http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php?disp=comments en-US http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:40:18 +0000 John Mignault [Visitor] c351@http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/ <i>How much better we would be were we the ones to design, push and popularize these features the public seems to clamor for.</i><br /> <br /> I am not entirely sure we would ever be in this position. One of the defining memes of today's technologists is 'disintermediation.' Accompanying that concept is the belief that the problems that necessitate many professions in the first place i.e. librarians as information intermediaries) could be solved if only we were to apply the right mix of technologies to them. To this point of view, technology sufficiently changes everything, and is enough of an end in itself, that pretty much any profession (save technologists, of course) is eligible for disintermediation, i.e., elimination. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Given this, it is likely that the tech-leaning side of librarianship will continually imitate rather than innovate, hoping that if we just adopt the right set of tools, that somehow we will be spared oblivion. I anticipate the breathless demands that your library sign up for Twitter 'right now,' because 'that's where your users are', or rather, where we'd <i>like them to be</i> - we look less backward that way. How much better we would be were we the ones to design, push and popularize these features the public seems to clamor for.

I am not entirely sure we would ever be in this position. One of the defining memes of today's technologists is 'disintermediation.' Accompanying that concept is the belief that the problems that necessitate many professions in the first place i.e. librarians as information intermediaries) could be solved if only we were to apply the right mix of technologies to them. To this point of view, technology sufficiently changes everything, and is enough of an end in itself, that pretty much any profession (save technologists, of course) is eligible for disintermediation, i.e., elimination. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Given this, it is likely that the tech-leaning side of librarianship will continually imitate rather than innovate, hoping that if we just adopt the right set of tools, that somehow we will be spared oblivion. I anticipate the breathless demands that your library sign up for Twitter 'right now,' because 'that's where your users are', or rather, where we'd like them to be - we look less backward that way.]]> http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2007/03/09/google_books_a_reprise_with_clarity#c351 Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:37:24 +0000 John Mignault [Visitor] c350@http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/ > How much better we would be were we the ones to design, push and popularize these features the public seems to clamor for.<br /> <br /> I am not entirely sure we would ever be in this position. One of the defining memes of today's technologists is 'disintermediation.' Accompanying that concept is the belief that the problems that necessitate many professions in the first place i.e. librarians as information intermediaries) could be solved if only we were to apply the right mix of technologies to them. To this point of view, technology sufficiently changes everything, and is enough of an end in itself, that pretty much any profession (save technologists, of course) is eligible for disintermediation, i.e., elimination. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Given this, it is likely that the tech-leaning side of librarianship will continually imitate rather than innovate, hoping that if we just adopt the right set of tools, that somehow we will be spared oblivion. I anticipate the breathless demands that your library sign up for Twitter 'right now,' because 'that's where your users are', or rather, where we'd <i>like them to be</i> - we look less backward that way. How much better we would be were we the ones to design, push and popularize these features the public seems to clamor for.

I am not entirely sure we would ever be in this position. One of the defining memes of today's technologists is 'disintermediation.' Accompanying that concept is the belief that the problems that necessitate many professions in the first place i.e. librarians as information intermediaries) could be solved if only we were to apply the right mix of technologies to them. To this point of view, technology sufficiently changes everything, and is enough of an end in itself, that pretty much any profession (save technologists, of course) is eligible for disintermediation, i.e., elimination. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Given this, it is likely that the tech-leaning side of librarianship will continually imitate rather than innovate, hoping that if we just adopt the right set of tools, that somehow we will be spared oblivion. I anticipate the breathless demands that your library sign up for Twitter 'right now,' because 'that's where your users are', or rather, where we'd like them to be - we look less backward that way.]]> http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2007/03/09/google_books_a_reprise_with_clarity#c350 Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:40:53 +0000 leo waaijers [Visitor] c349@http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/ What Google offers to libraries is little short of perfect.<br /> They scan your paper stuff and offer the metadata (including snippets of text) for free on the internet. Where-ever possible they include the full text for free reading and reuse by teachers, researchers and the general public. Not for commercial re-use. So what?<br /> But they store the scans in their own servers and do not allow storage in the institutional repositories. This of course causes suspense. It would help if Google were prepared to escrow the scans to the libraries. Just in case, you know. <br /> They scan your paper stuff and offer the metadata (including snippets of text) for free on the internet. Where-ever possible they include the full text for free reading and reuse by teachers, researchers and the general public. Not for commercial re-use. So what?
But they store the scans in their own servers and do not allow storage in the institutional repositories. This of course causes suspense. It would help if Google were prepared to escrow the scans to the libraries. Just in case, you know.
]]> http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2007/03/09/google_books_a_reprise_with_clarity#c349 Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:38:29 +0000 jennifer [Visitor] c345@http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/ Great clarification - but I totally understood the tenor and tone of the original piece. This point has been stated over and over again in my studies for emergent technologies and the library profession/service's lack of timely response. Think of all we could be doing/could have done if we simply could embrace the positive aspects with a healthy appreciation for the risks. Refusal to change/enhance our practice only emphasizes the stereotype our collective society has of libraries and librarians. How much better we would be were we the ones to design, push and popularize these features the public seems to clamor for.<br /> Thanks for sharing your thoughts.<br /> j. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
j.]]> http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2007/03/09/google_books_a_reprise_with_clarity#c345 Tue, 13 Mar 2007 03:05:48 +0000 Outliar [Visitor] c343@http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/ Interesting "clarification." When I read your "poem" the other day, I thought, "Ooh, must be frustrating to be the piper for cooperative digitization in the current environment." Not sure how many books DLF thinks it's had a hand in digitizing, but "not many" is probably a good guess, and the prospects going forward seem to be getting worse rather than better. With so many DLF libraries looking to digitization partners with drive and resources, it could be hard to grab attention-- not to mention dues. The hum of real work-- like in those steel mills you used to study-- can distract people from the endless preparation to do something. Anyway, thanks for clarifying that Book Search is a good thing ("in its broadest conception")--some folks missed that point in the earlier post. http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2007/03/09/google_books_a_reprise_with_clarity#c343