You know, I try and I try to hate Google: it's a big faceless machine and sometimes it's dangerously close to making people stupider than they are. But sometimes you just gotta love the big lug.

 

This is pretty cool. It gets a little spicy though so be careful... *laugh*

 

This has got a few good points, such as:

1. Don't let the past be your guide.
2. Cultivate personal traits and general skills.
3. Be prepared to admit and rectify your mistakes.
4. Read outside of the profession.
5. It's about the user, stupid.
6. Seek self-reliance.
7. A little humility goes a long way.

I think that the most important thing in this article is that "the solution for needing to teach our users how to search our catalog was to create a system that didn't need to be taught". People don't want to learn, to have to take a course, to have to sit down and figure something out. They want to sit down in front of it and have it automatically spit out results at them. We all know the world doesn't really work that way but if someone does that for you, you will give them all your money to make sure they keep doing it. *laugh*

Also, it's always good to be a generalist. But of course, that's not what people want. People want to see a list of programs/tools/technologies you've worked with on your resume. They don't want to see "fast learner" or "good communication skills" and have to derive the specifics. They'd rather see "codes in Perl" or "Types 1000wpm" and then assume that those skills translate into something more general. I guess people prefer induction to deduction... Weird.

 

Read an article on Wikipedia vs. Britannica. The people on both sides of this argument are hilarious. The people who proclaim Wikipedia as the perfect resource and use it regularly with abandon are just fooling themselves. And the people who are disgusted with it and argue that paid researchers and editors always do a better job... they're fooling themselves too.

Truth is a very difficult thing to reach. Both methods have their advantages. Having a whole bunch of yahoos claw their way to the truth works because the more yahoos there are the more likely one of them will know what he/she's talking about and be able to convince others. Having a specific set of hired guns to hunt down the truth and bring it to justice works because everyone knows what their job is and nobody will get in the way. Both groups have their motivation: the former has general interest multiplied by numbers and possible fame, and the latter has money, employment as well as possible interest and fame. And both have their disadvantages: the former is obvious (those yahoos may all be yahoos), and the latter is the assumption of competence and less review.

How about having both? Not in the same product. But having both products give you more options and more liklihood of the USER reaching the truth. Britannica (et al) is good for that material that needs in depth research and qualified experts. Wikipedia is good for material best suited for popular opinion or unresearch-worth information (e.g. controversial issues, quick topic intros, seemingly useless information, etc.).

Moral of the story: No one source will have all the answers. The "truth", if such a thing exists, is very hard to find. You'll have to dig for it yourself. You can't rely on others. Go get your shovel and tell me how it goes...

 

Read this.

So, it's hard for FBI agents to actually get those private customer records we librarians were all so angry about being able to seize without restraint? Two things:

1. Boo hoo.
2. That's really pathetic. Not only were they trying to do something many people saw as violating some basic privacy issues, but they can't even be evil efficiently! *laugh*

Doesn't the article seem to be written with the tone that says, "See? The Patriot Act ain't so bad... The FBI still can't get all the information they need to do their job!" Yeah, great. So, not only does this law potentially leave the door wide open for serious invasions of private records, but many officials can't even use it, now that it is in place, to catch bad guys...

 

Reading this: "Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources (2005)" from OCLC.org.

Just read some of the comments that respondents have provided about advice they would give to libraries. Things like "Make a way to search through all of the databases with one search engine, instead of having to search each database individually." or "It is tedious to go to library, it is easy to trace the information on internet."

It's true that libraries and librarians NEED to market themselves more. Most people have no clue as to what we do and why they need us. Many people don't need us. They are very happy to blunder through life without reading or looking anything up. But more people would be better off if they knew that there's a lot better information out there if only they would reach out and grab it. And it's really the librarian's duty to go out and show people. (Just like it's the job of the police to make their services known and available, etc.)

However, it can't be all on the librarian's head. Some of these comments (like the ones above) strike me as ridiculous. Saying that it is "easy to trace the information on internet" is like when being asked, "What's the easiest way make lots of money?" answering, "Printing it yourself." Of course it would be easier if we could all just have what we wanted right at our finger tips but what is at our finger tips is not always what we want, no matter how much it looks like it. The Internet has a lot of useful information, I will agree, but not about everything. And it is rarely the best first choice. It's good for a quick info grab and it's good as a last resort when you can't find it anywhere else. And it's a lot of fun otherwise. That's it.

(The other quote really gets to be too: "Make a way to search through all of the databases with one search engine..." Telling librarians this is like telling your family doctor to make a pill that will cure everything. Libraries have been attempting to provide these "federated searching" tools but the inherent problem is that it reduces the tool to what EVERY database can do. If you've got one database that is really easy to use and provides access in a way that makes it really easy to get what you want, too bad. If the others don't have it, then the federated searcher won't either. Databases are made by all different companies: there is no Microsoft of databases, making everything compatible with everything else. And, given Microsoft's problems, would we want a one in every business?)

 

Now this is how I like to motivate my children.

 

Check this out. OK, so it's a little one-sided and simplistic. But sometimes you just gotta let off some intellectual steam!

 

Reading this article: "Privacy issues raised over Plan B: women asked for names, addresses, sexual history" by Laura Eggertson and Barbara Sibbald from CMAJ. (You might not be able to access this article. I'm not sure. Try it and see!)

This article is all about how due to CPhA guidelines, many Canadian pharmacists are asking for and recording data from women and girls requesting the emergency contraceptive levonorgestrel (Plan B) and how this is an obvious privacy issue and a potential barrier to its use. This is certainly an important issue, no one should HAVE to provide their name, sexual history, etc. if it's not required for the sake of their health. It turns out that, since it's only a suggestion by the CPhA and they are not a regulating body, it's not really required but pharmacists may be asking these questions in ways that make it seem like if they don't answer they won't get Plan B.

However, I'm always dismayed at the quick response to any information gathering as automatically an invasion of privacy. Perhaps the information specifically being asked for is not all necessary, but some information should be gathered:

Pharmacists collect the information to determine if ECPs are appropriate, Cooper says. "In a fairly high percentage of cases, the woman comes in thinking she needs emergency contraception and in a consultation with pharmacists [realizes] she doesn't need it. Or it's a timing issue," Cooper says.

In order to give good service, sometimes you need to get some background information. As a librarian, I sometimes find myself needing to ask what may seem as an intrusive question (e.g. "Why do you want this information?") in order to understand more clearly what the customer really wants. Many people are horrible at communicating their own messages: they're shy, don't know the jargon, want to impress, don't really know what they want, etc.

The thing to remember is to communicate as much as you can to the customer as well. You can't make anybody make a good decision, but you shouldn't trick them into making the decision YOU think is the best one. The only thing you can do is try to make sure they have as much information as possible so that they at least have the materials to base their decision on. It'll all turn out for the best if you just communicate well and tell the truth. You can't do more than that.

 

Ok. I've put that "Road to Stockholm" book on hold for a second while I read "New Spring", the prequel to the Dragon Reborn series by Robert Jordan. I bought it for my wife (she has been reading the latest in the series) and she read it in a couple of minutes (sic) and she insisted that I read it. Who am I to argue? *laugh* I'll get back to the other book, don't worry.

 

Read this article from the National Post: "B.C. private care specialist plans Ontario clinic".

This is such a difficult subject. It seems like it's such an obvious solution to the problem: to solve the problem of wait times in a non-profit health care system, include the option of for-profit health care. People who have the money go one place, people who don't go somewhere else. Simple. In fact, proponents of the idea think that the argument against it is impossible:

"They would have to argue it's OK for patients to wait and suffer and die on waiting lists ... They would have to demonstrate it's OK to keep patients with cancer waiting to get biopsies."

But I don't think it's that simple. As soon as you inject profit into health care, you lose the emphasis on health care. The better doctors go where the money is, leaving the poorer (and usually sicker) people with lesser health care (if any at all), and people start making choices based not on who's the better doctor, but rather who can I afford. I've lived in the US. I've tried their medical system. It's not absolutely horrible but then again I was making money and had an employer that kinda helped with choosing a plan. Even then though, I found it difficult to choose out of the dozen plans possible, and was always cautious about going to the doctor because no matter how much I read the brochures, I never really understood my own plan and who knows what they'll charge me for and when and how much. I've never had that problem in Canada. If it's important, I know the system will help me.

Money is a very poserful thing. It tends to get people's attention. Sometimes away from the important issues.

 

Read this and tell me it isn't great to be Canadian! All or parties are dying to give us money, we're basically being paid for our votes... Like that doesn't happen all the time, really, but at least this time it'll be obvious.

Of course, we may know what we want but can we really make a GOOD decision. (I initially typed "GOOF decision" there... Maybe I should have left it. *laugh*)

 

I just borrowed a book called "The Road to Stockholm" by Istvan Hargittai. I was just browsing through my library's collection (in the mostly non-medical section) to find something interesting and this title caught my eye. It's all about the Nobel Prize and the science (and scientists) around it. Not only does that seem interesting but it's probably something I should know a little about being a science librarian. I know a little about it already but I really should now more about the history, a bit of the process, and perhaps some of the winners as well.

Just glancing through the book just now, I noticed that there was a bit of an uproar when Alfred Nobel proposed the prize, it being based in Sweden but awarded internationally, many people including the King of Sweden did not what the prize money leaving the country. Good job, Al! Stick it to the man!

 

This is funny.