"In defense of the Chicken Littles of the World" While I don't believe that anyone can accuse me of being against change, I do want to point out that what catalogers do is actually important, and while it may not be quite the same as brain surgery, we do provide the underlying bibliographic apparatus for a huge number of scholars and researchers around the world and they depend upon us and the quality of our work. A concern that I have is that if we change things without studying the consequences too closely, especially in a time of freak-out budget cuts, we could do some serious damage to the bibliographic apparatus of the world.
This has happened before in every library, I am sure. I remember that in one library where I worked, I ran across an old cataloging procedure (for the card catalog) where non-Roman catalogers were directed for a period of about 10 years (I believe) to not add any subject cards to the catalog. In fact, for some periods of time, it was *only* main entry cards for non-Roman materials. When I discovered this, I looked at the catalog in a different way, since I suddenly saw in my mind's eye the "missing subject cards" where they should have been. I referred to these areas as "White Holes" since there were "holes" in the card catalog. (Perhaps I should have called them "acidic-yellow holes" since the cards were rotting away, too!) But in any case, there were a *lot* of books that could not be found through their subjects. How many? Who knows, but it was about 10 years' worth. I guess I'm worried about something similar happening today. If we focus primarily on speed, throughput and bean counting at the expense of "quality," I think we automatically lose to automatic methods because those are faster than we could ever be. We need to focus on quality and we may even have to reconceive it: what it is and how to achieve it in the most efficient ways possible. This can only be achieved through adherence (i.e. real adherence!) to shared standards. This will involve a lot of hard consequences. If we don't figure these things out, I think the future will be very much in doubt. And if we mess things up, the consequences could be huge. As the Russian proverb says: Sem' raz otmer', odin otrezh' (Measure seven times, cut once). Once you cut, there is no going back, so be sure of what you do. I believe that this is only being realistic and not necessarily being Chicken Little. But, I think that Chicken Little serves an important function in society, anyway! ;-) Jim Weinheimer > Ed: > > Mega apologies--I wasn't intending to characterize your thoughtful note > as a Chicken Little response. My concern is that in our > desire to be > prudent, we not find ourselves making our beds with the CL crowd, who > viscerally oppose any change whatsoever. They will undoubtedly fall > upon the concerns about the economic meltdown to nix any change we might > propose. > > I found a recent Talis podcast to be helpful in thinking about these issues: > http://librarygang.talis.com/2008/10/10/october-2008-financial-crisis/ > > Regards, > Diane > > Ed Jones wrote: > > Diane > > > > It really wasn't my intent to play Chicken Little. I just > wanted people > > to think about contingencies in a fraught economic climate. In > the > > absence of a current RDA draft, this seemed a useful and prudent > > activity. > > > > Ed > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Diane I. Hillmann > > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 4:37 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] libraries, society and RDA > > > > Shawne: > > > > Thanks for your note. I'm not sure I was aiming for eloquence, > just > > hoping to shift the conversation a bit, away from the tendency to a > > Chicken Little-style response ... > > > > Your last question worries me--are we still creating catalogs, or are we > > trying (finally) to participate, as the experts we ar e, in the > > Information Commons as our users are increasingly doing? I'd like to see > > us move down that path, instead of providing just a better catalog, that > > most users would be just as unlikely to use as they do the current one. > > And how would we calculate the cost of that engagement, so different > > from the like-it-or-not "product" we offer now? I > feel I know more > > about the cost of NOT doing it, of refusing to take the risk of moving > > forward without having all the costs and benefits laid out and fully > > discussed by all concerned. Down that "safe" road lies a future > that I > > don't think most of us would like very much. > > > > Your quotes from Cutter are very useful--they remind me what an > > insightful thinker he was. I wonder what Cutter would think of > our > > current dilemma? Would he welcome "the wisdom of > crowds" as an aid to > > that guided learning? > > > > Diane > > > > Miksa, Shawne wrote: > > > >> Diane, thank you for such an eloquent posting. I haven't read the > >> > > whole thread but I'm glad to see talk of serving users' needs. If would > > seem premature to postpone RDA when we don't yet have all the > "data" in > > on what it will look like and how it may or may not allow us to provide > > a better service to our users. I'd like to invoke Charles Cutter's most > > appropriate words: "The convenience of the public is always to be set > > before the ease of the cataloger." (1904, Rules for a Dictionary > > Catalog) > > > >> It is exciting and I am looking forward to the challenge of > >> > > reinvigorating how we catalog for our users, and not just for ourselves, > > and not just with the goal making resources accessible, but also...dare > > I say it...to educate people. > > > >> More Cutter--from Public Libraries in the United States of America : > >> > > their history, condition, and management. Special Report. Department of > > the Interior, Bureau of Education. Part I. Washington: GPO, 1876. > > Cutter wrote a section entitled "Library > Catalogues." He writes about > > the challenge of an ideal catalogue and that it would "...lay out the > > course of reading which a man who thoroughly studied the subject, with a > > view not only to learn it, but to master the history of its treatment by > > others, would be obliged to pass through." In his view, > the Boston > > Public Library had such a catalog. "The public is not > merely guided in > > its reading but stimulated to it. Many a man [read: man and woman] must > > long to follow up the lines of investigation presented here, who, if he > > had never seen the volume would not think of touching the subjects, > > would merely read at random, or take ref > uge in fiction. A mere catalogue > > is rather disheartening to an unlearned reader. The common dictiona! > > > > ry! > > > >> catalogue, especially, is a mere collection of fragments, > >> > > unconnected, and all alike. There is no light and shade, > nothing to fix > > the attention." (p. 550) > > > >> Oh so pretty and all very idealistic, but would the challenge of > >> > > creating a better catalog be worth the cost of it? > > > >> ************************************************************** > >> Shawne D. Miksa, Ph.D. > >> Assistant Professor > >> Department of Library and Information Sciences > >> College of Information, Library Science, and Technology > >> University of North Texas > >> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> http://courses.unt.edu/smiksa/index.htm > >> office 940-565-3560 fax 940-565-3101 > >> ************************************************************** > >> > >> > >> > > > >
