I already commented on the potential problems of adding Wikipedia articles to a library's catalog in the Distant Librarian blog entry that brought up the subject for me here, so I won't go over them again. What I want to do here is consider the benefits of doing so and doing it in the best way possible.

One benefit is that since an assumed good number of users see them as valuable and worthy of usage already, we can somewhat "ride the wave" of Wikipedia's success. Having their content linked to in our collection might say to a good portion of our patrons that, "Yes, we are hip and we can help you get to the resources we know you want." That may not sound like the best reason, but survival of an institution that most of us believe is worth saving may also be worth pandering a little to ensure continued appreciation. I'm not sure what the long term results of such pandering might be so this is probably not a sufficient reason but it does have a certain amount of short-term appeal at least.

Another benefit is that actually, many Wikipedia articles are valuable and include content not included in other resources to a sufficiently similar extent if at all. A venue where anyone anytime can add topics and start filling them up with content will always include more same-level topics than one that must pay authors to develop content. This is saying nothing about the quality of such content but if we assume some bare minimum level of quality that is sufficiently higher than neutral, or worse yet, outright falsehoods, then something is better than nothing. There will be somewhat informative articles in Wikipedia on topics that a for-fee or author-restricted resource will be able to provide. The benefit to a library catalog is that it can be filled with some content not available elsewhere.

A third benefit is that it is free, at least in terms of direct cost. Libraries do not typically have infinite budgets for collections and anytime a minimally worthy resource can be added to the collection for not outlay of money, it must be considered. Of course, the disadvantage of online resources such as Wikipedia articles is that they don't come with handy pre-made MARC records, requiring a certain amount of expertise and effort on the part of those who want them added.

Given these three benefits, how can the addition of at least some Wikipedia articles (and perhaps other similar online resources) be made easier particularly for those libraries with little time or smaller staff complements. First of all, they need to be linked to at the specific version level. This solves the issue of quality control that we tend to pride ourselves on in our collection (as mentioned in the comment mentioned above). Also, when a library/librarian has decided that a specific article version is worthy of addition, the metadata created needs to be shared, made available to other libraries considering it in the future. As a profession we tend to share well so let's use our large numbers to solve our general lack-of-local-resources problem. Finally, if we go down this path, we should go all the way down the path: if we're adding Wikipedia articles to the collection, advertise that we're doing so. One of the big problems with the library catalog as a tool is that users don't know what's in there. We need to tell them. It needs to be made clear all the kinds of resources are included in the collection and why. Not all at once though. One at a time.

Still not sure it's a good idea... May get too messy. But it seems to have a few useful positive side effects and is doable at least on a small scale. What do you think?

Labels: aboutClassification, aboutInformation, aboutOnlineTools, aboutWork

I've only recently starting thinking about some of my more complicated tasks as "projects" as defined by David Allen's GTD system/book. I think this has helped me immeasurably (that's a lie, I could totally measure it) by at least forcing me to break the process into smaller more manageable bits. My problem is that I'm not prepared to do it the way GTD suggests - recording the first action and then dealing with the next action when that's done (or at least that's my reading of it) - because I know that I would put off each step just a little which would add up to a whole bunch of procrastination. So I determine all the steps, their order, and which ones can be done simultaneously. This front loads the project work which is one of the big barriers but once it's done you'd think it would be easy from then on in. My big problem is that I don't have a tool or system built well enough to easily organize the individual tasks and then, in the midst of completing them, I come up with a better way of organizing them, or I remember a new task that I forgot to insert somewhere... What I need is a good seamless method/tool to help me manage all this and insert it into my work flow I already have (i.e. Remember the Milk). I keep looking but I have yet to reach the finding stage.

Labels: aboutOnlineTools, aboutWork, funny

There's a few interesting things in this strip that made me want to put it here... after the roflmao's of course. lol

1. "Constant novelty saps my initiative."
   • There's actually two parts of this that made me pause. Firstly, the concept that constant new stuff could or would affect someone's creativity and productivity negatively. I don't think this happens to me. I find it's the other way around: I discover new tools and find myself pulling them apart, thinking about how I would improve them if I had the time or the ability. Or thinking of new or weird (or usually just librarian-centric) ways of using them. That's the constant novelty that I experience in the net. Mere informational novelty doesn't really affect me since I'm immersed in it every day as a librarian... it's really functional novelty. "I can do what now? That's cool."
   • The second is a little more meta than that. I've never really thought of the Internet as being a source, or rather a particularly unique source, of constant novelty. In a way, that makes sense... Thinking about your stereotypical pre-Internet horse-and-carriage, steam-locomotive, stone-tool kind of existence, I guess there wasn't as much sudden change, regular mass communication, constant input as there is today. But although there seems to be a lot more info-producers around, once the printing press got up and running, there was still more information than the average person could absorb in a lifetime. We just see the lists and streams of it better and we can dig through piles of it that were not quite as reachable as before.
     


2. "I'm gonna try to spend a weekend at home without Internet."
   • Try? Ok, I like the Internet. Correction, I LOVE the Internet. I spend my whole day at work on it. I come home to it. I play games on it. I plan my day with it. I write with it. I read with it. But I've yet to reach a stage where I couldn't pull myself away from it. I could spend a whole weekend off the computer as easily as I could spend a whole weekend on it. And why would I want to? It would be like saying, "I'm gonna try to eat for week without refrigerating anything." You could do it, and it might be an interesting experiment but there's no real ethical consideration here, which is what seems to exist when people talk about using computer or Internet related tools. It's a computer people, not a TV with a keyboard!


3. "I give you an hour."
   • Again the sarcasm. Ok, it's for the benefit of the joke, but it disturbs me to hear people first rage about the evils of technology or their bewilderment at the draw of something online, then respond with absolute certainty that it has you in it's clutches! You either understand a phenomenon or you don't. You either see something as inherently and obviously harmful or you don't. Have faith in your fellow humans that we're not mindless and pitiable automatons!

Labels: aboutOnlineTools, funny

I taught a few sessions of a "keeping current" workshop that I put together for work a while ago which was mostly/usually about what RSS is and how you can use it in your current awareness strategy instead of subscribing to and NOT reading dozens of print journals. But while I was teaching these sessions, a recurring theme arose.

Finding information's not the problem. We all know that "If I only knew/read/skimmed everything in this book/journal/website/etc that would really help my job/research/homework/relationship/parenting/etc." There is enough information out there -- factual or not, professional or not, valuable or not -- to satisfy every individual need for knowing more about whatever they want to know about. The key is in choosing what "stream" to follow, or float down rather. You have to be pretty selective about what you're going to be tracking regularly. There's a lot of content out there but there's also a lot of overlap. What one Corvette expert has to say on a regular basis will repeat much of what another has to say. You can't listen to them all.

Well, actually, you can almost. If you narrow down your focus enough, you can still keep pretty good tabs on all the "experts" in a field. But then you can't do anything else. You can be yet another expert on the topic of marsh hens but when someone asks you about guineafowl you'll be stumped. Of course, if you don't focus at all, you'll be reading about a million and one topics and not get enough depth to be of value in any of them.

The best path is right down the middle. Make a list of your primary interests and primary specialties and focus on them. Read some books, read some blogs, search for some current articles on each of your main topics and do so with some regularity.

And remember to shut it off once in a while. Dive into something completely new once in a while. Or turn it all off and have a break. You'll be amazed at what bubbles to the surface when the turbines are turned off or pointed in another direction.

So what do you folks do to "keep up"?

Labels: aboutEducation, aboutInformation, aboutReading

...and confused.

We have all felt frustrated with a large (or small) company before, after an experience with a sales person, a service person, a help desk or even website. Why does this happen? Why do large groups of people (a business) cooperating (somewhat) on a common goal (to provide a service or product for a fee) but then fail so miserably so consistently in achieving that goal? Are they all incompetent? Well, some people plainly are, whether aware of it or not, but I'm not sure that's the reason in most cases. Are they evil? Perhaps we'd like to think so... that we're running into the BOFH every single time, but alas there is only so many and they can't have taken over civilization yet.

I think, for the most part, it's a matter of a lack of respect for one's own work, our preoccupation on money, and, often, simple miscommunication.

Too many people in too many jobs are there because they simply need a job. They may or may not have been well-trained for their position but, however they go there, they're there now and they're not moving. It's almost as if, in today's Western society (at least in the USA and Canada), no one can actually LIKE their job. I enjoy being a librarian but I feel almost guilty telling anyone other than a librarian that. If you don't like your job, or at least keep saying you don't, you will certainly limit your motivation for doing it well. You can only say TGIF so many times before you start calling in sick on Monday.

Along with our lack of preoccupation with our work is our preoccupation with the reason why we're there: Money. We are constantly needing things and therefore needing money. Again, I'm made to feel awkward (which I don't mind, because I'm just weird like that) when I say my family doesn't have cable TV (and therefore any TV at all). We "need" all these standard "trappings" of society. They may be different around the world but we all have them and the West has them in spades. I think it's getting better but it's not reached "good" yet. This preoccupation with money keeps ours eyes on the prize instead of where we're running and the people we trip over on the way.

In the end though, miscommunication is to blame for much of these problems we have with businesses. Face it, we are none of us experts at communication. Even between two people who speak the same language, come from the same culture and have the same expectations can get tripped up on the words we use to collaborate and transfer data. As a librarian, I know full well how difficult people find it to simply explain what they need help with. Many people are too busy trying to convince me that they don't need help to get their question out in a understandable way. We have a hard time seeing things from another persons perspective, especially when those "things" are the words flying out of our mouths.

So the moral of the story is:

1. Find a job you like, or like the one you have (as much as you can);
2. Chill out about money... you don't need as much as you think; and
3. Think about your communication a little more - you may be surprised at the difference between what you're saying and what you think you're saying.

[ Inspired by an article from Mon Jul 30 2007 entitled "Dell Tries To Repair $10 Battery, Hoses $150 Video Card" from "The Consumerist" ]

Labels: aboutCommunication, aboutMoney, aboutWork