Librarians at Sea

[I worked on a grant that covers Cape Cod & the Islands.  It serves those who educate and care for children.  As an outreach effort to children’s librarians on Martha’s Vineyard, LF and I got ourselves on the early boat one day to the Vineyard in order to present our resources before the libraries opened.  The “early” boat (the Patriot Party Boat Watershuttle) not only delivers the Boston Globe, but shuttles such passangers as carpenters (and librarians) to the Island, those who have to get to the Vineyard way too early in the morning!  I couldn’t help using my new smartphone to capture the trip.  Actually, I LOVE this part of the job--have resources, will travel; and even though I grew up and am comfortable around boats like this, I just wish I was more of an early bird!]

But back to the situation at hand: the future of social media and librarians at sea….

Although I suspect that social media will only proliferate and become a mainstream library service, perhaps even forcing large libraries to create such positions as “social media librarians;” I have learned that the future is just too hard to predict.  However, one thing is for sure: such technology is always changing, and since libraries rely in large part upon technology, we must not only accept change as part of our work, but we must also play an active part in pioneering, or navigating, the development of social media as a valuable tool for libraries. 

To be sure, the best we can do as professionals is to learn how to navigate the sea of such changes.  I have thought about libraries being in flux for some time now, and I liken it to sailing:  good sailors always check the weather forecast; but if the weather changes, they adjust their sails; change their course; or ride out the storm; and, most importantly, they can always rely upon Polaris as a guiding star.  

What does that mean for librarians?  I think we will need to read library literature (a.k.a. the forecast) to know where libraries seem to be headed.  We will also have to be prepared to learn new tools in order to adapt to technology and the user.  Most of all, I think we have to keep focused upon Polaris (a.k.a. our mission) because in the midst of change, our mission will be the one thing that will, indeed, remain constant. 

In closing, thanks to everyone in class for being a great crew!  Thanks to Dr. Adams, too!  I am confident that we all will all be better adept at navigating the changes because of classes such as LSC 597: Social Networking and Library 2.0.   

To those of you who will be graduating in May, congratulations and best of luck!  And to the rest, I will most likely see you in another class!

Folksonomies...keep them folksy and natural.

I enjoyed Wichowski’s article because I always appreciate studies that describe concepts through analogy and that draw upon the established work and theories of others.   However, I get a little frustrated when information scientists, in general, discuss the organization of information or classification and completely overlook and omit the work of scientists, such as Dewey:  Darwin, Aristotle, Wittgenstein (actually, Wittgenstein is one of my favorite philosophers, so Wichowski gets major points here!), but no Dewey?

Nevertheless, I like the concept of folksonomies, and I aim to study them in more depth.  I took a particular interest in Wichowski’s description of Peter Morville’s idea of “pace layering,” where “…physical and social constructs are built in layers with varying degrees of stability.”  In my mind, this is an example of the Boston Public Library’s catalog, which I tweeted a link to, because such catalogs draw “their strength upon the undergirding of traditional organizational systems,” but are “flexible enough to adapt to the needs of the changing environmental conditions.”  In other words, good catalogs will rely upon traditional cataloging methods (unified language),  but will also include social tagging (vernacular).

I conclude my thoughts on Wichowski’s article by raising the same question she does, but by taking a different tack: “The question is not whether folksonomies can compare with the quality of controlled vocabularies, but rather, how to guide folksonomies towards approaching the quality standards associated with controlled vocabularies.”

But do we want to “guide” them?  Would that not defeat the whole concept of “folk classification” or “folk taxonomy?” Are not the latter terms meant to be ironic or oxymoronic? Surely, something “folksy” or “informal” resists formal standardization and homogenized descriptions… 

Folksonomies…keep them folksy, keep them natural!

Wichowski, Alexis. "Survival of the fittest tag: Folksonomies, findability, and the evolution of  information organization." First Monday. 14.5 (2009): <http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2447/2175>.



Social Tagging and Social Tagging Sites

Hesham Allam’s article provides interesting insights into the behavioral aspects of social tagging.  Who would have thought that indexing outweighs socializing as a motivating factor for tagging (Velsen & Melenhorst)?  As in Wichowski’s article, Allam ends with questions that turn out to be the points that really interest me the most.   In this case, he wonders about searching behaviors. 

I admit that I have a habit of browsing online catalogs for fun.  I especially like nextgen catalogs (like Evergreen and Koha), but I still enjoy rambling through traditional OPACS.  I like to try and figure out how library users will find the information that they seek…and then some.

So I did a little experiment by searching “Civil War” (which is always problematic) and the following are the number of hits that I got by using the qualifying search terms: tag=358, subject=14,730, keyword=17,168.   (We do not have tags in our catalog at work yet, so I was curious.)

While Allam has suspicions about tags causing distraction, it is the keyword search, here, that might cause the most distraction.  It probably always does.  However, I admit there are just too many variables to make any kind of conclusive statement!

I like Allam’s challenging questions on browsing as the result of distraction though (I have found great titles through this method), and how too much distraction may cause one to get lost or give up the search altogether (which is often the case, I suspect).  In any event, I like to think that these are the kinds of questions that catalogers (professional taggers?) should always keep in mind and continue to explore.

Social Tagging Sites

I like the idea of creating my own library of books, articles, and photos (I’ve always done this wherever I dwell), and I enjoy browsing topics that interest me.  It is like being in the library and getting lost in the stacks.

LibraryThing:  I like LibraryThing.  I appreciate being able to find others that like peculiar books and discussing them. 

CiteULike:  This is great!  Will use this for GSLIS research.

Delicious: Will use this, too, for GSLIS research!

Flickr: Since I like photography, this is awesome.

Pinterest: Kind of like a manifestation board!  I am afraid that I will not have time for this one; I like Etsy better!

Allam, Hesham. "Social Tagging as a Knowledge Organization and Resource Discovery Tool." Dalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management. 5.Spring (2010): n. page. Web. 9 Mar. 2012. <http://djim.management.dal.ca/issue_pdfs/Vol5/Allam_social_tagging.pdf>.

Next Gen Catalogs

I am very eager to see changes take place in library catalogs (a.k.a. OPACS), whether they be proprietary catalogs--like this week's articles describe--or OSS. It seems to me that when words like "closed" and "rigid" are used to describe catalogs; then there is a problem, especially for public libraries. After all, the aim of a good catalog is to connect users to the information that they seek (Antelman 128).

Ultimately, it is pretty clear that user interaction with library catalogs is the way libraries are heading, and the best way to approach this--at this point, since not all users (and librarians) are ready--is by offering users the option like NCSU did with the Endeca platform cited in "Toward a 21st Century Library Catalog," or the other platforms mentioned in the other works (e.g. WorldCat Local and the variety that Thompson, Julich, and Robertson mention).  I know that other libraries like BPL and NYPL*, who both currently use BiblioCommons, still offer the option of their former platforms.  In fact, even smaller libraries, like Wellesley Free Library offers the option.  They use Innovative Interfaces’ Classic catalog and Encore.

The question to be considered by librarians, especially future catalogers, is this: why are catalogs considered “stagnant technology” when so many exciting changes are happening (Antelman 128)?  And why aren't catalogers focusing upon user interfaces, or the "front end," of the catalog?  Our work should not only be creating and managing access, but designing it, too! 

Exciting stuff!  Many see cataloging as a thing of the past, but I suspect the "cataloging mind" will be greatly needed as information grows and becomes more and more complex to harness and organize.

To be continued...

*NYPL currently uses Bibliocommons and Innovative Interfaces' WebPAC PRO for their "Classic" Catalog.

Antelman, K., Lynema, E., & Pace, A.K. Toward a 21st Century Library Catalog, 2006. In Information Technology and Libraries. American Library Association. pp.128-139. 

Boock, Michael, Chadwell, Faye, & Reese, Terry. WorldCat Local Task Force Report to LAMP. 2009.

Thompson, Brian, Julich, Sue, & Robertson, Wendy C. Next Generation Catalogs, 2008.  In Iowa Library Association.