Adventures of a Midwestern Girl in Sunny, Sunny California

The following is lightly adapted from a listserv post from earlier today.  Over the past couple of days, I have started to see more discussions focusing on the “why this name” issue I have so wanted to get to.  I greatly appreciate the people who are starting to engage in a detailed discussion of the research.  The focus of many of these debates is on the idea that the proposed new name “tested best” in the research.  This is my response to that assertion:

One of my main concerns lies at the heart of  the notion that this is the name that tested most highly from the research.  The folks that are trying to convince members to vote “yes” on the proposed name continue to say that this was the name that “tested best” among various groups.  However, I have not been convinced of the precision of this statement in my review of the research.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but from the information available in the Alignment Portal it looks like, on a very summarized level, these were the steps that occurred:

First, various surveys, focus groups, and dial testing were performed which developed an understanding of the words that, individually, tested well and those that did not.  The highly ranked words included:

• Knowledge
• Strategic
• International
• Advantage
• Insight
• Association
• Professional

Second, a variety of possible association names were put together using these individual words.  These names included the following:

• The Knowledge Society
• Information Innovators International
• Strategic Knowledge Society
• International Knowledge Network
• Knowledge Link
• Knowledge and Information Leadership International
• Knowledge Leaders International
• Information Society
• International Information Society
• The KnowlEDGE Society
• Society for Knowledge Leadership
• Society for Strategic Intelligence
• Association for Strategic Knowledge
• The Knowledge Exchange
• Knowledge Exchange Network
• Strategic Knowledge Network

Third, additional research was conducted to determine which of those names were not already too similar to other groups and which were free of legal obstacles.  Three names were selected and these were presented to a group of people to rate:

• Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals
• The Knowledge Society
• Knowledge & Information International Association

The problem is that, to me, context is important.  I think the research showing that words like “strategic” and “knowledge” are highly-valued is important, and that these words should be used to our advantage: on our resumes, in advertisements, and in communication with our employers and potential employers. I certainly will not argue that we are not strategic, knowledgeable, and professional.  These words and concepts should be implemented liberally throughout the alignment tools that will be introduced. But the fact that these individual words tested well does not mean that stringing them together creates a good name for an association.

This is where the research fails for me. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I would be much more convinced of the claim that THIS name scored most highly if the 3 final names presented for evaluation had had slightly more variation.  For example:

• Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals
• Association for Library and Information Professionals
• International Association for Information Professionals and Analysts

There is at least enough variation here that we could see if people liked “knowledge professionals” over “librarians” over “information professionals” in the context of a specific association name.

Although it is not evident from the materials available in the portal, there might have been a decision made, between brainstorming the list of 16 possible names and selecting the final list of 3, to focus on the “knowledge” theme and to present only names that conformed to that decision.  Whether a conscious decision or not, in my mind that choice was a mistake because it means that the only time (that I can tell from the research) that a selection of names was presented to be tested, the respondents were comparing apples that were too similar to each other; the choice of the non-librarian, non-info pro, knowledge-focused association name was already made for them.

It is true that “Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals” is the name that “tested best” in the alignment research, but there is a huge caveat that it tested best only among the 3 knowledge-themed names that were provided as an option. Since there was so little variation in the types of names provided in that final 3, I am not convinced by the assertion that it is the name that “tested best”.

In the end, it is not that I wish the Board to disregard the research, or think that they should select a new name “using criteria and methods other than an evidence-based research project”.  It’s that I question how the evidence was applied in the name selection process.

Perhaps this is simply a matter in which we must disagree on whether or not the name selection portion of the research was conducted in the best possible manner, and that is fine. But, now that we seem to have gotten down to actually discussing the research in-depth, I wanted to put my reservations out there.

If there is a piece of research that I have missed that would put my mind at ease on this, I would love to see it.  I have not voted yet and do not plan to until after Thanksgiving.

Thanks to all of the Board for your continued efforts with the alignment project.  It sounds like you, and we all, have a lot of work ahead of us.

Since writing a long post a week and a half ago detailing my concerns with the proposed SLA name change, I have been struck by three things and thought a follow-up post was in order.

First, a few of the messages sent to listservs by association leaders have emphasized that the research results were posted to the alignment portal months ago, as early as January, for members to review and discuss.  This is true, and I have reviewed them.  But, unless I’m missing something, and I do hope someone will kindly point it out to me if I am – it can be difficult to keep up, the list of name choices leading up to the final 3 was not included in the posted research until AFTER the proposed name was announced. It certainly was not proactively put out into the discussion space via an announcement or blog post (i.e. something that could be pushed to the broader membership). As I mentioned in my earlier post, I think the alignment research results are valuable and I largely agree with the findings as presented. For this reason, I didn’t feel a particular need to speak up in disagreement with anything I saw in the research; I was fully expecting to support the name that came out based upon the research I saw.  Had I known the direction the name choices were heading, I would have spoken up sooner.

Second, some members have complained about a lack of member input and the response has been that we have the SLA blog, a FaceBook page, and listserv and Twitter discussions going on and that is a huge amount of communication. The problem is that it has come too late.  It was particularly disheartening to hear that the Alignment Wiki that so many people were engaging in was not considered “official” and is being attributed to a member who was simply interested in the issue.  (Specifically, see the comments after the article.)  In my opinion, the discussion that the members are having now should have happened earlier; it should have happened before the single name option was decided on and announced.  The fault likely lies on both sides for not engaging on a wider scale earlier.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I am still undecided on my final vote. I do not like the proposed name and I have been vocal about that. It’s pretty clear that I currently lean toward a “no” vote.  But I am listening to both sides of the debate and am open to changing my mind; I likely won’t cast my vote until close to the end of the voting period.

My earlier post raised concerns about the implementation of the alignment research as it relates to the selection of the proposed name, as well as a concern that the proposed name will be just as inscrutable to “outsiders” as “Special Libraries Association” is. Based on the replies I received, both public and private, these concerns are not unique to me and seem to represent a solid chunk of members who support a name change, but question whether the one proposed is the best we can do, or indeed, better than the one we have now. I have seen additional listserv comments that raise similar issues.

At this point, I have not seen a clear reply from association leadership to the concerns of this segment of the membership.  Certainly, I do not require or expect a personal message responding to my posts.  But I do think that these concerns are a valid part of the discussion that are not being addressed. Instead, I continue to see posts to the SLA blog and listserv contributions that focus on the “why we need to change” aspect (with which I agree) rather than on the “how we came to this name from the research and why it achieves its goal” issue.

I will point out one notable exception to this is the fantastic open letter posted over the weekend by Michael Fanning, the SLA representative for Germany.  His in-depth discussion on why the unfamiliarity of the term “strategic knowledge” may actually be a benefit is by far the most thoughtful and compelling response I have seen addressing my concerns with the proposed name.  I have, in fact, printed the letter out so that I can give it a closer second read. I encourage everyone with similar concerns to read this entire letter.

Responses such as Mr. Fanning’s will do far more to “raise the level” of this discussion than those that simply re-state the admonition to “review the research” to those of us who have already done so.

My professional organization, the Special Libraries Association, is currently considering a name change. Members will vote in November on whether or not to change to the proposed name: Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals (ASKP). I have been participating in the Twitter debate about this change for several days, but feel it is time for a more detailed response.

This is a very lengthy post and I apologize for that, but I feel I have to address many facets of the ongoing debate. I have noticed that many of the pro-name change responses I have seen thus far in the Great SLA Name Debate raging on Twitter (#slaname) and on the listservs have focused on two perceived sets of people: those who are against a name change all together and those who do not like the proposed name and therefore must not see themselves as strategic players in their organizations, are not forward-thinking, and/or are change-averse.

For this reason, I feel I must explicitly outline my own worldview a bit lest replies lump me into one of these aforementioned groups. Let me begin by saying that I support a name change in principle. I supported a name change when the issue came up for a vote in 2003 and I have been a vocal proponent for a name change ever since the intent to vote on a new name came up earlier this year. I happily wore an “Align in ‘09″ ribbon at the conference. 

I do see myself as providing strategic information within my organization. I am proud of the work I do and I am quite certain that the information and knowledge I provide helps my organization do its job better. Every time I provide the answer to what comes to me as an “impossible” question, I am confident that the quality of my work is noticed.

To be sure, I have never been shy about marketing myself as a research professional, within my organization or without, and I often become frustrated from the all-too-frequent martyr-complex that some in the library profession endure. I know my skills have value and I have always pushed for them to be valued, with both verbal and monetary recognition, rather than simply believe I must be underpaid because I am part of a noble profession that works for the good of humanity.

I am forward-thinking. I learn from, but do not dwell on, the past. I am open to change. I know it can be painful, and I admit to being scared of it from time to time, but I do not flinch from it or try to avert a course of action simply for the sake of avoiding change.

To be honest, I have no intrinsic attachment to the word “library” or “librarian”. While I do love to read, I am not one of those who waxes poetic over the smell of books; I have not always wanted to be a librarian. Quite honestly, I don’t internally self-identify primarily with the concept of “librarian”. I am a researcher – an information wrangler, a puzzle solver, and a tenacious research pit bull. 

On the other hand, I must admit to being quite moved by the passion I have seen in the recent debate by those who do embrace and defend the word “librarian”. Many of their responses have given me a more positive perception and roused a certain allegiance that wasn’t there before.

As for the new name itself, I have no objection to the word “librarian” being retained, nor do I believe it must remain if the alternative given is better. I do prefer a focus on “librarian” than on “libraries”, though.

I have, in fact, reviewed the alignment research, although I admit I have not watched all of the videos. I think that many valuable insights and tools have come out of the extensive research that has been conducted over the last 3 years.

I certainly would not “vote against” the concept that SLA members are strategic, bring knowledge, and are experts.  I think that the language that was found to be highly-ranked can and should be used to our advantage: on our resumes, in advertisements, and in communication with our employers and potential employers.

I welcome professionals to the association who work in “non-traditional” library settings. The information profession has moved in so many directions and encompasses so many fields that we can have a “bigger tent” simply by expanding our reach into these other settings.

I also understand that the name of the association is not reflective of the position titles of its members. I was a member of SLA in my last job as “Director of Research Services” and I am a member now as a “Librarian”. Just because the association name could change to something that does not include the word “librarian” does not mean that members are suddenly not librarians. I get it.

I am the choir to which SLA has been preaching about the name change.

I certainly never thought I’d be a voice of opposition in this debate; however, I am having a very difficult time getting behind the name that has been proposed.

I will not dwell on the acronym. It has become a bit of a red herring, although certainly not deliberate; people have expressed such obvious dislike for the acronym that the SLA leadership may feel that is where the major objection lies. I would argue that some who state via Twitter that “ASKPro does not work for me” may be referring to the name in full, as well as the acronym, and are using the acronym in order to make better use of their 140 characters.  I also think that it is a bit disingenuous for leadership to attempt to refocus the debate by saying that the vote will be for the entire name, not the acronym, which will not even be on the ballot, when the original e-mail announcing the proposed name quite clearly linked the acronym into the entire re-branding that we will be voting on with statements such as:

• “We are excited to propose that SLA change its name to the Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals, or ASKPro.”
• “The abbreviated form, ASKPro, was very well received and also fulfilled the desire frequently stated in member discussions for a name with a meaningful acronym or shortened form.”
• “Ultimately, however, it is up to you to vote on a new name for SLA– the Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals (ASKPro)–and launch us into our second century.”

In addition, should the membership vote for this new name, the acronym will necessarily follow as the only options are ASKP or ASKPro. Since the leadership has stated that one of the guiding points in choosing the proposed name was the idea that members desired an acronym that spelled something out, I believe it is prudent for members to express a clear dissatisfaction for the acronym now. 

For the record, I do not like the acronym or the name in its entirety.

As I understood it, one of the reasons to entertain a name change was because people do not know what the “Special Libraries Association” is, they do not know what a “special librarian” is, and we are trying to make the name of the association more understandable and more reflective of what we do and the value we can bring to our organizations.  If this was the goal, I feel the proposed name fails to achieve it.

Amongst members, including the leadership, there is confusion about whether the word “strategic” modifies “knowledge” or “professional”. Are we professionals of strategic knowledge and, if so, what is “strategic knowledge”? Or are we knowledge professionals that are strategic?  The fact that even the leadership has made contradictory statements on this point implies to me that this name is unclear.  And if it is unclear, even to us, how can we expect the people to whom that we are targeting this name change to understand it either?

Page 32 of the PDF on the Alignment Portal entitled “Positioning Information Professionals for the Future” lists the eight highest ranked words:

• Knowledge
• Strategic
• International
• Advantage
• Insight
• Association
• Professional

Four of them make up the new name. This makes it feel like the leadership looked at the words and simply strung some of them together. It is a confusing, unclear name filled with marketing buzzwords. As I mentioned above, I do think that we can learn a lot from and use to our advantage the language that scored highly. I think that the individual words have impact and meaning.  But I do not think that the name of our association has to incorporate as many of them as possible in a string-like fashion.

It is my strong belief that one can be strategic and can be seen as strategic without the need to place the actual word in the association name. The name, as an acronym and in its entirety, feels like it is trying too hard.  It is practically begging people, “Oh please, oh please, see me as ‘strategic’.”  I think that the association can market its members as strategic partners in the information or knowledge economy without insisting that these words be in the name. A tagline such as “providing the knowledge essential for strategic decision-making” would provide the same anticipated benefit as the proposed name, but could be attached to a clear, descriptive association name.

I have queried several non-librarian friends, including attorneys at my firm.  So far, I have not had one positive response.  Replies have included:

• “What does that even mean?”
• “Sounds pompous as hell.”
• “What are you, the CIA?”

The most positive response I have received was simply that it was too vague and the individual had no idea what it meant or who the association would include.

I grant that everyone I have queried thus far has preferred the proposed name to “Special Libraries Association”.  But what does that really mean?  They find the proposed name pretentious, unspecific, and challenging to say, but it’s better than what we have so we should go for it?  No. It means what so many of us have been saying for years.  “Special Libraries Association” is confusing and unclear and should be changed.  That is all.

I find the assertion that the proposed name scored well with executives to be a bit misleading. Yes, it scored highest among the 3 names that were presented in the final group.  However, all 3 of these potential names were variations on a similar theme, focusing on the concept of “knowledge”. Having seen the 3 presented names, I agree with the executives who gave their input: Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals is the best of the 3. I just don’t think that is saying much.

I also find it quite interesting that the entire list of names considered by association leadership and eventually whittled down to the 3 presented names were mostly similar variations on the knowledge theme. (Slide 4 in PPT showing how the name was chosen)  Personally, I would be much more convinced of the claim that THIS name scored most highly with executives if the 3 presented names had had slightly more variation.  For example:

• Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals
• Association for Library and Information Professionals
• International Association for Information Professionals and Analysts

There is at least enough variation here that we could see if people liked “knowledge professionals” over “librarians” over “information professionals” in the context of a specific association name.

As to the notion that “librarian” did not score highly enough to be included at all, I do believe that it is not sufficiently inclusive to leave it in the name on its own.  However, in the graph shown on slide 28 of the Alignment Survey Executive Summary PPT presentation, I find it telling that the phrase that was so undesirable is “special librarians”, not “librarians”.  I believe we have already determined that “special librarians” is a challenge and, therefore, it should not be surprising that it would not score highly on these graphs. It is unclear from the rest of the presentations if the term “librarian” alone scored similarly poorly.

The time has come for a name change, one that is more inclusive and that more broadly reflects the profession. Frankly, I am still torn about how I will vote; I am reserving this final judgment as I listen to the debate, although more and more I lean toward “No”. I do not support the proposed name, but I think “Special Libraries Association” is no longer sufficient. I worry that we will miss this opportunity because so many of those that strongly back a name change can not support the proposed name. 

I am well aware that choosing a name that inspires consensus across the association may be impossible.  But the fact that so many people who believe in the alignment research and who think the time has come to change our name have been so vocal in their opposition to the proposed name should give the leadership pause.

I extend my thanks to the association leadership for their hard work on the alignment project.  I think it will yield dividends and that they are suggesting what they think is in the best interests of the association. 

SLA is my association home. I have volunteered and held leadership positions every year since I joined when I was still in library school.  I hope and expect that this will not change.  My passion on this, and the passion of other members, both for and against the proposed name, is indicative of how much the association means to its members and this can be a huge strength going forward.

As has been pointed out numerous times, John Cotton Dana said the name “Special Libraries Association” was chosen “rather in default of a better”. Perhaps we still have not been offered that better alternative.

Although the Public Policy Update was on the schedule well in advance, the addition of a representative from Google to speak about Google Book Search and the related settlement was a last minute development. Dan Clancy, Engineering Director for Google Book Search, began with a brief presentation on the Google Book Search project and quickly moved into a discussion of the settlement. Clancy spent much of this time attempting to clarify some of the details of the settlement agreement, admitting that the agreement is a very complex document.

He noted that the parties to this settlement include all U.S. copyright holders for books that have been scanned or that Google is intending to scan; it does not cover books published after 1/5/2009. For books published after this date, Google will be able to do direct deals with the publishers. Clancy stressed that rightsholders have a choice about whether or not to participate in the agreement, that they can opt out of the settlement and participate in Google’s partner program or remove books from the database altogether. Through the agreement, Google is authorized to scan and index in-print books, but they can not display any of the material unless the rightsholder gives explicit rights to do so. For out-of-print books, display access is turned on by default; Google then pays into the newly created Books Rights Registry from which money will be distributed to rightsholders as they emerge to make claims.

Clancy acknowledged that there will be some works that aren’t claimed in the Registry and these will continue as orphan works, but he believes a legislative solution is the appropriate way to deal with orphan works. For now, they can provide access to the works while holding money in the Registry for rightsholders to eventually claim. He thinks this effort will encourage the passage of legislation to deal with orphan works. Further, Google still believes that what they are doing is fair use and they are still scanning material that isn’t covered by the settlement.

Clancy then moved on to address some of the concerns he has heard expressed and to take questions from the audience. Specifically, he clarified that the public access terminals are going to be provided to libraries that decide not to subscribe to Google Book Search on an institutional basis. These public access terminals are not special hardware and they are not dedicated terminals. Google is providing the ability for one Internet-enabled computer in each public library building to have full access to Google Book Search.

The data in the Books Rights Registry is public data, which Clancy believes creates a de facto copyright registry to help people find rightsholders of orphan works. In response to a question, Clancy clarified that a hit in the Registry is just a record of who holds the copyright, and does not denote permission given to Google. Further, if a rightsholder opts out of the settlement, the burden is not on them to provide a full list of their works; Google is liable if they screw up.

Clancy maintained that the settlement is designed to foster competition by making Registry data public and not exclusive to Google Book Search. Rightsholders can allow the Registry, which is being created by authors and publishers, not Google, to negotiate on their behalf with any other provider; alternatively, they can execute an agreement directly with Google or any other vendor without going through the Registry at all. When questioned further on how exactly this agreement would help create more competition, Clancy asserted that the Registry will make it easier to identify rightsholders, and other vendors will engage in their own licensing agreements to provide access to publishers’ content and/or scan materials to create a new product. Google has tried to make it so others can invest in a new project, but this doesn’t mean they will. Other providers will get into it if they decide it is a good business. This was perhaps the least convincing explanation given at the session.

With regard to Federal government works, Clancy told us that, in the past, they have limited access because of a concern that there might be copyrighted material within the work, for example in the case of Congressional hearings. However, the settlement allows Google to treat government works as though they are already in the public domain without the fear that there is copyrighted material embedded within.

Clancy acknowledged that this is potentially a 100 year deal due to the length of copyright. So what happens if Google goes away or decides not to continue offering the product? The settlement agreement addresses this concern by requiring Google to make a copy of the content available to the library partners, thus enabling them to find another provider to make the content available if Google is unable or unwilling to do so. While it is Google’s intent to exceed this level, there is an additional clause in the settlement that says that Google has to make at least 85% of the authorized scanned works available. If they fail to do so, they have to turn all of the data over to another provider.

Another concern voiced is one of censorship. Specifically, will Google display everything they have rights to and, if not, who will decide what is excluded? Clancy said that their collection development protocol was simply to scan everything a library gave them with no additional criteria in place. He argued that Google would not bother to scan everything if they weren’t intending to provide access to the material. Of course, one could argue that it was easier at the time to simply scan everything in one massive operation and deal with any content objections later on a case-by-case basis. At any rate, there is a provision in the agreement that if Google ever excludes material for editorial reasons, they will tell the library partners and the scan will be given to the library partner as well as to the Registry so that another vendor can provide access to it.

Another concern expressed was pricing – how much will Google decide to charge for Google Book Search, especially once/if it becomes a must-have resource for libraries? Clancy tried to reassure us that it is in Google’s best interest for libraries to be able to access the material. First of all the agreement states two objectives: first is to create revenue for the rightsholders which is best achieved by providing access to materials that can be purchased, and second is to ensure broad access to the materials. Additionally, Google sees this as a long-tail product. They want to make sure lots of people can use it; particularly, they want students to rely on the product so that they’ll continue to use it individually after they graduate. Google doesn’t see the institutional subscriptions as the big bottom line. Individuals don’t have to subscribe in order to search or preview the materials, unlike other database vendors that charge for searching. Clancy believes these reasons create a force to provide the product for a reasonable price or libraries will just turn away the institutional subscription.

The issue of privacy was dealt with in a similar fashion. Privacy of user data is not discussed in the settlement agreement at all. Google believes that the best way to deal with this is by engaging with libraries as they go into individual agreements. It will be part of the deal between Google and the library/consumer at the time of the transaction. Google will not be asking for user information from schools and libraries and they won’t know who the user is at an institution even if there is a cookie on the computer in the library. Ultimately, Clancy believes that libraries won’t sign the agreement if they believe there is a problem with the privacy terms.

While Google’s case does benefit from a clarification of some of the finer points of the settlement agreement, I left the session feeling slightly dissatisfied. One of my main criticisms is that so many of the answers given to reassure us that Google was not a monopoly refer to these “other vendors” who will enter into their own agreements with publishers, scan their own books, and make the content available if Google does not. While there are a few big players out there that might compete, I remain skeptical that many other vendors will have the clout to convince publishers to enter into additional agreements in the first place, or have the resources to scan and provide access to the content in the second. And, as usually happens, with the passage of time and the ability to ruminate on the discussion, I have thought of additional questions that I wish I had asked.

sla2009

Here’s my basic re-cap of the Opening Session Keynote Address by Colin Powell. Powell started by saying the librarians at the national Defense University warned him that librarians were angry about something he’d said early on as Secretary of State. I thought maybe he was going to address the OTHER thing we were upset about him saying. But it was something about telling the State Department they had to get rid of all their old research and books.

He tried to educate the State Department workers that all the barriers to information exchange that used to exist are gone. He noted it’s a transactional world, not a calendar world anymore. He wanted to update their information with every transaction, not every 30 days.

You’ve got to move faster than your opponent/competitor. You have to move at speed of light, because that is how fast information moves.

He wonders how many people still bookmark sites. Everything he ever wants to find again is indexed on Google. Yes, I do still have bookmarks. Bookmarks to the deep web are still quite useful. Also bookmarks to already vetted web sites are often better than the first 10 results from Google.

This keynote feels like a stand-up routine with lots of random thoughts. He wonders where it’s all going in terms of instant information access. I, too, am wondering where it’s all going, but by “it” I mean the speech.

And then, suddenly, out of nowhere, 9/11. We are safer with more security, but he told President Bush that we were starting to pay too high of a price. Students were not coming here anymore because of difficulties getting Visas. Students are good to have here because they get to know us, they stay here to impart their knowledge, or they go back to their country to help them become better. We have to keep ourselves open.

Okay, back to the stand-up routine.

Oh, leadership now.

The followers get the work done, not the leaders. You have to give them a sense of mission, a sense of goals, and a sense of purpose. And it has to come from a leader who is passionate about that purpose.

Leaders have to invest in people and give them what they need to get the job done.

Leaders have to acknowledge and congratulate employees for what they have accomplished.

Good leadership also means punishing people when they’re not getting the job done. A leader who is unwilling to prune an organization cannot be a good leader. Employees know who should be pruned and are waiting for a leader to do it.

We are now competing with billions of people and we need to educate our children. It’s an economic and moral issue. The high school dropout rate is a disgrace.

America has to be a leader. History and destiny has given us this role. Although our standing has suffered in the last few years, people still line up at US embassies wanting to come to America.

Our openness to the rest of the world is our greatest strength. As long as we never forget that, we’ll make the world a better place.

Eli asks a question – Issues of transparency and openness of government info, both foreign and domestic.

He’s always been a believer in openness and transparency, although not to the point of not having necessary protections. Wonders how you can even stop openness. Also important for existing information to get where it needs to be. Openness may have a certain degree of risk, but you should always have a bias towards transparency.

Has been reluctant to go on any of the social networking sites because he doesn’t want his life to be THAT open. Has drawn a personal limit.

Overall, I enjoyed the speech, but as I mentioned earlier, it felt a lot like a stand-up routine with lots of random one-liners. Honestly, it felt as frenetic as seeing a comedian working out new material. Powell was funny and engaging and charming. But what did the speech have to do with information? Yes, he addressed it at times, but in such a disjointed way that I was having trouble finding any sort of through-line. I was not as thrilled as most of the SLA tweeps tweeting on the speech.

I am, however, really looking forward to Neil deGrasse Tyson at the closing session.

sla2009

I am so very skeptical of Google’s latest conveniently-timed issue of the Google Librarian Newsletter. Does Google really think we have such short memories and are so gullible?

A bit of background. In December 2005, Google launched its Librarian Central blog and newsletter. This quarterly publication was dutifully updated (mostly) on schedule until May 2007. Then it stopped. On the blog that June, they noted they were going to take a “summer break”. It was a long summer.

In June 2008, the librarian blogosphere started questioning whether or not we had been used (or allowed ourselves to be used) by Google in their quest for access to books for their scanning project. Steven Cohen really hit on it with his June 29th, 2008 post to Library Stuff. Conveniently, just 2 weeks after the brouhaha erupted, a new issue of the Librarian Newsletter was released. What, like Google wouldn’t be aware of the mini revolt brewing?

Then, again, nothing.

Nothing until this week when the Librarian Newsletter was once again released. (In spite of the April 6th date, it wasn’t posted until the 21st). Funny, ha-ha, the first paragraph starts with “After a 6-month hiatus, the Google Librarian Newsletter has returned!” Try 10 months.

Fully 70%* of the newsletter has to do with Google Book Search and why it is so awesome. Oh, you mean that controversial project that led to a controversial settlement, opposition to which is starting to pick up steam in the media and in the library community? A settlement that the court still has to approve and for which objections are being accepted until May 5th?

Please. I’m not an idiot. I’m not saying I support or oppose the Google Book Search settlement. This actually has nothing to do with my feelings on that topic either way. However, I do strongly oppose being seen as a patsy.

Hey, Google. Librarians have great memories for little details. It’s one of the things that makes us good at finding information. We’ve also been used by big publishers before, too many times to be comfortable with. But we’re getting feistier and less willing to roll over. We’re not some awkward schoolgirl who will forgive your absence and agree with anything you do just because you’re back and ready to give us a little attention when you want something. Give us just a smidge more credit than that and try being a bit circumspect when giving us your bread and circuses.

*2079 words in the newsletter, 1436 words in the articles about Book Search