Comments on: ALA reporting?

By: Laura

Laura — Wed, 11 May 2005 11:36:17 +0000

I think that part of the difference is in the nature of the editing. Blogs are (for the most part) self-edited, while “real” publications have a process by which content is vetted. I’m not saying that perception is right, or that it can’t be changed, but that’s the way people view it. In most academic fields (physics is the one I know best), on-line publishing is not considered applicable for tenure, but it may be mentioned as “additional” publishing. Blogging about physics, on the other hand, if it exists, would be considered laughable by peers in a professional context.

By: Charles W. Bailey, Jr.

Charles W. Bailey, Jr. — Tue, 10 May 2005 17:46:39 +0000

Maybe one day, ALA will have its own conference Wiki, but until then: http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

By: walt

walt — Tue, 10 May 2005 16:32:27 +0000

I’ll start another post later today to continue this discussion, because I think it’s an interesting and possibly important one. Personally, so far, I don’t plan to put W.a.r. on my vita. If I was participating in a conference blogging activity, I might include that as professional activity rather than in the publications list.

(But I don’t hire people–and I’m sometimes bemused at resumes or vitas where almost the entire publication area consists of internal memos or working documents for their POW…which I’ve never included in my vita, even back when I had only one publication. Of course, maybe that’s part of why I’m not head-hunted…)

I think it’s worth discussiing. How should conference blogging be cited in a resume or vita? How does it differ from more formal post-conference reports? I saw the difference at Midwinter and after, I believe, but it’s a tough difference to spell out.

By: Joy Weese Moll

Joy Weese Moll — Tue, 10 May 2005 15:59:45 +0000

As someone who both blogged at ACRL (all be it in an odd format, http://joy.mollprojects.com/blog/2005/04/verdict-on-acrl-blog.html) and wrote a session report from ACRL for Cites and Insights, there was a difference, but it’s not the citability–I intend to put both on my resume. I think they represent different things. One shows that I can generate content quickly, think on my feet, get the word out. The other shows that I can generate content slowly and thoughtfully, write a complete and grammatical sentence, sustain a logical flow for several pages.

By: Steven M. Cohen

Steven M. Cohen — Tue, 10 May 2005 14:08:06 +0000

Walt: You wrote: “C&I is a journal, with ISSN and all that, and I like to think that itâ€™s citable as a publication credit in a way that conference blogging wouldnâ€™t be.”

I know that you’re not sure about his, but it brings up a good point for discussion. Why are blog posts seen as something that isn’t citable on a resume or a vita or even in other media (newspapers, journals, etc)? It probably has to do with the bad rap that blogs get in the media. In the library world, ignorant commentary by Gorman and Cronin don’t help either.

By: walt

walt — Tue, 10 May 2005 02:29:02 +0000

Steven: I’ve clarified the post. I do believe that you could cite a published conference report in C&I in your vita in a way you wouldn’t cite blogging on the PLA Blog–but I’m not sure that’s true any more. (And if I didn’t write about anything until I was 100% sure about it, this weblog and the journal would both be defunct.)

By: Steven

Steven — Tue, 10 May 2005 01:47:56 +0000

Walt: Are you implying that the attendees blogging from the conference won’t get “publication credit?” On the PLA Blog, they most definitely will.