Robert P. Holley
Director
Library and Information Science Program
106 Kresge Library
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202
Voice: (313) 577-4021
Fax: (313) 577-7563
aa3805@wayne.edu
A discussion of discussion lists on a discussion list appeals to my sense of whimsy. I asked to moderate this topic to determine whether my personal observations and feelings about discussion lists will receive support from others. I did a quick check of the literature and discovered relatively little of interest on discussion lists either in the scholarly or popular press. What I did find talked about the use of discussion lists in various areas rather than on the nature of this new medium.
I subscribe to about a dozen discussion lists with a library focus. I am often surprised at the amount of activity and the types of messages. My first observation is that discussion lists such as CRISTAL-ED with a serious focus seem to be getting fewer and fewer messages on the whole. I confess that I often have good intentions about responding but then don't follow through. In fact, I find it easier to write for publication on paper than to compose a serious message for a discussion list. I am often torn between wanting to write a thoughtful message on a topic that interests me and not feeling that I have the time or energy required to craft such a message. On the other hand, questions or posts that request objective information most often receive immediate multiple responses.
I also wonder whether the archiving of messages discourages the use of discussion lists. The Internet search engines can find messages from years ago that may have been done in haste but will not be forgotten. The local Michigan librarians' discussion list included surprised comments from someone who did not realize how widely available her discussion list messages were. Furthermore, while the practice is against Net etiquette, nothing stops a reader on a small, closed list from redistributing a message to a much wider audience. Discussion lists may seem to be cozy and private, but they are not. Do any of the job hunters out there worry that potential employers are searching for your discussion list messages as part of the evaluation process?
Finally, I hate to get flamed. I believe that I have sent out a well-reasoned, even-handed discussion of the issues only to receive back an abusive attack, at least in my opinion, that may even misquote what I just said. I worry that discussion lists, even when moderated, can be controlled by those who are willing to post their positions at every opportunity and to flame those who speak out against them. The simplest solution to avoid being flamed is to become a lurker.
I'll end my introduction by quoting a passage from a message posted on the ALA member list. I did get permission from the author though I'm not sure that I needed to. This paragraph nicely summarizes what I hope we'll discuss together.
I hope that you'll disprove my thesis by overwhelming CRISTAL-ED with responses. I don't think that this topic requires any special credentials, sophisticated research methodologies, or advanced degrees. Let's hear what you have to say.
Peter G. Underwood
Director
School of Librarianship
University of Cape Town
Cape Town
Republic of South Africa
pgu@education.uct.ac.za
Surveying my use of discussion groups indicates that I am often a "lurker," interested in the ebb and flow of discussion and often stimulated to follow up sources mentioned by other contributors. Just like any other discussion, I don't find it necessary (or desirable) to jump into every discussion but I do find the discussions an interesting barometer of interests. For example, the topics I have assisted in "guest editing" on CRISTAL-ED seemed to draw only a few correspondents but what they offered was valuable in developing the subject and also offered my immediate colleagues and I an opportunity to discuss points-of-view from sources outside South Africa. In other words, the impact of a discussion list need not be measured solely in terms of the traffic it generates: there can be significant "added value" which rarely gets back to other list members.
Ilene Frank
Reference Department
Tampa Campus Library, LIB 122
University of South Florida
Tampa FL 33620
Voice: (813) 974-2483
ifrank@lib.usf.edu
"Do any of the job hunters out there worry that potential employers are searching for your discussion list messages as part of the evaluation process?"
It doesn't have to be a matter of searching discussion list! I hope everyone who teaches Lib Sci and everyone who's a mentor of librarians stresses one plain fact: In spite of the seemingly large numbers of library professionals, somebody you know knows somebody who knows somebody. The fellow student you squabbled with in library school is going to be your library director. And the person you so soundly flamed is now on a search committee. And that search committee might decide that they already have plenty of cranky librarians on board and don't need to hire another one.
Couldn't happen? Yes, it can! And it can work both ways. I was on a search committee where one of the candidates was someone I knew only from discussion lists. I insisted that this librarian merited a telephone interview based on the quality of contributions to the list. (Another library hired this person before we had a chance to get to the onsite interview phase.)
Ellen McGrath
Head of Cataloging
Charles B. Sears Law Library
State University of New York at Buffalo
Buffalo, New York 14260-1110
Voice: (716) 645-2254
Fax: (716) 645-3860
emcgrath@acsu.buffalo.edu
One of my concerns is with misinformation passed via discussion lists. I doubt that people seriously set out to do so, but inadvertently, this can and does happen. I am a cataloger, so the list most closely connected to my work is AUTOCAT. It's a wonderful list and I think it has made a huge impact on catalogers over all the world, especially those catalogers who may not have anyone else to talk to on a regular basis.
A few years ago, a cataloger under my supervision subscribed to the list. She was rather new to the field and she would take everything she read on AUTOCAT as gospel. When I was aware that misinformation had been provided, I would try to discuss the topic with her and point out that some information conveyed was not correct, but she was very stubborn about it. Somehow because she saw it in "print" on the list, it was true to her. Though she has since left her position here, I still wonder about those instances where I wasn't aware she received incorrect information.
I know that is the nature of discussion lists, but in my opinion, this is not emphasized enough in FAQs, etc. Basically each person who posts a message to a list is giving only his/her interpretation and/or opinion of a given topic. Sometimes we can give it more or less weight in reading if we happen to know the person's individual background, but all too often this is not the case.
And in my experience, it seems (unfortunately) that the "experts" on many given topics tend not to subscribe to pertinent discussion lists on a regular basis or simply do not have the time to respond, as Bob has already pointed out. I have personally heard this expressed by people in meetings, namely that they see misinformation or a message that they could answer perfectly on a list, but they do not have the time to put together a thoroughly researched answer, so they do not respond. Also there's the assumption that someone else will jump in, but often that never happens.
I doubt there are solutions to the issues I have raised here, but I do think they are an important part of this discussion, so I am throwing them into the mix,
Kevin Cox
kcox@spirit.com.au
This topic is particularly relevant to me at the moment as I am setting up a Web site whose main focus is a periodic newsletter. I have agonized over setting up a forum (which I think of as essentially the same as a discussion list) and have decided not to have a forum. The reasons are those outlined by Robert on the problems of discussion lists.
However, I do want to get reader feedback and I do want to foster some interaction. Rather than a discussion list I have decided to use the technique of comments at the end of the articles. You can see an example of this.
This does not have the interaction and "discussion" present in discussion lists but it does keep things focussed and it is clear to participants that everyone can see their responses. I believe it will be particularly useful for those cases where people requests "facts." I will be notified by E-mail whenever a response goes up and I will be able to delete offensive responses -- albeit after the fact but hopefully before they cause too much harm.
Paul B. Wiener
Special Services Librarian
SUNY at Stony Brook
pwiener@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Robert Ballard wrote:
"I sometimes think that Paul makes statements to stimulate discussion. If this is not true, correct me and tell me if you really believe that your library will not be in existence in 50 years and people will not be adequately trained by the LS and SI programs to do the job. The question then would be why is it assumed that they stand still and do not review their program and course offerings just as do other disciplines? If anyone thinks otherwise, I can assure them that this is not correct."
Yes, Robert, you are right. I sometimes say things to provoke discussion, thought, and action. Sometimes not. I've been doing this, and admitting to it, for many years. It works. Sometimes I myself get confused.
Will my library exist in 50 years? Probably. Some wonder if it exists now. It will depend, in our case, on NYS political life, on Long Island demographics, on the economy, on Saddam Hussein, on whether it is called "a library," on whether it is used as a library, and of course on the unknown. I never said libraries stood still -- anything but -- but to the hare the tortoise looks awfully stationary at times. I believe that libraries as a whole cannot keep up with the technological changes that are dominating information delivery. Some do and will: the megastructures in every arena (food, healthcare, education, book sales, entertainment) will dominate, and the microstructures will be memorialized. Recently I tried to counsel my nephew away from going into the world of librarianship. It didn't work. Like most of us, he will recreate librarianship by his works. Recreational librarianship.
Paul B. Wiener
Special Services Librarian
SUNY at Stony Brook
pwiener@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Bob, that passage you quoted sounded strangely familiar... Speaking as a frequent, impulsive, sometimes compulsive list writer, as someone who's been flamed, reported and threatened, and has done his share of moderate flaming (and gotten other flamers into trouble), I must say I love discussion lists in general, but have increasingly withdrawn my activity from them over the years. The main reason, aside from "the thrill is gone," is, I think, that if one's a writer and uses lists, BBS's, chat groups of all kinds, and E-mail a lot, one quickly becomes aware of two things:
Both groups take up a lot of space. Both can be fun, stimulating, exasperating, infuriating. Both can drown you out. Everyone is always talking, few are listening. I like lists because I always assume list members will read my posts, and I love to be read. But there are many others like me and it gets a bit demoralizing. It's easy to feel you're a great writer and publisher writing silently and powerfully from your private office, but the fact is, we're a drop in the bucket. The print world is what I love and respect most. Most literate people - and I've met many online - still believe print publication requires more discipline, editing, processing - is more authoritative in several senses. I tend to agree. The virtuality of anything online is ultimately depressing. Nevertheless, I cannot dis discussion lists anymore than I can dis books. They're just there, their potential and actual value is enormous, and the best and the brightest eventually find each other and are better for it.
Anne K. Abate
Librarian
Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP
Cincinnati, Ohio
abate@scis.acast.nova.edu
Thanks, Bob, for starting such an excellent and appropriate discussion list topic.
I am also a huge subscriber to discussion lists. Besides the more than a dozen library and technology lists to which I subscribe, I also am signed up for more than 36 SLA chapter lists in order to keep track of what is going on throughout the SLA organization. Each of these lists has its own character and agenda.
With at least those first dozen lists, I am typically an active poster rather than a lurker. I often find that the last message on many of the lists comes from me and I sit around waiting for others to contribute. Because of this phenomenon, I have become less active on many of these lists just to give others time to contribute -- yet often they do not. I'm not sure if it is a question of time, interest, or fear (as Bob has suggested). Unfortunately, these lists will not become the marvelous tool that they could be unless we all start to contribute.
On the other hand, consider a professional conference. There are those who are extremely active -- speaking at every opportunity, asking questions, attending the parties, etc., etc. There are also those who are barely seen, and yet are happy to be in this position. Perhaps the discussion list is just a further extension of this behavior.
Enough from an active contributor. I think during this session we should seek some input from our lurkers. Why do they lurk? Will they always lurk? Do they enjoy the discussion being carried along by the others on the list, or do they just not have enough interest to put in their own contribution?
Thanks, and this time I am listening.
Dan Lester
3577 East Pecan
Boise, ID 83716-7115
Voice: (208) 383-0165
dan@84.com
"Personal observations and feelings about discussion lists will receive support from others. I did a quick check of the literature and discovered relatively little of interest on discussion lists either in the scholarly or popular press."
There is a fair amount in the literature of communications theory and practice, and it is growing rapidly. I will admit, though, that I've not seen much that was new to me, though I may not be a typical observer of lists. I'm a member of about forty, and personally own a dozen, in both professional and recreational areas. Some get a great deal of close attention all the time, some get little, and others get attention that depends on my amount of time and my interest in the topic(s) being discussed.
"My first observation is that discussion lists such as CRISTAL-ED with a serious focus seem to be getting fewer and fewer messages on the whole."
This may be true, and I won't disagree. However, it may be that we're just seeing the natural growth and change in the particular lists we're familiar with. All lists go through a life cycle, and one of the things that changes is the amount of traffic, from little early in the life of the list, a considerable amount in the middle, and little at the end. Could this list be nearing the end of its life?
"I confess that I often have good intentions about responding but then don't follow through."
But that is human nature. Almost all of us know about the road to hell being paved ... and in all areas of life. As we get ever busier and generally have (or make) less time to think, this isn't surprising.
"In fact, I find it easier to write for publication on paper than to compose a serious message for a discussion list. I am often torn between wanting to write a thoughtful message on a topic that interests me and not feeling that I have the time or energy required to craft such a message."
I'm just the opposite, and it may be a difference in levels of discipline, work habits developed over the years, or some other personality or behavioral factor. I've published in print media, but not nearly as extensively as Bob, so I may not have the habits built into me. I tend to work much more efficiently in a "thinking on my feet" environment than in a "contemplative" environment. I'm better at solving immediate problems and knowing a fair amount about a great many things, rather than developing masterpieces of plans, projects, or literature.
"On the other hand, questions or posts that request objective information most often receive immediate multiple responses."
Naturally. They are generally quick and easy to answer. The BUSLIB-L list that I own is a fine example. And, even though many are NOT quick and easy, the people on the list see the question as a challenge, as well as a chance to demonstrate their skills. I know of several people on the list who've changed jobs due to another list member seeing their abilities and hiring them away from their employer. In addition, objective answers to questions produce gratitude rather than flames.
"I also wonder whether the archiving of messages discourages the use of discussion lists. The Internet search engines can find messages from years ago that may have been done in haste but will not be forgotten."
Most lists have always archived, but the web has indeed made the archives of many lists much more open and easily searched, either internally or through a web search engine.
"The local Michigan librarians' discussion list included surprised comments from someone who did not realize how widely available her discussion list messages were."
The first thing I teach ANY students, colleagues, or others is that "never say anything on a list that you're not willing to have published on the front page of (local or national newspaper of your choice)." I know that I never do. A couple of times I've had some considerable flak (including from the public printer of the U.S. writing to the university president), but have always stood behind what I said (and in that case had the documentation to prove my claims/complaints). But indeed, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, to quote my favorite haberdasher.
"Furthermore, while the practice is against Net etiquette, nothing stops a reader on a small closed list from redistributing a message to a much wider audience."
As I remind the same people mentioned above, the same possibilities are there with snail mail, as various political figures have learned to their chagrin. I imagine that many of us have written in haste and wished we hadn't.
"Do any of the job hunters out there worry that potential employers are searching for your discussion list messages as part of the evaluation process?"
I don't know that any search committees do that, but it is an interesting idea. But of course that goes along with a discussion with a professional colleague who was interviewing for a job elsewhere. She wanted to "be herself" (which most of us would consider to be a bit earthy and rough around the edges) on an interview, even though this had apparently hurt her before. I counseled the opposite, and she did get the job. Of course whether she or the employer will be happy in the long run is a story yet to be told.
"Finally, I hate to get flamed. I believe that I have sent out a well-reasoned, even-handed discussion of the issues only to receive back an abusive attack, at least in my opinion, that may even misquote what I just said."
Yes, that is a pain. But, the same thing happens to everyone in public life. Politicians pick quotes out of context, movie ads pick words like "wonderful" out of a review that said "this film is wonderful if you like garbage," and so forth. Unfortunately, that seems to be a universal truth. Certainly most of us in personal relationships have occasionally had another person appear to have "selective memory" or "different memory" of something that was said and done.
"The simplest solution to avoid being flamed is to become a lurker."
This is true. But, like all other aspects of life, the Pareto Principle applies to discussion lists. Just as in classrooms, at cocktail parties or at staff meetings, 10 percent of the people do 90 percent of the talking. Others will never say a word unless specifically called upon, and then will probably demure.
"I did get permission from the author though I'm not sure that I needed to."
You didn't need to, unless you quoted so much that it may be a copyright violation. However, I always consider it proper etiquette to do so.
"I have to say I'm a little disturbed with the way this list seems to go. It's very quiet, then someone brings something in from the left and gets shot down, and there is a lot of bluster."
That is why I request my lists to avoid religion, sex, and politics. o-) I realize that people can get equally heated about silly little professional topics, such as how to inform the borrower of the due date of a book.
"I wish there were less acrimony on the list. There would be more room for substantive discussion. It sometimes seems more like a place for people to vent their frustrations (and I do not intend to single out XXXX by any means) than an actual forum for members. But that is how email discussion lists tend to be."
I've not been on the list in question, but the venting may actually be a GOOD thing, and may be a valid purpose for SOME lists, even "professional" ones. Don't we all do some of that over coffee, at conferences, with friends at the tavern, and so forth? If we don't, we're probably in pretty sad shape.
"I just can't help thinking that there could be a little more freedom of speech here -- not in the legal sense but in the sense of having a forum where discourse is open and seen as valuable."
A great deal of that depends on the list owner (whether the list is moderated or not). There are a variety of techniques for handling these problems, especially if you're using good software that will help to control an open list. But, how to do that is another topic for another discussion.
"I hope that you'll disprove my thesis by overwhelming CRISTAL-ED with responses. I don't think that this topic requires any special credentials, sophisticated research methodologies, or advanced degrees. Let's hear what you have to say."
I've never been shy, and I've given you all my thoughts based on experience, rather than the scholarly research. Basically, I don't think lists are any different than any other part of life. They collect people of various types and personalities, and some will speak up, some will be argumentative, and others will just sit back and enjoy the show, as I often do on this list. I really do believe that the internet, including the web and discussion lists, is not anything new and different. Like a city or country, it has good and bad points and places, citizens of all types, crooks and saints, and so forth.
Judith Hopkins
Central Technical Services
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260-2200
Voice: (716) 645-2796
Fax: (716) 645-5955
ulcjh@acsu.buffalo.edu
I am writing from the vantage point both of one who subscribes to several lists to which I contribute from time to time and as list owner of AUTOCAT, the largest English-language list devoted to cataloging. I try not to contribute very much to that list on the theory that my role is to ensure that it runs smoothly, not to monopolize the discussion. However when there is a factual question that I can answer quickly and easily and I have a few minutes free time I will do so. On the whole, however, I tend to limit my contributions to the longer, more discursive or theoretical topics such as the value of main entry or of uniform titles and that only a few times a year.
Ellen McGrath makes an excellent point in her concern about misinformation passed via discussion lists. This is particularly true for lists such as AUTOCAT where the general subject, cataloging, is based on a variety of standards and is very detailed. Most people who rarely post are delighted when they see a question raised that they think they can answer and thus pay back for all the help they have received in the past. However the answer they give, with the best of intentions, may reflect their understanding and /or their local practice rather than generally accepted standards. (On the other hand I don't mean to imply that frequent posters are invariably right or that infrequent ones are invariably wrong!) As list owner I generally wait to see if someone else will provide a better answer and someone usually does. If not, then I try to do so. The defect with this general approach is that the person who made the original request is left with several conflicting responses and often has no criteria on which to judge the comparative validity of each.
Of course if I turned AUTOCAT into a moderated list and had to approve every message before it was distributed I could hold back on the ones that were disseminating incorrect information. The result would be that I would be disseminating only what I considered accurate and I can be mistaken on that. There have been times when I have agreed with an early answer only to have my horizons widened by someone else's more thoughtful and knowledgeable take on the topic being discussed. So, I do not moderate AUTOCAT.
Ellen McGrath wrote: "One of my concerns is with misinformation passed via discussion lists. I doubt that people seriously set out to do so, but inadvertently, this can and does happen. I am a cataloger, so the list most closely connected to my work is AUTOCAT. It's a wonderful list and I think it has made a huge impact on catalogers over all the world, especially those catalogers who may not have anyone else to talk to on a regular basis.
"I know that is the nature of discussion lists, but in my opinion, this is not emphasized enough in FAQs, etc. Basically each person who posts a message to a list is giving only his/her interpretation and/or opinion of a given topic. Sometimes we can give it more or less weight in reading if we happen to know the person's individual background, but all too often this is not the case."
Anne Abate comments that discussion lists are like professional conferences, with some people speaking at every opportunity and others never speaking at all. I agree. The list is fortunate where the frequent posters are as knowledgeable as they are helpful. But they can get on other people's nerves, especially if they are seen to have a hidden agenda.
Anne Abate wrote: "On the other hand, consider a professional conference. There are those who are extremely active -- speaking at every opportunity, asking questions, attending the parties, etc. etc. There are also those who are barely seen, and yet are happy to be in this position. Perhaps the discussion list is just a further extension of this behavior."
On the whole I like lists and believe they serve a valuable purpose: to connect the otherwise disconnected. While one risks getting some incorrect answers when one posts a question, you also are open to getting answers from the most authoritative sources and from a variety of perspectives that are just not available locally. Since my history in librarianship long predates the rise of lists I can remember the times in the past when I agonized, often for unproductively long periods, over problems that I could not resolve. Now, in those situations, I could describe my problem on a list and expect to get, at the very least, some different perspectives and, at best, an authoritative solution.
Gene Kinnaly
Cataloger Computer Files and Microforms Team
Special Materials Cataloging Division
Library of Congress
101 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. 20540-4371
Voice: (202) 707-2722
Fax: (202) 707-7161
gkin@loc.gov
Outstanding topic! I have been a CRISTAL-ED lurker for many months -- the topics have been interesting, even fascinating at times -- but I haven't felt the urge to participate until this current thread was introduced.
I also subscribe to numerous library-related lists, and I actively participate in some (AUTOCAT, LIBSUP, NMRT-L, etc.) and lurk on others. Although the mechanisms are the same, and the potential for involvement exists with each, I find that I subscribe to different lists for very different reasons, and the degree to which I actively participate depends on a number of factors: other subscribers and their posts, the influence of the list owner, the "flavor" of the list, the relevance to my job, my perception of how my posts might be received by list subscribers (and the subsequent reaction of others to those posts), and so on.
It seems to me that many (most?) lists go through an evolutionary cycle, one that repeats as new subscribers join and old subscribers depart -- or no longer participate. The ebb and flow of ideas coupled with an ever-changing subscriber base makes for some interesting dynamics -- the same source that provides new questions and thoughts also produces some of the same old threads that have already be discussed ad nauseam by those subscribed to the list for an extended period.
Personally, I find the atmosphere more cordial, the people more friendly, and the information more reliable on electronic discussion groups than on news groups, possibly due to the different distribution methods used for each. To me, there is certainly more a sense of community on lists, and I think this is one of the most interesting and attractive aspects of discussion lists.
Paul B. Wiener
Special Services Librarian
SUNY at Stony Brook
pwiener@ccmail.sunysb.edu
While Ilene Frank's answer makes perfect sense, if you're job-hunting or a political animal, if you spend your life worrying about the consequences of what you say, you'll end up a likeable mouse. I should know. And she's right: it works both ways. You almost never offend someone without someone else cheering your position.
I've found that one of the best ways to flush out lurkers is to say something provocative, mildly offensive or simply off-the-wall. It makes little sense to disparage lurkers, though: how many authors or journalists know who is reading their work?
I'm still flabbergasted that anyone can belong to 36 (or was it 48?) lists, and even find time to enter a few frays. The time it takes to delete, scan, and even receive so much mail is a bit beyond my imagining, even with a very fast line, great filters, and digest formats. Maybe, like some credit cards, one can consolidate all memberships into one list that then distributes messages by filtered keyword (or does this exist already?).
G. LeGrande Fletcher
Government Documents/Microforms Librarian
Brigham Young University
Howard W. Hunter Law Library
260C JRCB
Provo UT 84602-8000
Voice: (801) 378-9051
Fax: (801) 378-2188
LeGrande_Fletcher@byu.edu
I see discussion lists serving librarianship in three ways:
Professional Development for Newcomers
Ellen McGrath pointed out that she needed to train a newer librarian how to evaluate discussion list information. I wonder: How do we teach newcomers to our profession about discussion lists? What is the role of the library school in such a process?
I lurked quite a bit on a number of library (and nonlibrary) related lists while a library school student. I learned via discussion lists the personality types in different areas of our profession (and our profession's collective reactions to those personalities), what sort of fodder gets chewed by librarianship's sacred cows, and how very helpful librarians are to others.
I realized later that I was using the discussion lists as a beginning librarian to broaden my view of our profession beyond my personal face-to-face encounters with librarians I knew or had worked with.
I probably ingested a fair amount of misinformation (and spread some myself) as a newcomer, learning in the process the relative value of discussion list information among other sources of professional wisdom. (And, I found that discussion list participation and reading improved my professional conference experience [and visa versa] as I put names with faces and faces with discussion list names.)
My personal experience convinces me that librarianship is stronger today because of discussion lists devoted to our profession, yet I wonder about ways to shorten the learning curve for others. I like Dan Lester's taking the time to tell newcomers about discussion lists' public/private paradox. How about the application of other rules of the information road designed to keep information flowing smoothly without damage to too many people or ideas?
How do we help the beginning library school student who posts an uniformed question (or a survey) to a list, especially if they learn from their faux paus and improve?
Discussion Lists for Helping Library Users
How do discussion lists fit into the overall realm of information which librarians collect, organize, archive and help others find?
I've used discussion list info to answer patron questions in various ways: retrieving a prior post I had seen on the patron's topic, finding likely info for a patron on a discussion list archive, and/or showing a patron relevant discussion lists (or archives). And, I've seen some lists often used for interlibrary loan requests.
If discussion lists are valuable to our profession and library users, should such lists be cataloged in our OPACs, archived on our library servers, and preserved? Are they evaluated differently from printed newsletters libraries subscribe to? Should they be indexed with Library Literature or similar periodical indexes?
Librarianship Introspective Research
I have not looked very hard for such research, but I've seen very little analysis of library-related discussion list traffic and usage (beyond this current discussion on CRISTAL-ED).
Are any library school professors or others looking directly at what kinds of librarians are using discussion lists, for what purposes, what the types of questions are being asked (and not asked and/or answered), and how discussion lists relate to the our profession's statements about itself: professional literature, conference programs, library school curricula, books, mission statements, etc.?
For example, as a law librarian I'd love to see a statistical and qualitative analysis of the posts to the U.S. law librarians' discussion list (law-lib@ucdavis.edu) over the past decade. AUTOCAT and other long-standing lists are good candidates for similar examinations.
Additional research may take into account the changing technologies librarians use to access and participate in discussion lists (such as autoreply E-mail software, E-mail that puts posts automatically into different folders, etc.), the changing use of disc lists as Baby Boomers move into library management positions and are no longer newcomers, or, the impact of reward systems on participation (such as whether an academic librarian gets tenure or recognition based on publishing something in print vs on a disc list).
I think empirical studies of how discussion lists impact our profession (and visa versa) will tell us much about discussion lists and about librarianship, and the impact of us dissing (or not) discussion lists.
Larry R. Oberg
University Librarian
Mark O. Hatfield Library
Willamette University
Salem, Oregon
loberg@willamette.edu
The problematic behavior of individual subscribers and issues of netiquette can be a problem, but they should not obscure the evident benefits that electronic discussion groups such as CRISTAL-ED bring to professionals and scholars alike.
When I founded Collib-L (the College Librarians List), I intended it to provide a useful forum for the discussion of practical problems and theoretical issues among college librarians, particularly those who work at small, less well funded schools in rural or isolated areas. Having worked in such schools myself, I was acutely aware of the professional isolation from which one can suffer. This isolation hinders individual growth and professional development, impedes the design and development of new collections and services, and isolates librarians and scholars from their peers. In my opinion, Collib-L has served its role admirably well.
The role of the moderator, I believe, has been central to the development of Collib-l, a list that attempts to engage subscribers in productive, if informal, discussions of both theory and practice, keep librarians aware of new developments in the field, and minimize professional isolation through communication and collaboration. List moderators set the tone of the discussion and, through their actions or inaction, either encourage or discourage postings. After five years, Collib-L has found its voice, a voice that hovers somewhere between oral and written communication and, I believe, elevates rather than depresses discourse. I suspect that the developmental path followed by Collib-L is similar to that of other lists as well.
Stevan Harnad suggests that LISTSERVs are akin to the scholarly letter that characterized an earlier era. This is probably truer for highly specialized lists, however, than it is for the more general ones. Collib-l actively encourages participation from support staff as well as librarians. This mix of perspectives is reflected in the eclectic nature of the postings and reflects the range and interrelatedness of our concerns.
The fact that LISTSERVs, at least the unrestricted ones, are democratic forums in which the postings of a student shelver receives the same attention and consideration as those of the director tends to come as a surprise to the uninitiated. This is an important function of lists, however, because in most libraries at least, we have yet to design and implement an organizational structure in which student employees, support staff, and even line librarians are fully comfortable in voicing their concerns and opinions.
LISTSERVs do tend to favor those with excellent verbal and rhetorical skills and those with chutzpah and network savvy. These folks tend to dominate conversations and can discourage postings from others who may find themselves intimidated. It is here that the list moderator can serve a helpful function by posting judicious even-handed summaries when off-the-cuff conversations become cantankerous, by communicating directly with those who cross over the line, by encouraging different perspectives on an issue, or by soliciting contributions from interested but underrepresented cohorts. It is unfortunate that we tend to tar those who do not regularly post as "lurkers." "Readers" would be a more generous and less pejorative appellation. Although active participation may be desirable, it nonetheless seems to me perfectly appropriate to monitor a list without participating.
At their best, lists enfranchise the disenfranchised, diminish professional isolation, stimulate thought and discussion, resolve practical problems, and advance the development of theory. In my experience, subscribers have become more, not less, sophisticated since the inception of these electronic discussion forums. The voices I hear are less cantankerous, ornery, tedious, and trivial than they were in the past. Although some of us still routinely suffer the flames and arrows of our less tolerant peers, we are probably better than we were at composing messages that are less likely to provoke. (At the same time, it is interesting to me that quite recently some of our most notorious agents-provocateurs have worn the badge of list trouble-maker with pride, much as gays have reclaimed the pink triangle, a symbol of their repression during the Nazi holocaust.)
Those who complain of E-litter and list overload may not be clear on what to expect from a list and have yet to sort out their priorities, I suspect. Willard McCarty suggests that "the anxiety of information overload ... originates partially in the frustrated desire to preserve the transitory and .. points to our need for a model to tell us what E-mail is, what to expect of it, and ... how to handle it."
In sum, the concerns we have about E-conversations have not outweighed our enthusiasm for this new medium. Lists clearly satisfy many of the conversational, practical and even scholarly communication needs of librarians. Most of us use them more judiciously than we did in the past, are less unsure about list protocol than we were, and will no doubt eventually sort out our priorities and come to grips with list overload.
I believe that lists are having a salutary effect upon the profession by helping to create a common agenda for change in a particularly volatile period in our history.
William Arthur Liebi
Academic Librarian
Stadt- und Universitaetsbibliothek
Bern, Switzerland
liebi@stub.unibe.ch
Dan Lester
3577 East Pecan
Boise, ID 83716-7115
Voice: (208) 383-0165
dan@84.com
"LISTSERVs do tend to favor those with excellent verbal and rhetorical skills and those with chutzpah and network savvy."
This, of course, is no different than the case of staff meetings, ALA committees (or council!), your Faculty Senate, and so forth. For that matter, there were a multitude of examples in yesterday's Senate Hearing and today's morning news shows. Handling some of those folks must certainly be very difficult. Fortunately, lists rarely get that difficult to handle.
Now to a VERY IMPORTANT point that I hope ALL of us will pay attention to. I'm not picking on any one person, as it is a very widespread sin. There are no such thing as "listservs". LISTSERV is a registered trademark of L-Soft International, Inc. They try to protect their trademark as carefully as do the owners of Scotch Tape, Xerox, Kodak, Kleenex, Frisbee, and so forth. Just as the Frisbee folks will remind you that other similar products are "flying disks" and Xerox will remind you that "xerox is not a verb", L-Soft will remind you that unless you're talking about their product, you're discussing mailing list software or mailing lists (or similar terms that do not violate their registered trademark). We librarians are normally very careful about protecting the privacy rights of our users and the copyrights of authors. We should be just as careful about protecting trademarks of products we use.
Since this mailing list doesn't happen to use LISTSERV software, we should be particularly careful about referring to this list inappropriately.
You can find out more about LISTSERV and other products and services.
I have no financial interest in L-Soft. I've been an extremely satisfied user for almost a decade and would never own a list using any other list management software.
Robert Bauchspies
Research Services Librarian
The Export-Import Bank of the United States
811 Vermont Ave., NW Room 966
Washington, D.C. 20571
robert.bauchspies@exim.gov
... many wonderful posts by such a diverse group.
My only add would be to caution tendencies to stroke the well established and ignore the unknown. I've noticed that on occasion, depending on who is hosting what, participation can flood in or it can be near completely absent. Determining this as exclusively topic driven or local circumstance dictates would be naive.
Unlike Professor Underwood's comment about the "need" to contribute to every discussion, I find a genuine interest and do try to make time to contribute something to most themes. This perhaps will change over time but as a practicing librarian and one who has spent some time beyond the MLS in LIS, I throw my "two cents" in for what it is worth with some regularity.
As UMich ranks near the top in American "LIS" schools and with such support as from the Kellogg Foundation, what we do here is important and does have consequence. The list audience here is substantial and quite international. At every turn we should encourage participation and seek out our own activities and experience and offer it to the list when relevant (no matter how provocative).
Long posts can be printed, employers can and do audit the net (among other things), and academic lists such as CRISTAL-ED do offer something to the publishing academic community. What that is remains wanting in it's recognition. Having seen the roster of members, I remain hopeful that the sages will find company with the neophytes for free. Fear and posture should be minimized.
Could CRISTAL-ED ever become the leading edge in LIS theory and practice? Would we want it to? The medium for information delivery should never discount the content. Truth in advertising is a different matter.
Paul B. Wiener
Special Services Librarian
SUNY at Stony Brook
pwiener@ccmail.sunysb.edu
How can anybody say it better than Larry Oberg? I can attest to his skill, diplomacy, tolerance, patience, and power as a list moderator, since I've benefitted so much from it.
With all due respect (overpriced, I think) to the copyright laws, as a student of language and literature I can't take too seriously anyone's interest in "protecting" the name of "LISTSERV." The same comments have been made about "Band-Aid" and many other trade names that have become household words. That's the way language works and there can be no greater compliment to a brand name. "Mailing list" on the other hand, often sounds trivial and derogatory. I prefer "list."
The discussions on this topic have been so good it might be a good idea to consider publishing them, or a digest/summary/re-working of them in a little booklet on library lists. U-M and other LIS's would surely use them as curricular materials. I wonder if CRISTAL-ED has been thinking of adding such print publications to its functions? A few other discussions merit it too. Of course, editors would be needed.
Judith Hopkins
Listowner of Autocat
ulcjh@acsu.buffalo.edu
Paul Wiener said: "With all due respect (overpriced, I think) to the copyright laws, as a student of language and literature I can't take too seriously anyone's interest in 'protecting' the name of 'LISTSERV.' The same comments have been made about 'Band-Aid' and many other trade names that have become household words. That's the way language works and there can be no greater compliment to a brand name. 'Mailing list' on the other hand, often sounds trivial and derogatory. I prefer 'list.'"
The problem with calling an electronic discussion list a "listserv" is not that it infringes copyright (which it doesn't) or that it infringes a trademark (which it probably does); it is that it is an imprecise and inaccurate use of language. "LISTSERV" is the name of one mailing list management software package (examples of others are "Listproc," "Majordomo" (which is used to run CRISTAL-ED), and "Mailserv"). What the software manages are lists. Call them lists, E-lists, E-mail lists, electronic discussion lists; whatever. Just don't call them LISTSERVs.
Dan Lester
3577 East Pecan
Boise, ID 83716-7115
Voice: (208) 383-0165
dan@84.com
Paul, I don't believe I said "copyright." I trust that I said "registered trademark." There are some similarities in principle (I'm not a lawyer, thank goodness), but a trademark is just as important a property as a copyright. In fact, the top level of either one is worth millions, if not billions. Do you think that Bill Gates would mind if I started selling a cheap "microsoft word processor" that I developed? Do you think that the people that make Porsche autos would be happy if I starting calling the Hondas I sell "Porsches," or even "Portias"? You bet they all would.
The key is NOT that it is a compliment. The key is that if I make a quality product, perhaps the first of its kind, and have spent millions of dollars developing the public's awareness of my quality product, it is certainly detrimental to my interests to let others use that name to sell an inferior or copycat product. Tom Clancy probably wouldn't be happy with me putting out some trashy novels with his name on them, either.
"The discussions on this topic have been so good it might be a good idea to consider publishing them, or a digest/summary/re-working of them in a little booklet on library lists. U-M and other LIS's would surely use them as curricular materials. I wonder if CRISTAL-ED has been thinking of adding such print publications to its functions? A few other discussions merit it too. Of course, editors would be needed."
Actually, there are a multitude of Web sites that cover these issues, though perhaps not as brilliantly as some of us said them here. I personally doubt there's a market, but being of the free-enterprise bent, I'd sure never oppose anyone trying such a project. I'd gladly share anything I've written as long as credit is provided.
You may join the discussion and look over the list of past and future topics.
 |
|