On My Christmas List...

Dear Santa,

I want one of these, please:

Meet Paige M. Gutenborg, aka Harvard Book Store's Espresso Book Machine. It's a "book making robot" that can create "a library-quality, perfect bound, acid-free 300-page paperback book in roughly four minutes" -- that is supposedly "indistinguishable from paperbacks produced by major publishing houses."

Harvard Book Store offers a catalog of 3.6 million books to print from so far, including Google Books copies and public domain works. Plus, you can also upload your own files to create a 'polished' version of your personal novel, family memoirs, etc.

So far, the selection is necessarily limited by copyright (you may have heard some fuss about Google Books, for instance), and the market varies widely; prices for a digital 'copy' of Villette by Charlotte Bronte range from $9 to $22. I'm not sure what 'added value' the $22 version has (better fonts? nicer formatting?).

So how about we make a deal with publishers, agree on a pricing model and stick these machines in libraries, letting patrons have direct access to digital works with the option of 'creating' their own hard copies to keep? Publishers win, because they can cut back huge production costs and don't have to take on the costly risk of overproducing (ever since the Great Depression, publishers are obligated to take back all copies that a bookstore cannot sell) -- plus, they'll get access to all sorts of 'niche' markets by providing access to works that weren't previously profitable to print.

Authors win, getting greater distribution and more direct profit, especially in the case of out-of-print works -- even if only a relative few 'buy' those books, it's still bringing in money where previously there was none.

Libraries win, increasing their circulation and relevance and solidifying their place in the information exchange, while fulfilling their mission of providing greater access to resources for their patrons.

In the meantime, I can foolishly dream of seeing Paige in my stocking this year. Oh, if only BookSanta were real...

Vanilla to Rocky Road: Librarians and Access

I have just finished reading Thomas Friedman's The World Is Flat (yes, I'm a bit behind on my reading list), and a few of his concepts about adaptability and collaboration have been percolating in my brain...to collide with this excellent LJ article by Barbara Fister on academic librarians and information accessibility. Fister addresses the question that seems to drive librarian anxieties about everything from Google Books to the open access movement: what happens to librarians when information becomes 'free'?

Or, in other words, "when the traditional work of libraries is shifted to things other than buying and organizing physical containers of information, how will we justify our existence?"

I found myself applying Friedman's framework to this question, as he presents a comprehensive and engaging summary of the growth of the Internet and the digital worldwide collaboration that is reshaping our world today.

In simple terms, Friedman argues that as certain functions become digitized, streamlined, and/or automated (be it accounting work or systems maintenance, etc), they become "vanilla" skills -- cheap and interchangeable. Therefore, company or person who relies on a "vanilla" platform will soon find themselves obsolete. Remaining relevant and competitive depends upon one's added value to the basic functions (i.e. the chocolate sauce), through the particular specialized services or quality of work you provide.

Which is exactly what Fister is talking about when she argues that "we need to separate our value -- the way we curate information, champion its availability in the face of intolerance of unpopular ideas and economic disparity, and create conditions for learning how to find and use good information -- from the amount of money it takes to acquire stuff on the not-so-open market." Because as 'information' in bulk becomes cheaper (down to the 'free' of a Google search page), simply 'getting information' of any kind becomes a skill that everyone shares, including the seven-year-old on her laptop. Librarians do not want to be competing on the same level as a seven-year-old.

Fister believes that our ability to judge and provide quality information is what distinguishes us, and I agree -- there is more 'stuff' than ever out there for people to search through, but most of it is still junk. And what patrons really value is getting the right stuff, without losing time to a frustrating and demoralizing search that siphons off your will to live (witness the glazed expressions of those students approaching the reference desk).

On a broader view, Fister sees the arenas of 'added value librarianship' particularly in the blending of "creating, curating, and publishing" that is happening in academic communities online (particularly in the e-journals realm). The recent partnerships with libraries and university presses, digital library projects, and librarian collaboration with the open access movement are just a few examples to keep in mind. Fister reassures her readers that librarians' roles are changing, but "the value of what we do will still be there," because quality information is still valued.

Or as Friedman might say, everybody loves a sundae; instead of vanilla, we just need to focus on becoming the chocolate sauce and whipped cream (which, as everyone knows, is what makes a sundae).

Between the Iron Thighs: Info Demands on Librarians Today

A couple of articles in SLA's Information Outlook got me thinking about the hurdles and challenges librarians are facing, due to the changes in how people are accessing and processing information. On one side, we have destabilizing shifts in the supply and presentation of content -- and on the other side, urgent demands from users who are producing and consuming at a dizzying pace. No wonder working at the reference desk can sometimes feel like being squeezed in a giant vice...

On the supply side, several things are happening at once: information is being made available for cheaper, quicker, and in more mediums than ever. As Larry Prusak explained in an interview, the business world has seen a rapid plummeting in "information transaction costs" -- this trend holds true for all users, from the business exec who Googles stock reports to the student who Wikipedias the Battle of the Bulge. This shakes up the traditional role of the librarian as 'information provider,' as users increasingly go out and forage for the data they need on their own.

Never mind multiple studies showing that most users are dramatically lacking in information skills -- but competency theory means that they are blissfully unaware of their own ineptitude, putting librarians in a double-bind. Surrounded by user-friendly (i.e. idiot-proof) search engines, users don't see the necessity of librarians' expertise (and when their searches fail, they can always just blame the interface -- or worse, assume that there's no information out there).

Meanwhile, librarians are scrambling behind the scenes to manage all these new forms of muitimedia and digital data, even as society shifts to ever more image-and-video focused platforms for communications.

And, of course, no one is willing to wait. A recent study by CIBER confirms the obvious: the shorter a piece of text, the more likely it will be read. For online browsing, the average e-article snags maybe 4 minutes of a user's attention, with most students skimming abstracts and hopskotching article titles in the search for that perfect reference.*

So the librarian gets trapped with a demanding, ill-informed user who wants their perfect answer now and doesn't necessarily see the librarian as much more qualified than they are to get it (after all, Google is so easy!). And then we fall into the Teacherly mode, trying to show them how to look for information better -- except that patrons don't want a lecture, they want results. Hence the dispiriting OCLC 2006 survey finding that user satisfaction actually decreases when librarians try to help.

Ouch.

What are the solutions? Well, in an academic setting, I don't see a lot of ways to avoid donning the Instructor Hat; students need to learn how to search in sophisticated, informed ways. Some encouragement comes from finding that the more educated students are about search techniques, the more willing they become to learn more (once they actually start seeing results).

However, for librarians overall as 'information providers,' I agree that the profession needs to evolve dramatically. We can no longer rely on the base of presenting data to users -- there are search engines and computer algorithms for that, and if they aren't good enough to replace humans yet, they will be. Instead, we have to provide value at higher levels; providing context, social connections, creative and engaging ways to synthesize information into knowledge. We have to make the information at our disposal useful to our patrons, tailored to their plans and needs and desires.

Librarianship has always been about service; we're just shifting our services to different areas and platforms. Hopefully, then we'll all be able to breathe a little easier.

**************************************************************


*More fun facts about Reading Habits/Death of Print?' later, maybe -- studies have shown we tend to skim online and actually read in print (so you have students accessing these online databases and then printing out the articles to absorb the material).

Cataloging Books Join Festivities

Now here's a good use for those cataloging manuals...


(Courtesy of LMU Library, http://www.flickr.com/photos/lmulibrary/4175698818/in/set-72157622977026002/)

I am so amused.

Wiki-woes?

Swinging back into things with an examination of Wikipedia...

As a librarian-in-training and a Reference Desk Monkey, I've been hearing a lot about the Wikipedia debate -- like everyone else who has happened to use the Internet in the past five or so years. So I'm sure it's mostly old hat to you, Dear Reader: that furious debate over whether Wikipedia is A Valid Source of Information.

Jimmy Wales himself, on a recent video interview on Yahoo's "Tech ticker," proposed this sticker to put on the open encyclopedia: "Use With Care." Basically, Wikipedia is a decent source on some topics; that much-cited study by Nature magazine found Wikipedia's quality in a sampling of scientific articles was comparable to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, while a mini- review panel in Library Journal concluded that Wikipedia was a particularly rich pop culture guide and also fairly rewarding for current events -- even on controversial topics.

Wales pointed out that Wikipedia does have features to help, with flags for articles lacking sources or those including statements that smack of bias -- and users should pay attention to these notes when perusing the site. He believes that contributors and users have a social responsibility in "attempting to be very high-quality, very neutral," and a system of critique and review has been created for that purpose. There is a system of policies and guidelines and a structure of administration privileges within the active volunteer community of over 85,000 contributors and about 75,000 editors (these numbers are probably obsolete already, of course -- Wikipedia is always in flux).

Plus, users can check out the "History" tab on any article to see what changes have recently been made, along with all previous versions (which are automatically saved, contributing to protections against vandalism). The "Discussion" tab shows what is currently being debated in the article's creation/editing process, therefore highlighting any areas of particular dispute. There's even a guide to "Researching with Wikipedia," outlining the site's strengths and weaknesses as a potential source, along with useful features.

Wales concludes -- and I have to agree -- that the question of "Should Wikipedia be used?" is ultimately a useless one. It is being used, widely and constantly; by students, the general public, and yes, even researchers and teachers and librarians.

The question that instructors need to help their students (and librarians their patrons) address is how to use Wikipedia wisely, with active judgment and awareness. Citing Wikipedia isn't the point, since you shouldn't really be citing an encyclopedia in your research anyway -- encyclopedias are launching platforms, where you get a broad sense of a topic and find trails to more the detailed, in-depth information that you need for your paper/project.

So by all means, you can start your Quest for Knowledge at Wikipedia...just make sure you follow those daisy-chains of references and citations outside the encyclopedia to confirm all your lovely, erudite conclusions.