Archive for June, 2010

Cites & Insights 10:8 – Just in time for ALA!

Posted in Cites & Insights on June 9th, 2010

Available now: Cites & Insights 10:8, July 2010.

This 40-page issue (PDF as usual, with most but not all the sections available as HTML separates) has a variety of features to keep you entertained or informed on your long flights to & from ALA–and it’s well worth reading even if you’re not attending (or live near the District of Columbia).

What’s here:

The CD-ROM Project…pp. 1-4

The start of a “digital medium archaeology project”–taking a few dozen of the best title CD-ROMs (that is, CD-ROMs that are extended books and multimedia carriers, not just software) from 1994-2000 and seeing whether they’ll work on a contemporary Windows 7 system, whether they still have much to offer, whether they’re still available (as is or updated) and, if not, what we’ve lost–and what’s readily available on the web that appears roughly equivalent. For starters, we have two astronomical CDs and two art-related CDs…

The Zeitgeist: One Facebook to Rule Them All?…pp. 4-22

A range of commentaries on the December 2009 and April 2010 Facebook privacy changes, including some pre-December items and a few notes on the current situation. Commentaries include some by librarians and a wide range by others–including a group of first-rate commentaries by danah boyd and a ReadWriteWeb piece that gets my coveted middle-finger salute for asininity in the service of (almost certainly false) gengen.

Interesting & Peculiar Products…pp. 22-29

Ten products (or product commentaries) and five group reviews–but some of the product notes are more essay than description, including a non-elegy for OQO and “Catching up with the OLPC XO.”

Offtopic Perspective: Mystery Collection Part 2…pp. 29-35

The second of ten segments of this massive 250-movie set, including three great flicks, three near-classics and another dozen worthwhile films. You get cheating wives, crooked electronics geniuses, a blind detective, a sexy ghost…and that’s just in the first two of six discs.

My Back Pages…pp. 35-40

As always, this chunk’o'snark is a bonus for “print readers”–those who download the whole PDF. Ten items, only half of them audio-related.

This is the final issue sponsored by the Library Society of the World. Now the uncertainty begins…

What’s Not Happening

Posted in Cites & Insights on June 8th, 2010

In some ways, this is another promotional post for the forthcoming July 2010 Cites & Insights (which, as of right now, seems likely to emerge on June 9 or June 10 and to be 40 pages long). The first such post appeared yesterday, and raised some troubling issues regarding the future of C&I (and of my involvement in the field).

To the extent that the second section of that post was a touch downbeat, I apologize–sort of. And I do apologize to the colleague with whom I had an email conversation (not sparked by the post), a conversation that revealed to me that I’ve been more demoralized by some events of this year than I’d realized. (Don’t worry: I won’t be wandering around DC being gloomy–I don’t do that at conferences. In fact, overall, I’m not gloomy…)

What Is Happening

The forthcoming issue has, I believe, some interesting stuff. The first piece starts a new project that might or might not continue; I think it’s interesting and maybe relevant to some libraries. The second piece–the big essay–is relevant to almost every librarian (in my opinion) and continues what I regard as strong Zeitgeist pieces (most of which could equally well be Making it Work pieces, this one less so).

The third piece is a traditional collection with a difference–it’s about products, but in most cases with brief (or not so brief) essays rather than pure descriptions. Then there’s a set of brief takes on old movies, always fun…or not. (This group includes three classics and three more that I thought were near-classics…indeed, this time I thought three-quarters of the flicks were worthwhile.)

And I close with an overdue PDF-only section of snark, only about half of it related to the wonderful world of high-end audio

But I thought I’d also talk about…

What’s Not Happening

There’s no Making it Work essay in this issue. I’m pretty sure there will be one in the August issue–there’s certainly plenty of source material, and I’ve started splitting into semi-manageable chunks. (How semi-manageable? 44 items in one big chunk, 25 in another, 26 in a third, and a bunch of smaller groups.)

There’s no Perspective as such–and in that case, I have a working “On” title that will almost certainly get written very soon (I would have written it for the July issue, but this issue was already overlength, and the particular topic can only benefit from a little more thinktime). For that matter, I could treat an MiW chunk as a Perspective…and quite easily come up with an all-Perspective issue.

By far the largest group of Delicious items relates to Google Book Search and the proposed settlement…but there’s no indication of when or whether a settlement will actually be approved, and I have no idea whether it will even make sense to dive back into that particular pool.

Blogging, copyright, writing, reading, social networks, ereaders, ebooks…lots of future topics with lots of worthwhile source material.

It’s clear to me that, if it makes sense to keep C&I going, having enough varied material and ideas won’t be a problem for years to come. Does it make sense to keep C&I going? That’s a tougher question…

What’s Also Not Happening

Beyond C&I–and at least one promising individual project that I won’t discuss until it’s final–there’s some potential research that isn’t happening. At least not yet.

  • I’m now fairly well convinced that it’s futile for me to spend time on library blogs, even though it would be fascinating to do a qualitative/quantitative study focusing on those library blogs that appear to be succeeding (based on comments or Google Page Rank). The field seems to have told me in no uncertain terms that my work in this area is simply not valued, so there’s little point in even considering additional bruises on my forehead.
  • Liblogs–blogs by library people–are another question. Not that But Still They Blog is setting any sales records (I do appreciate the purchase of PDF versions of both liblog books last Friday–thanks, whoever you are!)–it’s now up to 16 copies–but, well, this one still interests me. Maybe. I can think of two approaches for a future study, but in my saner moments I think that neither one may be worth pursuing. (One approach: An attempt to capture the entire field, but only at a gross level–that is, without individual commentaries or difficult metrics. The other, which may be complementary: A detailed analysis of a smaller group of blogs, focusing on those that can be said to be currently active.)
  • Anything else where my skills and tenacity might be worthwhile. It just doesn’t make sense to do this kind of stuff on speculation, based on results to date.

That’s it for now. Once again, I’d love to discuss possibilities with people or groups, before I admit that “semi-” in “semi-retired” has become a lie.

The Future of Cites & Insights

Posted in Cites & Insights on June 7th, 2010

That title can be read two ways. This post is about both of them.

Coming Soon

Cites & Insights 10:8, July 2010, will be out soon–some time later this week, Gaia willin’ and the creek don’t rise. It’s a varied issue, but also a big one, perfect for those long flights to & from DC. I’m not sure just how big, but 40 pages doesn’t seem improbable at this point. (I’m in the third-stage editing & copyfitting process; right now, it’s just over 42 pages.)

An earlier discussion involved the possibility of a special “summertime fun” issue combining two Offtopic Perspectives on old movies and the first installment of my new digital medium archaeology project–but after thinking about responses, I decided to integrate those into regular issues. If I’d done the special issue, the June 2010 issue would have been 26 or 28 pages long, the Summertime Fun issue would be out right about now and would be 16 or 22 pages long…and the July issue would come out after ALA and probably be 32 pages or longer.  The only downside of not doing the special issue: The July issue doesn’t have any true essay-style Perspectives, although several are coming in future issues.

The biggie for this issue: A new Zeitgeist essay, “One Facebook to Rule Them All?” That’s roughly half the issue. Unless things change, there are four other sections with a fair amount of variety in each one.

This is also the final issue of C&I sponsored by the Library Society of the World, and that only because I chose to count the “getting Walt to Washington” contributions as also being direct support for C&I. Which brings us to…

Future Sponsorship and Publication

As of next week, I have no sponsorship for Cites & Insights and only one very small source of any income related to writing, editing and librarianship.

The direct sponsorship course hasn’t worked out terribly well: Other than LSW’s special effort, total donations received to date are in the low three figures, with none of that coming in since that special effort began. This does not appear to be a plausible revenue source for the long term.

I could really use sponsorship–with or without paid ad columns or even full-page ads in the issues. Or even with sponsorship (and an ad) for Walt at Random included.

Without such sponsorship (or some part-time telecommuting situation that takes advantage of my skills and offers plausible rewards), it’s hard to justify attending ALA once or twice a year (and I’d really like to go to both 2011 conferences, for starters), since it would be pure out-of-pocket, not even deductible as a business expense (you really can’t deduct from nothing). Maybe we could afford it, but it’s hard to convince my wife–a reasonable and intelligent person–that it’s a good expenditure under the circumstances.

Without attending ALA at least once a year, it becomes more difficult to stay in touch and to justify to myself the time spent on Cites & Insights. Which gets tricky, because in many ways I’d prefer to keep doing what appears to be something unique and valuable within the field. It’s that “valuable” word that starts to get difficult: Valuable to whom? How does that value translate into, say, meals, clothes, utility bills and gasoline? (None of which are endangered, to be sure; we’re really talking about extras–wine, vacations, those fancy $6.31 lunches at Canton Villa…and going to ALA Annual and/or Midwinter.)

If C&I is no longer valuable, then I should give it up. If it is valuable…well, it sure would be nice to find some sponsorship.

(Yes, I’m considering alternative models along the “Freemium” lines. Honestly? I don’t see that working out very well. The four annual volumes of C&I are partly “Freemium” items, especially the PDF versions…and the total number of PDF versions sold to date has been zero.)

ALA Annual would be a great time to discuss possibilities with people. I’ll be there from Friday morning through Sunday evening. I think I have one related conversation scheduled, although “scheduled” overstates the fixity of the situation.

The email address is, as always, waltcrawford at gmail dot com.

Over-sharing?

Posted in Media, Stuff on June 7th, 2010

The June San Francisco Chronicle Magazine (the Chron only does its own glossy-magazine section once a month, a very sensible decision–the weekly book section and review/entertainment section are separate anyway) leads off with an editor’s column with the same title as this post.

It’s not all that long (465 words–shorter than this 558-word post); you can read the whole thing yourself, and look at the amusing picture. The theme: Meredith May (the writer) has been

getting into polite arguments with friends who have been posting pictures of me on Facebook and Flickr that I would never want you to see.

They’re not nude shots or anything like that–but they were “taken in private moments with friends before the world was wide and covered in a Web.” May doesn’t think it’s up to other people–even her friends–to decide which parts of her own history should be made public.

She notes a specific incident–she’s going to the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting to talk about her story on girl slavery in Nepal and, checking Facebook in the airport, finds that an old friend has psoted pictures of her drinking and posing at high school house parties…

May doesn’t quite understand people’s impulse to overshare their own stuff–”but over-sharing someone other than yourself without his or her permission is baffling.” And, indeed, since we learn that any candid shot is likely to turn up on the web, spontaneity could be suffering.

I have had parties at my house with a dozen of my lovely artist friends, and nine will bring a camera and start shooting. The whole reason for having your homies over for a party is that you can let down your hair and dance on the counter if you want to. But I’m more cautious now. The joie de vivre, the carpe diem, the being alive part of living – is tempered.

In our haste to document and share everything, are we losing what it means to live in the moment?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but this editorial certainly resonates with me. I’ll take it a step further: “Agreeing” that a picture can be posted isn’t always being entirely happy about it. Coercion is a strong word for the process that takes place, but it’s a form of social pressure–the desire not to be thought a complete killjoy.

There are pictures of me on the web (oddly enough, they show up in Google but not on Bing) that I could do without. One of them has a caption about what a good sport I was. “Good sport” in this case really means “didn’t feel he could avoid this without looking like a killjoy.”

I know that my own behavior at, say, conference receptions is now much more circumspect than it might have been in the past, that I’m much less willing to don silly hats or assume silly poses or hold up silly signs. A few years ago, I would have assumed that a few folks would have gotten little laughs out of the silliness as captured in photos. Now, I assume that the silly pictures will live forever on the web and in search-engine results–and while they can’t really do me any harm, I’d just as soon not, thank you.

So does this make me a killjoy? Maybe so. Such is life. Apparently I’m not the only one…

I’d rather have spam in my email than scam…

Posted in Stuff on June 6th, 2010

OK, so that’s a lame misquote of an Elton John song. But then, I never thought of Roy Rogers as a comic book character anyway, so…

Anyway: After 23 hours off the internet (one of those unusually social days), I open up gmail today to see a pitiful email “from” an old acquaintance (who I’ve never met in person, AFAIK). Here’s the text:

Hello,

I am in a hurry writing you this mail. I traveled to UK wales for an urgent function and i got mugged at a gun point. It was a terrible experience. All cash and credit cards were stolen away from me. I reported to the police they asked me to wait for 2 weeks to carry out investigations. I am totally freaked out here.

Right now, my return flight leaves in couple of hours from now. I am only telling you this because i do not want you to panic at all. just keep it the way have told you till i return back home.

I am seriously having problems in settling my hotel bills and to get a taxi down to the airport. Just wondering if you could loan me $2000 to settle my bills and to get a taxi down to the airport. I promise to pay back when i return back home today.

Please you can help me send the money to my name and my present location because i am only left with my passport to pick up the money.

[Name Omitted]
[UK address omitted]

Do let me know if you will be going to the western union outlet right now to send the money to my name and my present location and please dont forget to get back to me with the transfer details which is the senders information and the MTCN number.

I await your urgent response.

Thanks Alot

The email address was that of “Name Omitted”–but it was a gmail address, and all my correspondence with this person has been at a .edu email address, so I was suspicious right off the bat.

Beyond that, what kept me from running out to my local Western Union outlet to wire that $2K to my dear friend? Let’s count a few of the ways:

  • He doesn’t address me by name.
  • The person who supposedly sent this is a careful, elegant writer would never in a million years forget how to capitalize or how to write complete sentences…so “wales” and “i got” and “at a gun point” and “stolen away” and “I reported to the police they asked me…” are each suspicious and cumulatively convincing: “My virtual acquaintance Name Omitted did not write this.”
  • It gets worse…the second sentence of the second paragraph is essentially incoherent and the fourth paragraph is no better.
  • I figure the chances of Name Omitted signing off with “Thanks Alot” and no name as being roughly equivalent to the chances of Google actually sending me $750,000 in a Gmail lottery. (Google has to line up behind the seven Nigerian princes whose wives I’m negotiating with on terms of their money-laundering schemes…)

Oh, and the fact that Name Omitted probably knows a few hundred people–people he deals with face-to-face–who he would contact before he’d contact me.

There’s one more: If this was even close to legitimate, No Name would have included a telephone number and a hotel name, thus giving me some plausible chance to confirm the situation.

It’s a shame that scams like this are spreading–which can only mean that they work once in a while. I suppose the semiliteracy of most scam artists helps.

Legends of Horror, Discs 3 and 4

Posted in Movies and TV on June 3rd, 2010

Two discs only because the second consists entirely of flicks I’ve already reviewed (in the Alfred Hitchcock set).

Disc 3

End of the World, 1977, color. John Hayes (dir.), Christopher Lee, Sue Lyon, Kirk Scott, Dean Jagger, Lew Ayres, Macdonald Carey. 1:28 [1:26]

More low-budget scifi (not science fiction) than horror, but I suppose Christopher Lee in a dual role gets it into this category. The story, such as it is: A professor (Scott) studying mysterious transmissions from outer space (and occasionally in contact with a government man working along the same lines) also finds mysterious transmissions to outer space—and suddenly begins decoding the outer-space transmissions, which appear to be notes of natural disasters, repeated three times. Accurate notes of disasters shortly before they happen…

Ah, but his boss doesn’t want him wasting time on this nonsense, he wants him on a lecture tour extolling the thrills of space science, so more people will earn appropriate degrees—and his beautiful wife likes the idea as well. There’s some odd sex play in the movie (he postpones going to an award banquet to Get Down, and his wife (Lyon) says something about “why didn’t this happen ten years ago?”), although no actual sex or nudity.

Anyway…he goes off with his wife, on their own, to check out the two locations where transmissions to outer space occurred. One is a seemingly harmless convent visited in broad daylight; the other, 40 miles away, is a fenced facility…and somehow it’s now the middle of the night. This allows for them creeping around mostly in the dark, the two getting separated, and the wife doing some choice screaming when she thinks she’s trapped. Oh, and a mild surprise as to where they actually are…

We wind up with the two back at the convent, which Is Not What It Seems, and a slow-moving plot (very slow-moving plot) involving stranded aliens (whose motivation keeps changing and who combine total peacefulness with remarkable viciousness), the odd coincidence that this professor is probably the only person who can bring the aliens just what they need, some remarkably stupid scifi gobbledygook about what they’re doing (a time-velocity transfer, or something like that)…and an ending that I won’t give away, because it’s really not what you’d expect from a low-budget (but good cast) affair like this. Too bad Scott doesn’t seem to have any acting chops at all and Christopher Lee is phoning it in; some life in the acting might bring this up from $1.00.

The Fury of the Wolf Man (orig. La furia del Hombre Lobo), 1972, color. Jose Maria Zabalsa (dir.), Paul Naschy (who wrote it), Perla Cristal, Veronica Lujan, Miguel de la Riva, Jose Marco. 1:30 [1:23]

Ignore the sleeve description, which is a pretty standard “man gets bitten by werewolf, becomes werewolf, attempts to save himself” plot. This flick is a little different—a professor returns from a Tibetan expedition, in which everybody else died and he was attacked by a Yeti, with a wound on his chest. If the wound turns into a perfect pentagon, he’s to open a box to find a remedy—and the wound does indeed turn into a pentagon while he’s in bed with his wife.

As things progress, we have a woman doctor who spouts all sorts of nonsense about mind control from electrical waves and “chemotrodes” and her assistant, the beautiful and innocent girlfriend of an ace reporter; we have, as you’d expect, the professor turning all hairy at the full moon, presenting an odd mixture of attacking savagely, walking nonchalantly, and jumping about like a rabid gorilla; we have his wife being faithless—and her lover (both of them apparently under the doctor’s influence) cutting the professor’s brake line; we have bodies dug up from graves and returned from the semi-dead. And oh, so much more, including a whole denizen of experimental subjects who are either in a bacchanal, chained up, or sometimes both. Much of it is incoherent; the rest is mostly confusing.

Very badly dubbed, with frequently very bad dialogue. The acting’s mixed—now that I see that the hero (professor) also wrote the screenplay, maybe his mediocrity makes more sense. I assumed this was a German production (there’s a German paper in one scene), but apparently it’s a Spanish production set in Germany. Certainly a horror film, but mediocre at best. Adequate person-to-wolf special effects. Charitably, I’ll give it $1.25.

The Ticket of Leave Man, 1937, b&w. George King (dir.), Tod Slaughter, John Warwick, Marjorie Taylor, Frank Cochran, Robert Adair. 1:11.

That first credit, for Tod Slaughter, may tell you most of what you need to know—this is a Melodrama, with substantial quantities of ham provided by the ever-overacting villain himself, leer, evil laugh and all. But there’s more: Hawkshaw The Detective, which really should be rendered in Old English script…and, unfortunately, Melter Moss, a stereotypical money-lending, stolen-property-fencing but, mostly forging Jew, replete with chin-rubbing, big nose and Yiddish sayings, who doesn’t mind The Tiger’s murders as long as he makes money.

The story? Slaughter is The Tiger, the most villainous murderer and thief in all of London, given to garroting people either for gain or because he dislikes them. He desires a young singer—and manages to frame her fiancée in a forgery charge, sending him off to prison. When he returns, The Tiger has become head of a charity devoted to Ticket of Leave Men—that is, parolees, who of course are shunned by all honest folk. One thing leads to another and…well, there’s an ending. I’d give it $1 as a period piece, but the viciously anti-semitic role of Melter Moss pulls it down to $0.50—it debases an otherwise minor overacted melodrama.

Shadow of Chinatown, 1936, b&w. Robert F. Hill (dir.), Bela Lugosi, Bruce Bennett, Joan Barclay, Luana Walters, Mairuce Liu, Charles King, William Buchanan, Forrest Taylor. 1:11.

This one’s strange—and surprising. Chinese-American characters don’t—generally—show up as simple stereotypes, and the villains are Eurasian, most specifically the mad scientist who wants to wipe out Europeans and Asians and start his own new race. He also seems to have one of those magic television systems that can see anything anywhere, although in this case he needs to have hidden an oddly-named device in each room he wants to view (which, of course, is most everywhere). The mad scientist can also hypnotize almost anybody just by looking at them. Three guesses as to who plays the mad scientist…

The other primary character is a beautiful Eurasian woman who doubles as an agent for San Francisco Chinatown merchants—and a double agent for other merchants determined to put them out of business. She’s involved with the mad scientist until she realizes just how utterly evil he is…

Lots more plot, with a daring young reporter who wants to break out of the society pages and her irritable writer pseudoboyfriend. Oh, and an interesting plot point, late in the picture, when he informs her that he’s had her fired from the paper because, after all, his wife shouldn’t have a job. Really? In 1936? I also question the notion that you’d use a cruise ship to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 1936, but it does allow for some of that great shipboard action.

Hard to judge this one. The print’s a little choppy at times, the plot makes about as much sense as you’d expect, there’s a little more stereotyping than seems necessary and Lugosi’s henchfolks are ludicrous. Looking at IMDB, I see what’s actually happening: This was a serial, originally running 5 hours total (15 chapters, 20 minutes each), boiled down to a 71-minute flick. Serials rarely make sense when viewed all at once. For Lugosi fans, maybe $0.75.

Disc 4

This disc consists entirely of Alfred Hitchcock films reviewed elsewhere. I did not revisit any of them.

Sabotage.

Previously reviewed. $1.50.

The Ring.

Previously reviewed. $1.00.

Blackmail.

Previously reviewed. $1.25.

Young and Innocent.

Previously reviewed. $1.00

A quick twofer

Posted in Libraries, Media, Writing and blogging on June 2nd, 2010

Two miniposts for the price of one!

Gold star

I would be remiss if I did not mention that this here blog received a gold star from Salem Press in its library blog thingie, particularly since they were very quick to move this blog from Public Library Blogs (!) to General Blogs (I was hoping for Quirky, but you can’t always get what you want) after I let them know…

(There seems to be no shortage of links to the Salem Press list, so the lack of one here shouldn’t be an issue.)

Quick expert advice from librarians about web tools

Here’s an easy two-part test for modern librarians–or, better yet, just those who are considered web specialists. They’re honest questions, and presumably y’all should be able to answer them on the spot, in the comments:

  1. I have a fully-formatted book ms. done using Word 2007, but also in PDF. How do I convert it to epub (without DRM), retaining as much of the formatting as possible? I even have Calibre, if that helps.
  2. OK, so I have the new Facebook privacy tools now, but I just looked at my Privacy settings and I don’t understand what’s going on here:

Facebook Privileges
Note: This is a straight screen capture, cropped but with no other changes. You may have to scroll right to see what I’m really interested in.

To wit: What does “Other” mean? How can I find out?

I await responses with some interest. Based on other discussions, I assume that any employable web services librarian should have answers…

Does every librarian need to be an involved expert on everything?

Posted in Libraries on June 1st, 2010

Maybe that’s too broad a question. Maybe a better question:

Is it really reasonable to say that librarians must be involved in something they personally find unsatisfactory because lots of other people are?

You can probably guess my answer–but I’m not really a librarian. Of course, neither would I expect to use a librarian as my first source of helpful advice on, for example, tax deductions, which church I should attend, how to improve my golf game, whether I should be concerned about this mole on my neck…or how to manage privacy settings in Facebook. In all of those cases, the library might have useful resources–but I see no reason to expect each and every librarian to be an expert.

The background

I found the range and depth of commentary about Facebook’s betrayal of its users helpful changes to encourage openness in December 2009 so interesting and so relevant that I put together a Zeitgeist essay on it, which will appear in the July 2010 Cites & Insights. (Out well before ALA Annual–probably next week.)

That essay ends at roughly the point where FB announced the new easier settings, with the promise that they’ll remain in future updates–a promise that I can only interpret based on past performance and the CEO’s clear, obvious predilection to regard everything as preferably public (except, of course, for his own stuff). (The changes haven’t “rolled out” to my FB account yet, so I have no first-hand experience.)

Personally: I didn’t quit Facebook, mostly because I have family members and a few other acquaintances that I can keep up with, to some extent, through FB. I did lock down my settings, trim my already-sparse profile, and renew my self-promise not to Like, Join, or use Applications–the “you don’t mind if we harvest everything you’ve ever done, do you?” alert always did scare me off. My so-called Friends on FB, something over 200 of you, already know (at least implicitly) that I rarely update my status or post on my wall–most of my stuff goes on Friendfeed, this blog or C&I.

There’s my personal decision–and my understanding of what’s involved. It struck me (and strikes me) as entirely reasonable for a librarian or anyone else concerned with privacy and corporate behavior to leave Facebook as a principled decision. I didn’t choose that course.

The incident

Stephen Abram posted “Today is Quit Facebook Day – for Dummies” at Stephen’s Lighthouse on May 31, 2010. (If you go to the link, be sure to read “About the Author”–about which I will not comment.)

I thought it was an insulting post, right from the first sentence:

I wonder how many info pros will announce to the world they don’t have the information skills to manage privacy by leaving Facebook today.

This seemed to me to say that librarians (“info pros” lost at SLA and I’m not about to use it) can’t reasonably quit FB based on principled objections; if they do so, they’re “announcing” that they’re dummies. Hokay. And I started wondering about this:

It seems to me that it should be a reasonable user expectation of librarians and information professionals that they should be able to manage privacy settings and use the full range of web tools.

Really? Every librarian should “use the full range of web tools”? Why? Well…

I also would expect to be able to receive informed, current and excellent advice and training on how to deal with the emerging social tools from my professionals in the social institutions I frequent (public libraries, schools, univerisities, colleges, etc.).

And here I come up short. [By the way, that was a direct cut-and-paste, not retyped.] Should I be able to take a workshop on Effective Facebooking at my library? Maybe. Should I expect that I can walk up to any librarian–every librarian–and get “informed, current and excellent advice” on every “social tool”? I think that’s unrealistic, and I think it privileges “social tools” over nearly everything else in life. I don’t expect every librarian (or any librarian) to tell me where I can find the best asparagus or whether I should sign up for Safeway’s Club Card. I don’t expect every librarian to offer informed, excellent advice on how to improve my (nonexistent) golf game. I don’t expect any librarian to be a source of current, excellent advice on which software would be best suited to producing a self-published book, and certainly not on how to use each program–although I might be delighted if the library (not every librarian) had a workshop on the topic. And I don’t believe I should be able to walk up to any librarian and say “should I be using Flickr or Picasa to organize my photos–and how should I set up my Picasa account?”

Abram then tosses in a stick:

Will they exit Twitter and Google too for collecting private information? I suspect that would make them unemployable. At least, ironically, they’ll be easily identified by professional recruiters and HR folks through the standard tools and the digital trail they leave as they exit and discuss their position.

Set aside the simplistic equation of FB’s deliberate undermining of its former policies with Twitter and Google policies. Is it plausible to regard a librarian who doesn’t Twitter as unemployable? Really?

I commented as follows:

This is a touch offensive. It’s extremely unlikely that any librarian is leaving FB because they can’t figure out how to handle privacy settings. On the other hand, it’s quite possible for a librarian, or anybody else, to decide that FB as currently managed is simply not trustworthy as a social network, and to leave on principle. Or don’t principles count?

Abram responded at some length. He started with an indirect slap at my reading abilities:

If anyone is reading this post as a direct insult to librarians’ skills, please read it again slowly. I am not a self-hater.

I didn’t say he was directly insulting librarians’ skills–I said the post was offensive. The interesting part is what follows–why “bailing is a very poor strategy for you as an individual or for collective influence.” Quoting in part–you can and should read the original:

1. Recruiters and HR types may not have that same viewpoint or see a principled stance as a plus for their researcher hiring to client’s specs. What justification is there for hiring a researcher who won’t play where the majority of users are? I doubt it will come up in an interview for people to explain, since they wouldn’t make the cut in the pre-interview screening process where resumes are fodder for internet screening.

Wow. First off, if I was an HR type, I’d expect a librarian to investigate claims before making them–such as “where the majority of users are.” Compete’s analysis says Facebook had 135 million unique visitors in April 2010: That’s a big number, but it’s nowhere near a majority of internet users. Even the highest number claimed for Facebook usage, by an ad agency, comes out to 35% of Internet users–by the ad agency’s own assertions. In what universe is 35% a majority?

And in what universe is it reasonable to say that librarians must be where the majority of users are? By that standard, it’s reasonable to reject anybody applying for a U.S. library job who doesn’t attend a Christian church or who doesn’t use Microsoft Windows. (Depending on your definition of “where the majority of users are,” you could extend that to rejecting anybody who isn’t part of a heterosexual marriage with children or, for that matter, anybody who believes in evolution…)

Apparently, somehow, social networks are special–so special that it’s reasonable to reject a librarian outright if they deliberately choose to avoid one. I find that pretty shocking.

I won’t fisk the remainder of the comment. I sense a little slap about retirees in there, and there’s a  little comment that seems to say anyone making a principled choice is using “common consumer mob revolt tactics,” but the key here is the assertion that it is the duty of every librarian to be part of whatever set of social media are the flavor of the month, no matter how repulsive or untrustworthy those media might be. (Well, and the factually erroneous assertion that Facebook is used by the majority of Internet users–or, for that matter, that it’s “the most global site,” which it isn’t.)

Have I urged anybody to leave Facebook? No, I have not, and I don’t in the Zeitgeist piece. Am I leaving Facebook? No, I am not. On the other hand…

Do I believe that it is wrong for a librarian to make a principled choice to leave Facebook, or that doing so makes the librarian unfit as a librarian? I do not.

And I think the whole concept that each and every librarian should be an expert on every hot social network or web tool needs a lot of rethinking. I think it’s nonsense.

‘Scuse me, while I go ask a librarian how to set up my router and which fluorescent lights will work best with dimmers. I assume I can ask any librarian and get excellent, informed, current answers. Right? And that I can suggest that librarians be fired if the answers aren’t good. Or does this only apply to social networks and web tools?


This blog is protected by dr Dave\\\\\\\'s Spam Karma 2: 70780 Spams eaten and counting...

Bad Behavior has blocked 973 access attempts in the last 7 days.