I didn’t really want to bury this in a comment thread, so I’m posting.

Bo Kinney responded to my Buzzkill post with an excellent post on collection development and I’m actually not in complete disagreement with it. Bo makes a number of very valid points and uses the Charlie Robinson, “Give ‘em what they want” campaign as an example of appeasement for the masses gone awry. But that’s not quite what we’re talking about here.

The issue at hand is whether, as libraries, we overrule the demand of our users with our own sensibilities. That’s a very dangerous path to tread. What if a group of librarians converged upon ’80s music and deemed it to be mindless noise, driven by rampant consumer confidence and cocaine? Should they then be allowed to weed it out of the collection or keep it from getting ordered? What if the target was material written or recorded by gay and lesbian artists? Perhaps it would be in the interest of the community to strike such material from the collection–especially now that gays and lesbians are gaining acceptance in popular culture. No, there needs to be a more objective criteria for ordering the bulk of our collection and that is the aggregate popularity (or anticipated popularity) of a given item. It’s a cold, impersonal, impartial, and unbiased process–just as it should be. That’s right up central management’s alley, if you ask me.

But Bo is correct as well. Librarians absolutely need to have a hand in developing collections. The librarian’s purview is a far murkier, far more interesting venue: the long tail. The problem with Robinson’s approach is that it docks it (of course, there was no understanding of what the long tail is back in the ’90s). Being able to embrace the long tail distribution is very much a key component to library 2.0. Maybe this is what the Sacramento administrators are not quite seeing. Without provisioning for the popular stuff, you get a lifeless, disembodied tail. Without the tail, you get a Borders.

Certainly there is a balance to be struck here and I certainly understand and appreciate the concern expressed by John Berry. I share it as well, but I see contemporary developments in our libraries as moving to address those shortcomings. Technology is a large piece of that puzzle as we use it to enable new methods of service and as we continue to expand our user base through it. But Library 2.0 is more than that. It encompasses major changes to our spaces, our policies, our programming, and our practices. I heartily disagree with Bo’s comment that we’re pursuing change out of fear. I believe most of us pursue change out of a knowledge that we can do better on all fronts and a desire to want to. The struggle between those who want to change and those who desire status quo indeed goes on, like it has for decades. And just like it always has, change inevitably overruns inertia.

In the meantime, otherwise normal and intelligent people act like idiots because change is scary and it’s anger that fear leads to, not change.  The easiest course of action is to do nothing at all and scorn those harbingers of change. It may be that yesterday’s Fireside Poets have become today’s Paris Hiltons, but that’s life and we have to cater to it. We can’t very well elevate the minds of our people without first getting them in the door. We won’t get anyone if all we do is build sky-walks between ivory towers. Is it an ideal representation of our grand vision to stock the shelves with Jackass? Not likely, but pragmatism is, in itself, a form of idealism when applied correctly toward a common good. You just need to stomach the sight of sausage being made.

I love zombies. This brings tears to my eyes.

(link)

Allen County Public Library’s Sean Robinson and Kay Greg are responsible for this little slice of heaven.

Yes, I know it’s been awhile. I’m moving.

I’ve been meaning to pen a little something about David King’s “rant” in response to one of his Computer in Libraries experiences. He writes:

First, I asked if attendees had learned something innovative or new at the conference that they’d like to take back to their libraries. Almost everyone raised their hands. Then I followed up with this question: how many will take that cool, innovative idea back to their libraries, and hit a brick wall with administrators when they try to implement that idea.

ALMOST EVERYONE RAISED THEIR HANDS.

This is not good.

Why? Well, during my Q&A time at the end of the session, the whys started coming out. Techie librarians are discouraged. Many have administrators and/or managers who don’t want to change, who refuse to learn new technology and who refuse to implement new ideas.

True enough. The world has it’s share of myopic administrators. This is certainly not unique to libraries, though. In fact, in the words of someone I respect greatly, if you haven’t experienced working under an asshole, you’re just lucky. David King isn’t necessarily talking about assholes, but you might very well be one if you dismiss the recommendations and suggestions of your motivated, talented, and bright tech librarians. Either that, or you’re too busy playing the game to remember why you’re playing it. There are several reasons why administrators buck original ideas.

Primarily, new ideas represent change and change equals risk. Many people in middle and upper management know that risk translates into a higher possibility of failure. After putting in all those years of getting to that position, who wants to fail and be bumped off (or worse, down)? A management position in an organization represents a major career goal to many people and all too often, people have followed the time-tested formula to get there: keep your head down, tamp down on the risk, maximize “success.” Success, in this case, would be the routine, long-term maintenance of the status quo. Seriously, it works great–as long as you’re working for that king of institution.

Some people also just don’t like to step out of their comfort zone. They don’t want to absorb new things. I was on a top technology trends panel at OLA last January when someone asked, “what if we don’t want to learn about all these new technologies?” (paraphrase). I don’t think I was in the mood for hand-holding because my answer was, “it’s your job.” Really. I don’t believe libraries are life support systems for staff. We need to work for our bread. That means that we have so stop bunting and try to knock it out of the park every single time. That takes passion, and too many people in every industry, including libraries, lack it.

I think that Dave should have followed up his question with, “How many of you are going ahead with implementing your ideas anyway?” Those are the people I want to work with. If you love what you’re doing, then do it. Don’t let someone else’s tunnel vision dictate what you accomplish in your lifetime. I had breakfast with Sean Robinson (ACPL) and chuckled about the fact that we both routinely would code well into the witching hour (which may explain some of the “idiosyncrasies” in SOPAC). The point being that, there was never enough time in the day to do what we loved, so we did it when we could.

I’m reminded of a great quote from Steven Pressfield’s War of Art:

I’m keenly aware of the Principle of Priority, which states (a) you must know the difference between what is urgent and what is important, and (b) you must do what is important first.

If you raised your hand at David’s talk, chances are your boss doesn’t know the difference.

Naturally, you’ve got to bang up against the red tape, cover your behind, and remain within your sphere of authority. If you’re sharp enough to have a great idea, however, chances are you’re sharp enough to figure out a way to get some traction behind it.

Having come to the library world from a horrifically inbred engineering firm (and I’m talking afternoon-on-the-Chatooga, Deliverance inbred), I can tell you with all certainty that this is not a problem specific to libraries. There is one thing that is more prevalent in libraries, however, and that’s a pervasive culture of entitlement. Whether it’s the expectation that you’ll never have to step out of your comfort zone, that you’ll be able to settle in to a nice quiet career, or even that you have the right to have your great ideas met with ebullience. So, in the final analysis, I have a little sympathy for this particular plight, but it’s not keeping me awake at night–that would be the work I love.

Finally, someone with a (thoughtful) voice of reason on Twitter. And it’s from Kathy Sierra (of Creating Passionate Users). She likens Twitter to gambling at a slot machine and notes that the rewards one gets from using Twitter are hollow and empty.

[Twitter] can trick the brain into thinking its having a meaningful social interaction, while another (ancient) part of the brain “knows” something crucial to human survival is missing.

I say Twitter is the Paris Hilton of the social web. Slutty and unfortunate. The basest manifestation of the culture and systems it represents.

I’ve received no less than 14 Twitter invitations from people whom I respect deeply and I have to wonder, why the **** are they using this? Who cares if you’re sitting in traffic, doing your homework, going to a concert, performing a bodily function, or reading a book?

I, like Kathy, am probably in the minority here, but I just hope we don’t get too distracted by this piece of candy 2.0 because, in the end, we really have better things to do. At least, I hope we do.

A few days ago, I asked whether libraries are mainstream. I pointed to popular culture to try to make the point that libraries are no longer considered to be the penultimate (oops) source of knowledge and enlightenment (insomuch as the everyman seeks enlightenment these days). That locus resides elsewhere in the minds of our population.

I was at the doctors office the other day and while I was in the waiting room, I was half-heartedly watching the TV in the corner–the Ellen DeGeneres Show. I wasn’t paying much attention. The sound was off and closed-captioning was scrolling by on the screen. Then I noticed she now has a segment on viral video–selections plucked from the tamest of the tame (dogs doing flips, or some shit). Then I thought about the idiots down in Texas who filmed themselves as they coerced a two and five year-old to smoke marijuana–a video that is in wide circulation both online and in the news (I refuse to link to it).

It’s an entirely new flavor of discourse when video of children being abused like this percolates into our consciousness.

The debate over whether the video should have been released in the first place is, by and large, a journalistic one (and I’m not so sure there is any debate to speak of anyway). Libraries have, however, along with journalists championed the open, transparent flow of information and media. So, perhaps we need to accept the horrifying along with the bizarre, intelligent, and the hilarious. If that’s the case then are we completely divorcing ourselves from content and grafting ourselves to a new model of distribution?

I’m not sure how to answer that, nor do I really know how to answer the question, What does it mean for us? Well, first, I think the job of disseminating and housing the data is taken care of as well as it possibly could be. So what remains? In this feedback loop of viral content and network effects, are there needs being left unattended, are there gaps in the experience where libraries can reside? There are some practical changes to be made, for sure.

The blog, Picturephoning, came onto my radar several weeks ago and since then it’s been holding my attention firmly. Not because of the videos it links to, but because the stories it covers begin, over time, to reveal some very interesting characteristics of this new media and, thus, the profound implications they have for our society and media. The stories range from the superficially humorous to the horrific. All reported with stark impartiality. It’s a gem of a site if what you’re after is a pulse to put your finger on.

It’s from there that I was referred to the Mail & Guardian online who, with their new service, The News in Photos, have begun to actively solicit photos from their readers. Their reasoning?

“This is our most visible step so far to embracing audience participation in the news,” says Vincent Maher, the newly appointed digital media strategist at the Mail & Guardian Online.

“As the power to crystallise reality shifts away from traditional media towards social construction by users of the Web, our role as a media company is shifting from one as a provider to one as a facilitator,”

Bingo. Shifting from provider to facilitator. I mentioned that there were some practical things we can do if we choose to participate in this media, and this is it right here.

I’ve written before that no matter how fabulous our collections are, they will ultimately be unremarkable. Our capacity to allow our users to engage in this new media is what will cement our position as a vital community resource, going forward.

That means many things, like providing the equipment and expertise to let them participate. But it also means, somehow, providing a sense of appropriateness and propriety that befits our institutions and the dignity of the human condition.

I realize that a statement like that flies in the face of library neutrality, but I do feel that we have a responsibility to not just connect our users to this new layer of content, but to also advise them in their endeavors so that they can produce content that is significantly richer than average. We also need to be prepared to stand by them when we will be, inevitably, called to account for what they do.