Thing 23--The Meaning of It All

Well, that's that. Things are looked at and commented on. Now we must blog about the meaning of it all. Is there one? I took the break week off to consider that, and I am not sure there is. The Things are all about the medium and not the message, and with due respect to R. Buckminster Fuller, the message is more important than the medium. Some may be driven by the desire to use new data diffusion tools to broaden our patron community. This should be encouraged because libraries are reliable sources for information, and if we can use some techie wonder to entice them to our websites and our buildings, how bad can that be?

Some Things have applications in-house. In a multi-branch library, many scheduling problems could be eliminated when a general staff meeting was held by recording it and letting shift workers watch it later in a podcast. People who didn't get all of what was said could revisit the session, and appropriate information could be provided so staff could ask follow-up questions. Other things like wikis and blogs have their uses, provided that they are kept current. There is no more excuse for dead links on a feature than there is for a mildewed book on a shelf. If a library's administration is sincere about technology, they need to spend the money to keep current. They should also collect usage statistics in order to decide which things are working for their patrons and which aren't, and letting the things that don't go away.

I've gotten some flak about wanting to regress to some glorious pre-tech age, mostly from people who assume that I'm against anything invented after the lever. This is nonsense. I am against the uncritical acceptance of everything that comes down the pike. I'm against the gadget envy that seems to afflict top administrators and their IT department heads. The director of Mallville PL would rather die than see Outlet City PL be a first adopter of the Next Big Thing and vice versa. Therefore their staffs often have the dubious joy of not only having to deal with an unproven and often unhelpful technology but they get to explain it to the patrons whom it has made unhappy. Oh, would I love it if those who say 'make it so' and wander off had to stay and make it work! At least Capt. Picard was wiling to get his hands dirty.

Let's not go overboard in any direction. After all, the technology that works in one community is a failure just down the Interstate, the same way that one library's best-seller is another's doorstop. Let's look at the various technical possibilities, experiment, and use the ones that work for our particular library and let the rest go. After all, there is more stuff coming along in a minute, and it might be something that would work well in our shop--and if not ours maybe in yours.

Farewell, gentle bloggers. I will soon diminish, go into the West, and remain Technoskeptic. And the blog will go away as soon as the technique can be mastered. It was fun while it lasted.

Thing 22--Staying Current

It is so sweet that 23 Things thinks that decisions on the addition of gadgets, widgets, and other -ets are driven by working librarians and paraprofessionals, so we must know every new thing that comes along. If only it were true. These choices are made away from the service desks, so it's not that necessary for front-line staff to be au courant with every New Thing. We're going to get what the higher levels want, and we'll learn enough of that to help patrons until the Next Big Thing comes along, whether it's Thing 24 or 124. Whether it works, whether anybody wants it, or whether anyone uses it is irrelevant. It is a system that has held since the memory of the bibliothecarius was replaced by a bound MS volume because the monk in charge of the scriptorium wanted to bug the one from the monastery over the hill and it won't change any time soon.

One pays a certain amount of attention to what is passing through the journals or on news sites, but it's not a good idea to assume that even if something looks useful, we'll get it because it has to be noticed by the journals first. Ironically, technical novelties, like slang, once they have been around long enough to be noticed by administrators, are frequently no longer novelties, having become either established techniques or hopelessly vieux jeux.

Thing 21--Sudent 2.0 Tools

For the overachiever, these will be a wonder, replacing all sorts of schedule books and timelines posted on the walls of one's room, illegible notes scribbled on syllabi, and various calendric devices. If instructors go with the bit for them and librarians/libraries are brought into the picture, they have possibilities. Of course, those of us who have tried to help a student who was assured that 'every' library has a particular title the teacher demands be used might be a wee bit skeptical that the same instructors who didn't bother to check if we did are going to bother with anything else. I am wicked enough that I get a kick out of telling a kid where teach got it wrong. I always counsel silence with the pedagogue but to treasure this little bit of knowledge as a moment of superiority. The Homework Mommy will adore these, as it will make doing her kid's homework a lot simpler. If you are a working librarian you know this. If you are an administrator, academic or technophile, you will just have to take it on faith.

For those comfortable with a computerized schedule, this is a good thing. For those on another path, it is something that might come in handy some day.

Note on the cartoon: I am up to 21 and still utterly lacking in glam. At the end of 23 if I am still me, I cannot decide whether to sue for false advertising or simply diminish, go into the West, and remain Technoskeptic.

Thing 20--Books 2.0

There were over 50 sites suggested for examination. I don't do 50 of anything, so I dipped in here and there. Some made no sense, like the 'future of the book,' link, and the rest of the articles seemed to suggest we might as well burn all books now as they were as dead as the dodo. I dunno. The puff video on Kindle didn't answer the question, 'how much is that in dollars?' I admit to blowing off the telephone stuff as I have a cheap cell and no features. Several of the book sites wanted you to sign up before you looked at their stuff. No way. Others, like Book Trails probably have possibilities if you have the patience to read through all the commentary, and I don't. I have been using KDL's What's Next for years and swear by and not at it. Who would ever pay $2 per book stumper with Fiction-L and Project Wombat at one's disposal? I subscribe to both and recommend them without reservation. Online book groups and 'communities' do nothing for me. Reading a book is between the author and the reader, and letting other people in does for that relationship what Princess Diana said her husband's mistress did for her marriage--makes it a bit crowded. No, thank you. By the time I got to audio books and lit crit, I gave up with a headache and crossed eyes.

Will the computer destroy the book? I doubt it. It's too handy and requires very little effort to use. Will other formats become part of the world of the book? I certainly hope so. The recorded book, LP format, etc., certainly didn't do the plain-vanilla book any harm. If the computer and its associated technologies make it possible for more people to have access to information for both entertainment and practical use, that's fine with me. I will continue to prefer the Mark 1 carbon-based book because it can be toted and read almost anywhere with no auxiliary technological needs. But that's me. There are others like me out there, and there are others who are more comfortable with devices. Let's leave it to the readers what formats are available. The book can stand many formats.

Late-breaking observation: Interesting cartoon. I, alas, am still old, fat, homely, and dowdy. Perhaps when I have done all 23 things I will become gorgeous. Or perhaps my lack of faith will doom me to remain myself. This prospect does not devastate me.

Thing 19--Other Social Networks

Gather has a certain refreshing honesty in proclaiming it wants to bring publishers and people together. I wonder how many Gather posts booming a title originated in a corporate office not in a booklover's head? However, as long as it's all screen names and personae, we'll never know, will we? I looked at some sites that say they are interested in things I'm interested in, and they were OK, a little heavy on the feedback and a little light on the content, but aside from my concerns about stealth commercialism, not bad. However my reservations expressed previously still apply. People who function well in groups will probably love these. Those who function better alone won't. One can only hope that libraries and their administrators will recognise the difference in operating style and let the staff member choose how a task will be done and what tools will be used.

I am not group-oriented, so I doubt I'll ever use any of these sites, but it is useful to know that they exist.

Late-breaking news. I see on the BBC this morning that the UK government wants to monitor social networking sites for gang-related activities and terrorists. Read it for yourself: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7962631.stm And what happens on their side of the pond could happen tomorrow on ours--or maybe already is. Consider that next time you become somebody's "friend"--you may get some nasty guilt by association by someone who gets his information on due process from Kiefer Sutherland's writers.

Thing 18--MySpace and Facebook

I was surprised to find that I had a Facebook page until I remembered getting notices from a couple of people I know slightly that they wanted me to be their 'friend'. Since none of this required me to shoulder the burdens of a real friendship, why not? If I get excessive e-mail from anybody, he or she gets on my spam list and vanishes into the aether anyway. It was the first time I'd been on it since these people invited me, and may be the last. I am not that interested in developing online relationships with people I don't know from a hole in the ground and probably wouldn't want to know in person.

Mr. Perkiness from Commoncraft assures us that this is all networking and very valuable stuff, which will get you anything from a good job to a new house to a hot date. Maybe and maybe not. It will also allow collective wisdom to be combined for the Greater Good. Maybe and maybe not, because a lot of the 'wall' stuff I looked at was inane and uninformative. I find listservs function better for that sort of thing, but if others prefer this way, that's fine with me. It's more a matter of style than substance, and people should be free to have their own style.

Any of this useful for libraries? Looks as if some libraries have one or both kinds of pages, so it must be working for them. If they bring people into the building or bring them to databases or other library services, and the library keeps the pages current, they've served their purpose. If they aren't kept current, they're useless, but anything that isn't kept current is useless, whether it's on paper or online.

Inter-Thing Observations 2

I've gotten static about my 'attitude' towards the Things. Nobody has actually ordered me to embrace them without reservation, but it's tending that way. This is not going to happen. Some things, like podcasts, wikis, and YouTube have interesting possibilities, as does instant messaging. From what I have seen of the Things to date, some libraries have taken commercial products designed for individuals and cleverly adapted them to library purposes. If it works for them and their patrons, I am all for it.

Now for the reservations. A lot of these Things are .com, which means that a commercial entity is involved. Despite the Google motto of 'don't be evil' which has been adopted by other services, I worry. Google, after all, is complicit in internet censorship in China, possibly elsewhere. All of these .coms collect sign-up data which they supply to their advertisers, even if they don't supply individual information. Do we want our patrons' information collected? Remember how contributions to NPR dropped after it was discovered they were selling mailing lists? Do we want this to happen to libraries? Has anybody explored whether any of this violates library confidentiality statutes? Do we want to find out the hard way when some library is sued out of existence because of .com collaboration?

I have reservations about posting library historical collections on Flickr, and I don't care if LC or Smithsonian are doing it Can you imagine the flap if somebody donated a collection of historical photos including well-loved kin, and that person saw the inane and sometimes unpleasant comments that get posted? Historical photographs donated to a library should be properly cataloged and posted on its website not just posted. Having said that, I do think that it would be a great place to solicit identifications. You'd have to read through a lot of 'weird hat, dude,' profanities, and irrelevancies, but you might find some answers. However, if you already have the ID, for goodness' sake, catalog the pictures, and if you don't have a historical photographs section on your website, get one. And find some secure physical storage for the originals.

Twitter may even have its possibilities, but anybody who read Doonesbury for the first two weeks of March when Roland Hedley III Twittered himself on-camera rather than reporting his story might conclude that it is exclusively the province of the self-involved twit (and yes, I wrote that intentionally). I rarely even have my cell on my person let alone turned on, so a library tweet would never catch me. It might catch those who do twittering, though.

I won't be silly enough to say that any of this is just a passing fad and would never work. I say that an uncritical embrace of anything is a bad idea. After Library 2.0, there's 2.1, ad infinitum. Find the things that work in your community, invest in those, be aware of the rest, and don't let yourself be hustled into anything.

Message to my surrealists: You are the weirdest of the weird, and I am proud of you.