Here's a link to the 43 page pdf document, "Information searches that solve problems" report from the Pew Internet & American Life Project (Can't we Canadians ever do anything ourselves? Sheesh.), but here's 4 of the 6 major findings from the executive summary (2 about gov docs and e-government... yawn) for those of you who are too lazy to read the whole thing... like me. LOL

• People use something called the Internet to get information! Duh.


• "Searchers usually end up satisfied." Yeah, and people flock to McDonald's... that doesn't mean they're getting what they need!


• "Libraries meet special needs." They say 'special needs' and then they talk about libraries being filled with people in their 20s. (Maybe this deserves some reading of the actual report.) I'm glad they're coming in and all but the people who really need information (doctors, politicians, teachers, parents, etc.) don't all fit in that category.


• Some people have access - others don't. Again, duh.

Labels: internet, librarianship, thoughts

Watch this video: Tale of Two Brains - Mark Gungor

I agree with almost all of this metaphor except for the nothing box. What looks like an empty box to some is chock full... of junk sometimes but interesting junk nonetheless.

A few days ago, a colleague of mine remarked on how, being Jewish in an environment of mostly non-Jewish people she is usually called on to be the expert on her "people", how it really sets her apart, and how odd and sometimes uncomfortable that is.

Of course (being the completely self-centered person I am) I immediately tried to think about how this concept can be turned around and applied to me! LOL I'm not Jewish so that's out. In fact I'm not religious at all (I'm interested IN religion but am not a believer per se) and most people are if only just a little, but I don't think that really works either. But I am a male in a primarily female field (librarianship, for those of you not paying attention) and to some degree I can see how she feels. I take great care to communicate my non-stereotypically-male characteristics: I don't like sports, I don't drink (beer or otherwise), I'm a total spice-wuss, I'm not totally colur-blind, etc. but I still feel occasionally that I'm slotted into the "oh, he's just a guy" category. It's not vindictive and sometimes I play it up just to get a laugh. But there is slight pressure there to be the example guy in the room (there is one other male in the library out of 20 staff in total, so it's not all on me... lol) and a bit of barrier that I work at keeping down.

Or perhaps I don't know how she feels. I am not often specifically called on to be the expert on the male perspective and perhaps this feeling that I am an example is all of my own making. There are plenty of us guys around to examine and interogate so it's not like I'm a new concept to be explored or an issue to be tip-toed around. I can imagine this is probably how some "minorities" feel - like a specimen or a land mine depending on the level of comfort the people around them have - when all they want to be treated like is a regular Joe... er, Joan.

I don't know how I would feel in that situation. I like to point out and push out my differences (and eccentricities sometimes) but to have your difference(s) defined and thrust upon you might become tiresome and restrictive. We all want to belong somehow and to constantly be held at arms length for some stupid, superficial reason would be difficult to handle.

Labels: librarianship, thoughts, work

Now THAT'S what I like to see. This article from Library Journal explains briefly how the US Library of Congress has submitted upwards of 3000 photos for which no copyright restrictions are known (Woah... risky.) to flickr in the hopes that users will swarm in and tag them all, using the power of Web 2.0 democratic scholarship (new word possibility: "democrolarship"?) to add value to the photos and give them some meaning and organization.

At the very least, all these Web 2.0 tools make it easy, fun and tempting for everyone and anyone to start dumping mass amounts of their collections into the public arena where at least it's more accessible. Even the tools that have been online and technically free and open for years already (like library catalogs or government databases) are being made more "crawl-able" and/or pushed into view with RSS feeds and the like.

He who has nothing and wants something is less frustrated than he who has something and wants more.
Eric Hoffer (1902-1983), True Believer or Theory of Leisure Class

Labels: internet

Here's a brief article entitled "Yahoo! Answers Gets Slammed in Slate" from Library Journal 12/14/2007. I have found Yahoo! Answers once in a while in my searches for information and they are right: the system doesn't seem to work. It's fascinating to see some of the answers posted but as for a source of any kind of information, as the Library Journal points out, it's not even as trustworthy as Wikipedia. I think the problem is that the answers are left whole in Yahoo! Answers whereas in Wikipedia the goal is to create a whole comprehensive article/entry on a somewhat more broad topic. Any one can post a quick response to a question but only the most devoted will bother to rewrite someone's paragraph.

Yes! Finally! The makers of Q-Ray bracelets are put in their place! Read in this article about how the judge compared their claims as equivalent to saying that "creatures from the 17th dimension use this bracelet... to locate people who need pain relief and whisk them off to their home world every night"! LOL

Although, I find it a little ironic (or rather comedically coincidental) that I found out about this rip-off and waste of money related issue from the Press of Atlantic City! LOL

Woah. Ok. Read this article: Questions for Stephen Marks, "Oppo Man": Interview by Deborah Soloman from the New York Times. It's disturbingly sickening what he says he does and how he feels about it (he digs up dirt about the U.S. Democrats and feeds it to Republican candidates for negative campaigns) and therefore of course I now want to read the book that he's plugging through this interview but the second question strikes me as particularly comforting and disconcerting at the same time:

"Why do you make yourself sound as benevolent as a reference librarian?"

Ok. Go to the page for Matthew Dear on Download.com and download a copy of the song "Pom Pom". It's just so catchy and bouncy, happy and sad, smooth and funky that you'll have it in your head all day. Go. Go now. I'll wait here.

Oh. And here's the lyrics in case you want 'em:

Can make your world go 'round
(love)
Can really bring you down
(love)
It's such a state of mind
(love)
Can take a long long time
(love)

I've got to figure out love

(love)
It's such a tricky thing
(love)
Can include diamond rings
(love)
Will make you scream and shout
(love)
If there is no way out
(love)

Ok, now I have another book to add to my list of things to read thanks to this entry from "Information Wants to be Free": How healthy is your organization?. Meredith talks about a book that really seems to touch on a subject "near and dear to my heart". She's reading the book, First, Break All the Rules and provides a list of 12 criteria of a healthy comfortable and happy workplace for employees:

1. Do I know what is expected of me at work?
2. Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?
3. At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day?
4. In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for good work?
5. Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
6. Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
7. At work, do my opinions seem to count?
8. Does the mission/purpose of my company make me feel like my work is important?
9. Are my co-workers committed to doing quality work?
10. Do I have a best friend at work?
11. In the last six months, have I talked with someone about my progress?
12. At work, have I had the opportunities to learn and grow?

Labels: reading, work

Having just come across this news item, this is the first I've heard about the fact that America's first Carnegie Library, "Allegheny Regional Branch", is in jeopardy. Following a damaging lightning strike, they are planning on starting a new building a few blocks away to house the library instead.

Look at this library! What an amazing building! If only all libraries looked this amazing... we'd have NO problem convincing people we were valuable and important. A building like this shouts out dignity and worth, not to mention history and power. What a shame for the profession to lose such a building. And, from reading the article and surrounding comments, the community may lose the building too, since there is a distinct possibility that it may not be occupied if the library doesn't stay there.

Who knows... maybe there are structural or ventilation problems that can't be fixed? I don't know. But I can't believe that it would be cheaper (not just in money but in value to everyone involved) to build something completely new and leave this landmark to rot.

I haven't received any of these warnings recently but I have been sent and told about all sorts of warnings not to use certain products or not to do certain things with the barest of anecdotal evidence to support the claims. Here are two firm denials concerning a message being sent around about how the evil Swiffer is apparently killing our poor defenseless household companions: Swiffer WetJet Toxic to Pets? - Netlore Archive and ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center Responds to Swiffer Wet Jet Rumor.

This is a perfect example of why the general public needs more education in the areas of general science (particularly as it relates to health) and in critical thinking and information skills. The average person would read a message like the Swiffer one and would probably think, "I'm not sure that this is so but I love my pet more than I love using this commercial product so I'll stop using the product just in case." This is not entirely a poor line of thinking and would probably have a good outcome if it stopped there or made them more doubtful of other commercial products. But no. Most people take this message and internalize it, spreading it to all their friends and acquaintances, adding their own personal acceptance of the message to the already emotional weight of the warning. They will also go out and buy some competing product, because if WetJet's no good, they'll have to go out and buy the Clorox ReadyMop Mopping System! Cuz you can't live without some sort of mopping system! What did they do before mopping systems?!? lol

Labels: internet, reading, thoughts

Here's a good article about a librarian who's a "wiz" at answering questions and all about the telephone reference service that she works in: News - Reference librarian: Where to turn when you need an answer - sacbee.com

Reading this article brings me back to my previous job where I occasionally had to march down to the basement and sit at the telephone reference desk myself. This pics in the article make their space seem a little nicer than ours was but not much different other than that.

I don't know if I'd describe myself in a favourable a light as Ms. Owens in the article but wouldn't it be great if all librarians were seen as such problem solvers, such "know-it-alls" as they say in the article? Especially in public libraries... this is really the reputation that librarians should try to cultivate. But there are too many librarians that don't think that librarianship is really about that, to who I say, "What else do we really do then?!?" And LIS masters programs don't really push this image. Come to think of it, I don't remember having any image pushed at me in library school! That's a shame. Just like any university program, and the professional programs in particular, an important part of the curriculum should be pointing the graduates in the direction of bettering the profession. They don't seem to do this... at least not enough. LIS programs are not typically very long so time is certainly a factor but I would expect some time devoted to what makes a great contributor and example for the profession... what our goals should (or at least could) be.

(Here's another of those librarians-we-all-want-to-be: David Smith from NYPL)

Labels: librarianship, thoughts