expects the same.

Read this book!

Book reviews are not really my thing and I wish I could have written a better one. But at least I think it is balanced, and that seems appropriate.

8 supposedly random things about me

Posted on by

Not tagged as far as I know but will play along anyway.

1. Having recently been “syndicated” in 2 places (that I’m aware of) [1][2], I don’t really know how I feel about this.**
[My last name is misspelled at one of them, but that is anything but random.]

2. I need an interview suit.

3. I really dislike shaving. And I don’t care much for beards.

4. The top 3 artists in my collection by number of CDs are: Ella Fitzgerald, Ani DiFranco, and Lambchop.

5. I dislike the orthography of “dependant.” I know the dictionary says it’s fine, but I still think it looks ugly.

6. I had an hour-long massage today. Been way too long.
btw, my massage therapist has been doing this a long time and she considers my back to be the toughest she has ever met. Not exactly a compliment. :(

7. Went to a meeting. Did my duty and wrote it up. Got invited to be on a “hot topic” panel at ALA. Pretty random.

8. If I wasn’t going to be out of town this Friday I could have had lunch with somebody I said I wanted to punch.
[That was just a metaphorical punch, btw. Oh well, hopefully soon. Eat your heart out, Tracy. ;) ]

** In my quest for brevity I wasn’t as clear as I’d have liked to be. I am honored to be included with many of the folks on both of these lists. It’s just that I don’t think of my blog as a “cataloging blog” or a “coder blog” or even a “library blog.” It’s just (part) of me and, as some of you know, I am trying to stitch my life together. You will find shades of all sides of me here: the goofball, the word lover, the philosopher, the cataloger, the desirer, the depressive, the patriot, the protester, the father, the student, the reader, the music lover, the friend, the “32 flavors and then some.” Seeing as I’m still not sure how I feel about blogging, it’s pretty simple that I don’t know how I feel about being in other places. But I do appreciate it.

WordPress help request; commenting issues

Posted on by

I am of the last week having issues commenting on some of my own posts. This is the message I receive:

Forbidden

You don’t have permission to access /blog/wp-comments-post.php on this server.

One of these was from February (just now), but the other was from last week. I am not trying to put in any fancy code, one URL in the recent one (although that failed without it, also), and nothing but pure ASCII characters. I simply have no idea.

This is the post which concerns me the most as it is active, and is a serious conversation that I am trying to have. The weirdest part is that I am able to comment some. I put in a couple “test” comments, which I removed. You can see that I made a couple others, although not the full one I was trying to make.

Does anyone have any ideas? I am down to one computer at the moment since my Mac laptop is completely trashed and has to be sent off to Apple for repairs; new trackpad and hard drive.

I’m already stressed enough about the PowerBook and a million others things that I don’t need this issue. The bad part is I’m not sure I can even get into my WP instance until I get the Mac back; at least not without finding a program for the PC and tracking down passwords….

Anyway, any and all suggestions are welcome! Here’s hoping that whoever has the answer can comment, or perhaps use the contact page. I have received a couple emails from folks who were unable to comment on the LC Working Group posts last week, but I have no idea if it is the same issue. No one told me what the problem was for them. I have to wonder how many others couldn’t comment and didn’t contact me.

Update: “Talked” to Blake and it seems I’m running up against some mod_security antispam rules. I know the exact word which caused a problem on the Chief post, and while it is understandable I am not happy about it.

As for my comment on the 1st David Bade post I have sent Blake the text of the comment I was trying to make and also let him know which part took and at which point it failed. I have tried my damnedest to figure out what word there could possibly be “offensive.” The problem with spam filtering is the word does not even have to be offensive; it only has to accompany such words. Of course, offensive is overly broad here. If I was depressive and wanted to discuss medication in my comments I’d be screwed.

I really try very hard not to hate anyone, be they nationalities, religions, groups of any sort, even single individuals. Hating isn’t good.

But. I. Fucking. Hate. Spammers.

Anyone who causes it so that I cannot have a conversation on my own blog about my own discipline is to be utterly despised. The world would be a far better place if all spammers’ heads were to simultaneously explode. Anyone remember Scanners?

I appreciate Blake doing a good job to help us all. Can’t be mad at him in any way. But when I can’t use ordinary words in my own language to have a conversation then there is serious issue.

Fucking spammers are the scum of the earth!

Me? Harsh? OK

Posted on by

[NB: This post has been significantly edited, twice. It was almost abandoned [see this post for some context]. It is not meant to be harsh, nor personal, but I think it needs to be addressed. I also want to say at the outset that I respect Ryan and the things he writes. Follow to through the end and hopefully that will be clear.]

OK, I’ll bite. I’ve been “harsh” before.

But if I was your “harshest critic” then you were lucky. And, if you also mean that I was harsh then you have a lot of living to do.

On 12 April I made a comment on a post at Life As I Know It. Jennifer Macaulay, in a post entitled, “Just Say Yes To Technology?“, was commenting on a post by Ryan Deschamps, The Other Librarian, entitled, “What the Library 2.0 Crowd is Trying to Say about Technology.” Ryan also commented there, seemingly taking a bit of minor offense at Jennifer’s and my questioning attitude. Jennifer responded, and due to being the end of the semester I failed to go back and check in.

This morning [yesterday now] Ryan posted a follow-up on his own blog, “Yes, I will Learn with you…“.

If you actually care about any of this, I suggest you go read Ryan’s original post, then Jennifer’s post in response along with the comments, and then Ryan’s follow-up in which I am labeled his “harshest critic.”

Now that that is done, I want to say that although I stand by every word I wrote on Jennifer’s post, Ryan managed to ignore the nice thing I said about him. Maybe that didn’t serve his purpose in labeling me. It might be hard to single someone out as the “bad guy” when they started out with “Well said, Jennifer! I, too, enjoyed Ryan’s post and only had a problem with the same thing as you” (emphasis not in original).

Let me also state that I generally enjoy the things Ryan writes. While my tastes are not exactly the same as his, he often writes things I find interesting. He also generally writes in a far more nuanced way than many others; something I greatly appreciate!

I clearly was short in my comment at Jennifer’s; school and work lives are hectic and time is short. My reply was not exactly nuanced but was an attempt (clumsy perhaps) to add a bit of nuance and perhaps to get some from Ryan.

For the record, here is my entire comment:

Well said, Jennifer! I, too, enjoyed Ryan’s post and only had a problem with the same thing as you. You, though, said what I would have liked to but with kindness and some detail. My rather simplistic critique would basically have been that saying Yes before even asking any questions is stupid; not a good way to start a conversation.

I understood his point to be “Minimize the obstacles, ask only necessary questions, and empower people,” or something like that. But what he actually said about saying yes immediately is extremely simplistic and also ill-advised from a managerial perspective. Do anyone want a manager who immediately says yes to things and then after asking a few questions retracts that yes? Does anyone want to be that manager?

Ryan was frustrated with my synopsis of his point, which I admit is a bit simplistic (see comment re time above) but it was not meant to be dismissive. (Part of) Ryan’s response:

I said technology ought to *begin* with a “yes.” By that, I meant to say “yes, now go get me a business plan.” or “yes, now where does this fit into our priorities and/or strategic plan.” And no, don’t want managers to reduce the questions — I said ask *hard* questions. But say “yes” first. Or, (if I can change my tune just a bit) at least as often as we say “yes” first to a whole slate of other activities.

The point is less about reneging on the need for planning and/or alternative actions and/or critical thinking and more about engaging techies in the discussions that already get a “yes” before ever asking any questions (which I agree is stupid, if by that you mean going into the implementation stage without anything resembling a plan).

In an additional comment he added:

… I’m just a little concerned that the headline and Mark’s read could give the wrong impression if someone didn’t actually read what I wrote. That’s what comments are for anyway right? To clarify, add, participate etc.

Another point here is the need for playspace — namely access to a test server, with all sorts of bells and whistles, including a test copy of the ILS if possible. It’s really hard for people to demo tech projects when people can’t see the possibilities. And out-of-the-box products, especially open source ones, don’t really show well to people who don’t know how something works.

Well, Ryan, I apologize if I gave anyone the wrong impression. Sincerely, I do. But that is perhaps why I prefaced my comment with the fact that I enjoyed your post but only disagreed with one thing. Maybe not very explicit but it seems to be to be an implicit endorsement of people reading your post. Jennifer also linked to your post, as I have done above. I don’t want to turn this into a “he said, he said” thing but think about your complaint for a second. From Jennifer’s post and, thus, my comment on it, and from this post, your exact and entire words—in context—can be found. Did you give anyone that opportunity regarding my words in your post this [yesterday] morning, sir?

I fully support your statement re “playspace” or sand boxes or what have you. And that doesn’t just go for the “techies,” it also applies for the non-systems folks who have responsibility for major systems where perhaps running new and complex reports might crash an ILS or playing with non-standard bib records that do not need to be exposed to “the world.” Been there, done that.

You know what? This is getting tedious. And re-reading Ryan’s post from this morning it is pretty clear that I must not be of “the generation of librarians coming up,” nor do I understand change, and so on.

I’m going to be simple here and even, perhaps, harsh. Ryan, you are seriously oversimplifying this whole issue. It is not only “techies” who get told “No” as you allude. I doubt you mean it, but my minor disagreement seems to have irked you enough that your powers of nuance are escaping you. I never, in any way, was saying the answer should be “No.”

You have turned this into another “us vs. them” dichotomy of which I am very tired. I happen to be on everyone’s side. That is, the side of fulfilling the actual mission of libraries. Having lived a bit longer than you, I’ve seen far too many of these “us vs. them” dichotomies and pretty much everyone of them is bullshit. You started out trying to help bridge one and now, in fact, have helped cement one (or more).

I have tried to get some nuance from this and you have said things a couple of different ways but, nonetheless, still seem to be saying the same thing, much of which I agree with, such as, give people the benefit of the doubt, say yes when you can, prioritize, ….

[cut]

==== new ===

Although the entirety of Ryan’s comments, including his newest post from yesterday, do not support this statement from one of his comments [more above] I am going to focus on it in the spirit of giving him the best interpretation:

Or, (if I can change my tune just a bit) at least as often as we say “yes” first to a whole slate of other activities.

OK, I’m fully in agreement with that. I just don’t think all the nuance he has tried to add begins to point to this. To me, he seems to be claiming something significantly different. And that something I have real issues with.

=========

End the end, I’m giving Ryan the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think he really and truly means what he says to be taken across the board. Maybe he’s in an environment where his employees only bring him well-formed and well thought out ideas that they can defend. Maybe only “techies” get told “No” where he is. Or maybe he’s just trying to defend the finer points of his discussion, which, I maintain, are well worth defending. But the world isn’t this way everywhere else.

And, by the way, I absolutely adore “Yes, I will learn with you…”. That is the right attitude.

[For the record: I am of "the generation of librarians coming up." And as far as change management goes, I may not be the best theorist, but having spent over 20 years in the Army being forced to change jobs every 12 months to 3 years, generally maintaining 4-5 jobs at the same time due to "additional duties," none of which you were ever adequately prepared for, and leaving one as soon as you became proficient in it, I think I am fully immersed in the experiential aspect of change management. I have also lived through 2 new ILS implementations, including being responsible for a significant piece of one. Thus, I'd put my skills in that department up against any of whomever your idea of "the generation of librarians coming up" are.]

I sincerely apologize if anyone takes any of this as “harsh.” That is not my purpose, nor my desire. I was only trying to be supportive of the vast majority of Ryan’s points—and still am—

====new===

but Ryan seems to have taken my minor disagreement personal and made it so in reply. Maybe that wasn’t his intention, but seeing as he complained about possible misconstrual of his words in a venue where all of his words could be traced in context and then used [some of] mine slightly out of context with no chance for the reader to see where they came from he did, in fact, do so.

Ryan, I truly don’t want this to be personal. There is no need for that. I fully respect your opinion and agree almost entirely. If what you are doing works for you—and it seems to be—then by all means ignore what I say. I have stripped a lot regarding what I actually think you have said in over 95% of your words on this topic because I think you really meant what you said in one sentence in a comment. I just don’t feel that that is what actually came through from most of your words. Seeing as that is how I am now choosing to interpret your thoughts on the matter the rest of my critique is not important or necessary.

I will assume that your overlooking the possibility of linking to my comment in context was simply that, an oversight. If not, then I ask you to rethink your earlier complaint about Jennifer and my critiques where your words were fully accessible. I see from your About page that one of your main interests is ethics. Thus, I assume you can reason your way through this one.

Ryan, I think you do good work at your blog. Please keep it up!

Sincerely,

Mark

5+ liblogger influences and friends, and more

Posted on by

Blogging, or not so much

I’m sorry—although mostly to myself—for my non-blogging lately. There are things I’d like to write (e.g., Green on following Humanities sources) and some I even started on (e.g., Hope Olson) amongst others. But I’ve been working hard at keeping on a reasonably even keel emotionally and mentally, while trying to get in as much learning as I can before this school gig is up.

I’ve been fairly disappointed in myself for the state of this thing for a while now, but I’m also aware that it has gone through various cycles and states since the start. So for those of you who are still out there and read some of this, I truly appreciate it. And I really appreciate those who comment, whether it is to take me to task or just to say, “Me too!”

Last night as I was getting caught up on my blog reading I came across two posts by two wonderful ladies who made me feel very special: Jennifer and Iris.

I’ve been avoiding this meme because I’m not a fan of the loose use of the word “hero.” I’m well aware that it means little in today’s overly celebritized society and that the language change genie cannot be put back in the bottle, but I can try to reserve it for serious use.

But rest assured that those two ladies with so many interesting things to say said well are on my list. Besides their wonderful writing, they have both offered me a place to question and to discuss.

And because I’m not a fan of numbered favorites or favorites period, and because I am actively trying to learn to color outside the lines, my (current) list will be seven in number, in no particular order:

Iris Jastram (Pegasus Librarian): As I said, she writes well about many important things, things which I don’t have a direct connection to seeing as I am pursuing a different area of librarianship. But they are things of which I need to be aware to do my job. And as she mentioned, we have become good friends. A few months back, Dorothea (see below) had a mini-rant about “Friends” where she started with the following:

Online friends versus real friends. Online life versus real life. All these briar-fences and hedges we construct when we speak so that we don’t admit the possibility that people we meet online are, you know, people, meaning as much to us as people we meet elsewhere.

I don’t want to hear that nonsense any more, and in fact I intend to laugh loudly and point a derisive finger whenever I do hear it.

While I understood her point philosophically, I still distrusted it a tad experientially. While I had made good friends with several people whom I’ve spent at best a couple to several hours with at a conference and then stayed in touch with, I had yet to make an actual friend with someone I had only met online. In case you are new to this blog, “friend” is a concept and term even more dear to my heart than “hero!”

I am proud to say that Iris is my first friend who I met online. I joyously look forward to the day I actually meet her in person.

Jennifer Macaulay (Life as I Know It): Jennifer writes eloquently about other issues within librarianship that often impinge on my own work, about LIS and distance education, and simply has a lovely site. Hers and Walt’s are two blogs that I am guaranteed to click through to to read. I’m not sure why, but her blog header puts me in a better frame of mind, and the simplicity is simply elegant. She makes me think and allows me to question. I sincerely thank her for that.

Jenica Rogers [Sorry, kid, can't remember if you hyphenated your name or not.] (Mermaid – Thinking Out Loud): All I ought to say is go read her about page and see why I love her. But. I met Jenica at ACRL in Minneapolis in April 2005, which is also where I met Dorothea, Joy Weese Moll, ranger, Jane/Michelle Boule and a few others.

Jenica is absolutely relentless, in the best possible way. :) I am completely amazed at what she can accomplish, in any amount of time. Her blog is a direct reflection of the human being that she is with none of those stupid walls of fragmentation. I feel completely safe to question in her space and that, my friends, is a difficult thing to achieve.

Dorothea Salo (Caveat Lector): I don’t know what to say that hasn’t been said elsewhere, but I think Iris may have said it best:

But Dorothea’s authorial voice keeps me coming back for more, no matter the content. I’m equally happy listening to her talk about the weather or about mysterious tech-ish script-ish things that I don’t understand at all.

I may have a slightly better grasp of some of the techy stuff than Iris, but I agree with her point. There are so many things for me to learn from Dorothea, not the least of which are how to vehemently disagree in a civil way, humility, and how to apologize. One classy librarian.

Meredith Farkas (Information Wants To Be Free): “Not another person pointing to Meredith,” you ask? Well, yes.

She’s prolific, thoughtful, expressive, questioning, and allows others a space to question vehemently (as long as they’re civil). While we certainly do not agree about everything—none of the people on this list do, thankfully— I’d have her back in a heartbeat on most anything. Oh. I already did that, didn’t I? And I’d do it again. :)

Another very classy lady I am proud to know. And welcome to the wonderful world of Macs, Meredith. ;)

Jennifer Graham (jennimi): I met Jennifer at ASIST last November and was immediately “smitten” with this caring, thoughtful new librarian with one of the biggest hearts I have ever met. She is the epitome of someone dearly enamored of technology in the service of people. She’s also a lot of fun and gave me, perhaps, the best birthday present ever!

Walt Crawford (Walt at Random): Many would call Walt a curmudgeon or, perhaps, worse. While those folks certainly have a right to that opinion, I don’t think it is one that counts for anything. Walt is the best reason I can think of for generally using the concept and term “librarian” loosely. Once in a while, a context might require us to draw the specific lines a little tighter, but I would not be comfortable in too many (any?) conversations about “librarians” that excluded this true professional.

Walt provides an amazing service to a broad swath of folks through Cites & Insights. I’ve read it for a couple of years now and almost always read it “cover to cover” as soon as I download it. When he started blogging (on April Fool’s day no less) I was ecstatic. Always thoughtful, often insightful, and never irascible, he puts a much needed voice of reason into many discussions. This gentleman has a lot to teach me and I’m doing my best to pay attention.

While compiling this list I came across this post at W.a.R. I guess I should get over feeling bad about my blogging and just get on with what I’m doing.

And, yes, it is true that Walt helped name this blog. See the comments here.

[I also just determined that Bloglines is broken again!! There are several posts at jennimi I haven't seen and the above one from Walt. Grrrr!]

As Iris said at her post, this list is about far more than libraries and professional contacts. These are all people I have corresponded with in more than one format. I have met all but 2 of them and look forward to seeing them all again, or especially for the first time. Dorothea and Jenn will be at ASIST in October. Yay!

Everyone of these folks are special to me for one or more reasons, and while they may not be my heroes, I know that a few are my friends, and I’d be honored to call the rest by that very important word, too.

the (final) end of an era

Posted on by

…the thoughts are broken… is no more.

This is to in no way imply that my thoughts are no longer broken. That, I fear, shall always be the case in this society. It only means that I canceled my TypePad account this morning before it came up for renewal, which instantaneously nuked my old blog there.

My 1st post there was on 29 Jan 2005 and the last was on 19 July 2006. The most recent stats via TypePad were:

541 posts

658 comments

192 trackbacks

Total # of page views: 29114

Avg/Day: 36.62

Last 7 days: 212

Almost all of those recent hits were coming from google (across the world) or images.google. Some of them were finding posts I am still proud of, and some were finding blather or silly quizzes.

TypePad wanted to know why I killed my account, so I told them. I have no idea how they’ve performed over the last 9 months since my last post was in July 2006, but at the time they were having serious reliability issues. I often could not log in to my account to write a post, etc. Being a reasonably busy person like most of us, that put a definite crimp in my blogging activity. And while they had already extended my account for 45 days due to a previous episode of unreliability, I did not appreciate not being able to use something I was paying $90/year for.

Now comes the “cleanup.” Maybe. I need to ensure that the Carnival of the Infosciences links at the wiki point to the posts on this blog. That’s a definite. There is also a fair amount of interlinking of those early posts that is now completely broken. Maybe over summer I can try and fix the more important ones. Maybe.