It’s been a busy June, but now that SLA is over things are finally winding down. First, I presented to the Transportation Librarian’s Roundtable last Thursday on my “State Stats” pathfinder. The slides are actually up now if anyone is interested. The same goes with a second presentation (on Drupal) that I presented at GTRIC Sunday. Both presentations wen’t well, but I’m glad to be able to focus on other things for a while.
The popular conception of a Librarian is as rooted in the public’s consciousness as any other tried and true profession. Doctor, Lawyer, Teacher, Police Officer. Librarian. But, what happens when an entire well-regarded line of work undergoes a fundamental transformation? It’s hard to say, and the devil is in the details, but I get the impression that for anyone who works with electronic media today the devil is the details.
As journalists, librarians, researchers, and others take on added roles as information disseminators the lines continue to blur between previously separated professions.
Librarians traditionally have held two responsibilities: maintaining libraries (duh!) and helping patrons conduct research. Journalists, on the other hand, have been responsible for informing the public of noteworthy events (sometimes). Researchers have always researched. Given a preponderance of free, easily accessible electronic information, though, professionals in different fields are starting to find themselves pulling switch duty. A few cases in point:
Put succinctly, the United States is no longer an industrial nation but a knowledge based one.
Ok. So, with job responsibilities bluring together – and new media in a state of flux – it’s hard to tell the extent to which this is happening. The future is always clouded, and it’s impossible to say what this means for future Librarians, but it’s still possible to define a set of job requirements that can be expected to remain in place foreseeable future.
What would this “new model librarian” look like?
Earlier this month, the Pew Internet and American Life Project conducted a survey of professional perceptions toward the ”Semantic Web.” The findings were both interesting and disconcerting. Interesting because most respondents don’t think the Semantic Web will be as useful as envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee. Disconcerting, because nobody seems to agree what the hell it means.
Citing a Wikipedia article the general idea is of an Internet that, “allows software agents to carry out sophisticated tasks for users, making meaningful connections between bits of information so that ‘computers can perform more of the tedious work involved in finding, combining, and acting upon information on the web.’” Specifically, using a set of tools like RDF and OWL, the idea is to link semantic meanings to automate information retrieval. You’ll note how much more complex this idea is than the one behind HTML – markup.
I’m willing to venture that we need to understand more before we really see progress made. Then again, I wasn’t surveyed.
Last October I singled out Gary Nodler (R-Sen.) from Joplin, because he helped to block the use of laptops by Missouri State Senators. At the time I said I wouldn’t vote for him if he ever runs for a statewide office. Turns out he is. He’s looking to take Roy Blunt’s U.S. Representative seat in southwest Missouri where I grew up.
My, how the tables turn!
This reminds me of why Internet access (and digital libraries) need to be accessible to lawmakers. And, with information becoming ambiently findable, why they need to be able to fact check one another in real time. The Annenburg Public Policy Center seems to understand this. They host FactCheck.org. So does the St. Petersburg Times
which produces the Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact website. Unfortunately, not all of Missouri’s Senators do. Traditional media can’t move at the speed of assertion.
I may have been too hard on Sen. Nodler, especially after I found this site, but given any viewing of “Countdown with Keith Olberman” or “The O’Riley Factor” it’s obvious that political fact checking has it’s own bizarre standard. Interestingly, the media has become segmented in recent years which has allowed political hacks to justify almost anything.
This is a common problem. The internet, radio, and television are all littered with falsehoods and half-truths, partially because anyone can slap an something together capable of reaching a wide audience. If properly approached, though, this problem can be resolved.
Basically, my argument is this. Given access to quality, agreed upon information sources, and perhaps a revised legislative process, politicians can improve the quality of discourse as debate occurs. If provided the opportunity to call one another out using evidence (the moment something is wrongly asserted), politicians then could, hopefully, improve their bottom line.
Of course they need to have access to the necessary information first, and they need to agree where to get it. The Daily Kos and the Drudge Report obviously should be ruled out.
