Old New Hot Things

As I write the Computers in Libraries Conference is going on. Fortunately, I didn't have to go. My library already has computers and we all know how to use them, so the novelty has worn off. Attending a whole conference to talk about them seems a bit much. (And for that person I talked to at the conference, I was just kidding. I'm not the Annoyed Librarian.)

Some librarians are there talking about exciting hot topics like blogs and wikis. I know because I read a blog post by someone at a preconference there talking about blogs and wikis. This is pretty difficult stuff, after all, and well worth yet more time talking about it. Take my own case, for example. A couple of years ago I got frustrated with the mess the ALA Council sometimes is, so I searched Google for "blog," found Blogger, typed a few keystrokes, and the AL was born. With some good librarian guidance from the bloggers that be, I could have saved myself a lot of time. For example, I could have gone straight to Blogger instead of through Google, thus saving myself 0.12 seconds. Otherwise, it ain't that hard. Even I have a blog, and according to some of my critics, in addition to being a warmongering fascist, I'm also a luddite and a technophobe.

However, knowing that someone was inevitably talking about various twopointopian tools got me thinking about all the hot new trends that have come and gone over the years, some more with a whimper than a bang. A few years ago, it seemed like you couldn't go to ALA without someone dragging you into a session on virtual reference. Before that, I remember a lot of sessions on information literacy. And it just goes back and back. Regardless of the topic, there always seem to be a handful of librarians who have their 15 minutes of fame by explaining simple topics in complex language to groups of librarians distinguished by their vast ignorance, their lack of curiosity, and their complete inability to find out any information for themselves.

I've been a librarian for a long time, but I know plenty of you have been around longer than me or have read up on library history more than I have. What are some of the past trends that were going to remake our library world? In the forties and fifties, I bet librarians were all talking about how exciting microfilm was. I read a blog post recently that mentioned an article about the initial challenges of telephone reference. I bet those were some exciting conference conversations! A friend doing some library related research told me about some ALA discussions in the seventies about the impact of cable television on libraries, including some arguing that libraries should start producing cable TV content, because, after all, this was the revolutionary communication tool of the future. I haven't seen the documents, but I bet the cabletvtopians among the librarians sound a lot like the twopointopians today.

In the past, were there librarians who were so awed by hot new trends that they discussed ways to integrate them into the library? In the late fifties, did some children's librarians suggest holding hula hoop parties in the library, you know, for the kids? Were there impassioned discussions about the 8-track tape? What are we going to do about this electronic calculator thing? Answering machines: reference tools of the future? Pac Man: what library uses does it have? Human cloning: can we use this to solve the "librarian shortage" problem?

All the hot new things, whatever were we going to do with them. How could libraries ever survive without hula hoop parties or cable TV production? I wonder what some of these hot new things were, that are now merely the stuff of history. What did the librarians talk about at conferences in times past that now seem quaint? I would actually do some research to answer this question, but that would require work. Instead, I leave it to my kind readers. What old new things can you remember that were once going to revolutionize our libraries, or that librarians once fretted over?

Marathon County Library Leaders Strike Back!

LISNews had a couple of posts yesterday pointing out responses from the president of the Marathon County Public Library Board of Trustees and the director of the Marathon County Public Library to criticism of their move to demote, reclassify, and/or fire and rehire at a lower salary some librarians in Wisconsin. The Marathon County Public Library seems destined for a movie-of-the-week treatment, if you ask me.

The president of the board of trustees responded to the Wassau Herald (itself!). According to her, the articles about demoting the librarians "seem to reflect a lack of information and, in some cases, outright misinformation." In other words, they are the work of ignorant liars. Strong words! Fortunately, the trustee board president sets us all straight:

"In your articles, which were published on the front page last month, it was reported that certain positions at the Marathon County Public Library would be reclassified into newer, lower paid positions. In actuality, the existing master of library science, or MLS, librarian positions were eliminated, and four new MLS positions were created."

Oh, well, that's completely different, isn't it. Those newspaper articles were just complete bollocks, obviously. They weren't reclassifying any positions into newer, lower paid positions. No, they were recreating those positions into new, lower paid positions. Something tells me that subtle difference is lost on the librarians in that library. Of course, from what I've gathered, everyone who could leave left before this happened, so the remaining librarians must have seen something like this coming.

The basic problem, according to this trustee board president, is that the librarians just aren't doing much professional work anymore. "For example, the reduced amount of work requiring a master's degree is a direct result of increased electronic access to information they previously provided. In 2007, only about 57 percent of the reference (complex) questions from the past year were handled at the Adult Reference Desk." I'm not quite sure what the significance is of the 57% of questions being handled at the adult reference desk, but obviously this trustee board president hasn't heard that "professional" library work is no longer defined by anything so elitist as answering complex questions. Did she consider whether the librarians were writing blogs? Or playing videogames? Or making wikis? Or posting pictures of their library signs to Flikr? These are the things the hot new librarians are all doing. They even teach them in library school. Aren't those professional activities?

She just doesn't mention things like this, so we can't know for sure what she thinks of them. However, something tells me that the twopointopian rhetoric about what librarians should all be doing wouldn't fly with many library board members around the country. The twopointopians say we need more librarians who are passionate about technology and change and radical trust and all that stuff. What libraries need are more librarians who can defend libraries to the general public and to library boards. But which do you think is easiest to blog about or give HOT talks about at conferences?

The library director herself hasn't been silent on this issue. Another Wisconsin public library director had the nerve to criticize the Marathon County director on the Wisconsin library listserv (or whatever it is):

"I understand tough budget decisions and the difficult times libraries are facing. However, I don't understand devaluing library staff in this way. Sending this message to library staff that their work is not complicated, not worth the money they have been earning, and not worth their library degree is harsh. It has to impact the service that library offers the public. And loss of these veteran professional librarians will definitely make the service there suffer."

But the Marathon County director pooh-poohed all this namby-pamby, touchy-feely nonsense. She doesn't think she's victimizing anyone. Victimizers never think that, just for the record.

"The reduction in reference questions does NOT necessarily mean less work at public service desks. Public service takes place at all points of contact with the people who enter our buildings or visit us on the web, be it the Reference Desk, the Circulation Desk, the Information Desk as you enter the building, or in the stacks as books are being shelved."

This sort of makes it irrelevant whether only 57% of the questions are answered at the adult reference desk. But wait!

"The real question is 'How much of that public service work requires a Masters Degree?' If the answer is that a declining amount requires that advanced degree, then how can we justify maintaining the same staff to do less work?"

That's just mean! But let's engage this poor deluded director for a moment. How much of that public service does actually require a master's degree? How many of us in our heart of hearts can answer truthfully, all of it!

Let's take a look at this objectively. (As faithful readers of the AL know, I'm nothing if not objective.) The objective view would have to be that no one but librarians seems to give a damn about what librarians can do or should be doing.

The ALA certainly doesn't care. They prattle on about so-called "banned" books and promote videogaming in libraries, but they don't address any professional concerns of librarians. As long as you pay your dues and tout the ALA ideology, they don't care what happens to you.

Library schools don't care. Take a look at the course offerings and faculty research interests at the better "library" schools. How much of any of that has to do with libraries? Not much. Library school professors (or "library scientists" as they sometimes call themselves) train other library school professors. They don't work in libraries and sometimes they've never worked in libraries, and they are usually more concerned with "information" than libraries, especially in those schools which have dropped "library" from their name.

But wait, what about the prominent library bloggers? No, they don't care, either. The Shifted Librarian and the Webtamer aren't even librarians, and no one's writing about how to justify public libraries to an indifferent public or to library boards, as far as I know. It's much easier to promote videogames and library blogs than do anything useful. Play more games and use more social software and they will come!

Recently, a faithful reader emailed me. Among the comments were the following:

"This reader is not sure if your intention is to harm the public library to reduce your property taxes or some such nonsense. A few people who think this way post comments on your blog.

You have power, use it wisely."

I've yet to respond. (As an aside, I've been getting a LOT of email recently, and I'm falling behind in my responses. Please keep sending fan mail and stuff to get annoyed about. If I don't respond promptly, it's not that I don't love you more than your mother does, it's just that I'm so busy.)

Personally, I don't think I have any power at all, but let me be blunt. My intention is NOT to harm the public library. However, I can't help but point out lunacy when I see it.

The problem with public libraries isn't that they don't provide useful and necessary services; it's that they can't figure out how to justify their existence to the public and the powers that be. The ALA does nothing. Their idea of advocacy for libraries is their Washington Office, which as far as I can tell backs the losing side in any legislative battle they enter. They have nothing to say at a local level. The library schools aren't doing anything. They've long been accused of not teaching anything practical about libraries, and increasingly they seemed to be focused on anything BUT libraries and their struggle for existence. The twopointopians and the gamey librarians are doing worse than nothing. They're dressing up amateurish nonsense in the guise of professionalism and they think they're doing libraries a favor.

Some of you may be overjoyed at what's happening in Wassau, WI, and some of you may be outraged. Some of you might not care one way or another. But don't make the mistake of thinking this will be an isolated incident. Until public librarians can justify themselves to people who don't care about twopointopia or gaming or informatics or "banned" books, this is the sort of thing that will happen. Some of you reading this hate libraries and want to change them into some techno-funland. What you'll end up doing is getting rid of public librarians and eroding public libraries. I hope you're enjoying yourselves.

And for all you library school students looking forward to being public librarians (rather than gamey "librarians" or twopointopians), good luck. You'll need it.

Gamey Librarian

For all you gamey librarians out there, your dream has come true! Take a look at this job ad!

You can go to River Someplace, IL and be the Gamey Librarian. Check out this description:

"Under the direction of the library Director, the successful candidate will be responsible for conceiving, designing, implementing, operating, and evaluating innovative interactive environments relevant to the library gaming community."

Doesn't that sound exciting?

Here are the minimum qualifications:

"• You are a Gamer"
That makes sense. It might help to be gamey as well.

"• Strong public service commitment and positive attitude"
Because that's really the essence of the gamey librarian. I assume "positive attitude" means that no matter how ridiculous something is you have to pretend you're excited about it. That's probably why I would make a bad gamey librarian.

"• Ability to generate buzz and excitement while maintaining order"
How exactly would one prove this qualification? Perhaps the candidate would have to generate buzz and excitement among the search committee, while still maintaining order, of course. I find my juggling act usually does the trick.

"• Higher level technology skills"
What could this mean? Programming? Disassembling a carburetor? Take a look at the job requirements. What exactly would call for any high level tech skills? Or perhaps that means you have to be able to get to the higher levels of some of the games.

"• Ability to bend, reach move and lift up to 40 pounds"
Of course, because bending and lifting 40 pounds is at the heart of any good videogame.

Pay special attention to one of the preferred qualifications:

"• You are a librarian"
One would think this is a minimum qualification for a job as a Gamey Librarian, but not anymore. Anyone who play videogames, generate buzz, and lift 40 pounds can be a "librarian." You should have saved your money and skipped library school.

It's only the fact that an MLS isn't required that this doesn't go on my Library Jobs that Suck list, since it's only a very part-time position. Jobs open for only 10-12 hours per week that require a library degree are definitely library jobs that suck. I know, I'm just being cynical. 10 hour per week "librarian jobs are great for those librarians who just need to make a little pocket money because their spouse makes the real income, plus it saves the library from having to pay benefits. A win-win scenario.

I know some librarians out there would be thrilled at the prospect of being the gamey librarian in your library, all those librarians who find traditional libraries so boring, what with all their books and information and that dull educational mission. Traditional libraries just aren't FUN, and these days if something isn't FUN then there's no reason for it exist. The library has a new mission to entertain us all to death. Education=boring. Gamey librarian=FUN. It's that simple.

Others of you might pay more attention to the fact that this is a crappy part-time job being advertised as a "librarian" position that requires no knowledge at all about libraries. You don't need to know anything about libraries if the library is just a rec center, so hire enough gamey librarians and the place will be filled to the brim with teenagers. There'll be so many teenagers playing games that the library will have to get rid of the books to make room for them.

Crappy job. Part time. For a "librarian." Requires no degree and no knowledge of libraries. No benefits and probably little pay. It's certainly easier to hire librarians like this than demote the ones you already have. All of you who promote gamey librarianship for the future of libraries can rest easy. The future is now, and this is what it looks like. Have FUN!

Demoting Librarians

By now many of you have read about the poor little Marathon County Public Library in Wisconsin. That's the library where three of their librarians are being demoted and having their pay cut. The library is eliminating its professional librarian positions "in favor of creating three customer service librarian positions and one lead customer service librarian spot." It turns out that a "customer service librarian position" pays $10,000 per year less than a regular old "librarian position." Customer service isn't all gravy, I guess. The more librarians start to sound like they have an MBA instead of an MLS, the more suspicious I become, but I seem to be in the minority. Customer service, here we come!

According to the board, they have some financial problems there in Marathon County, and the choice was to cut some pay or fire some librarians. Who knows what the real story is, though. Eleven staff members have left in the past year, and a couple of the librarians accuse management of trying to drive out older librarians. All in all, it doesn't seem a pleasant place to work.

Except for the pay cut, this would seem to be the sort of thing that the twopointopians and the frustrated trendsetters and the gaming librarians all want, but there are probably some crusty librarians who'll be upset by this.

From the article: "The reorganization also aims to meet the ever-changing needs of customers, she said. Librarians today do less complex work, she said -- calling for pay adjustments and more technological assistance. [What does this mean?]

'We're really becoming a community center,' she said. 'Our public has different requirements of us.,"

That's a lot of "she saids" in three sentences, but let's ignore the sloppy writing and instead focus on the "ever-changing needs of customers." Isn't this the kind of thing we always hear from the twopointopians any time they try to deny they're not a cult of technology? "No, we're about focusing on the customers!" It turns out that focusing on customers isn't really anything you need librarians for. Clerks at Walmart focus on customers, just like clerks in a library. If you try to be all things to all people and have no idea what a library is for (except to bring in "customers"), what do you really think will happen? You'll be treated like a retail clerk, of course, or perhaps a program planner or something else, but certainly not a professional librarian. Librarians have to focus on building expertise and promoting that, not on bending over the reference desk with a big "kick me" sign on their bottoms saying they'll do absolutely anything to get people through the doors.

Let's examine the library director's public rationalization for cutting salaries. "Librarians today do less complex work." Is this true? I'm not sure about that, but it's certainly possible. I'm not even sure what librarians do these days. My job has become almost too complex to describe. But I can be sure that the more generalized libraries become, the less likely they need librarians. Librarians used to have special functions that they learned in library school. When library school students can spend their time in "graduate" seminars playing videogames, then they're not really learning any special skills. Teenage boys play videogames, and we all know they're the stupidest people on earth. And if these librarians don't have any special skills, then what makes them any different from mere ordinary mortals without MLS degrees? You don't need a graduate degree to play videogames or use Twitter or schedule community space.

"We're really becoming a community center." Isn't that what so many librarians want? They don't want to be book warehouses or perceived as places for quiet study or reading or justify their existence because the commonwealth needs educated citizens to survive. That's so stuffy and old fashioned! No, they want to be fun and vibrant and happening, where people come and drink coffee and play videogames and dance. Those librarians get excited about stuff like this (which has to be one of the most annoying and insipid blogs not written by a librarian I've ever seen. Anyone who uses creative as a noun is a moron). Libraries want to be cool. Here's a description of what one Wisconsin public librarian does: "I plan and promote library programs for a living." This is from a post called "The library as community center," and the author makes it sound exciting and important and, what's more, beneficial to the library. The library should be perceived as a community center, and the more people come the better it is. That's all great, but it doesn't take professional librarians to plan and promote library programs, and there's nothing peculiarly librarianesque about program planning. Librarians need a public service mission beyond that.

Many librarians want to turn libraries into community centers, but there's one interesting thing about community centers that a lot of excitable librarians haven't noticed. Community centers don't need librarians. They don't need people with "advanced" degrees in libraries or information or whatnot. They just need people to staff the cafes and plan stuff. Librarians pandering to the public trying to be all things to all people just succeed in making themselves look ridiculous. This might be good for the "customers," but it's not good for libraries or librarians. It's very nice of these selfless librarians to sacrifice their profession for the needs of the "customer."

Several readers sent this story on to me, wanting me to unleash the wrath of the AL on the library board of Wausau, WI. "Let's give them some bad publicity," one wrote. I don't know the full story of what's going on in that library, so I'm not going to unleash my wrath on anyone. But I do see this as possibly the beginning of a trend, the trend to deprofessionalize public librarians by turning libraries into recreational infotainment centers instead of focusing on the traditional mission of libraries to provide books and information. We need libraries because we need an educated citizenry. We need libraries because there are people who can't afford books and magazines and computers, and they need help, too. We need libraries because children need to learn the joys of reading. Libraries provide most of this now, at least any libraries worthy of the name, but that's not enough for some librarians. They don't like the educational mission. They want to be all things to all people. They want to play videogames and have dance parties and reduce the dissimilarity between libraries and malls. Libraries must change! They've got to move with the times!

Well, they're moving with the times, all right, and the people paying the price are librarians. I sure hope the "customers" are benefiting. The twopointopians and the frustrated trendsetters and the videogamers have made the bed, and now the Marathon County librarians have to lie in it. God help us all.

Twopointopians and the Pure Faith

Librarians can be such sheep, always flocking together around the same fads. The only difference is the early sheep and the late sheep. The twopointopians are just the latest in a long series of early sheep. They see some fad and they just jump all over it. It's not the content of the fad that's important. It's just the fact that it's new. Newness is all. Then the newness passes and the sheep come slightly to their senses.

And then again sometimes they don't. A blog post at blyberg.net has been getting a lot of twopointopian blogger press. I don't read blyberg.net, but I would know that he is a twopointopian based only on clues in this post. (I'm sure he doesn't care if I read, but I will say that if he wants me to read he'll let the whole post through on the feed instead of just the first few lines. Almost no blogger is worth clicking through to.) The post is called Library 2.0 Debased, which implies that he thinks Library 2.0 was ever anything important as a concept. And near the end there's a line about the "true spirit of Library 2.0." Talk of the "true spirit" of something and how it has been debased always reminds me of the cultic aspects of the twopointopians. There's a true spirit that's been debased, you see, so we have to get back to the pure faith somehow. Library 2.0 has something to it, even if we don't know what it is. We have to keep the stupid term and keep searching for the true revelation, which will undoubtedly come some day. Too bad the twopointopians don't have more respect for the book. Religions of the Book--notably Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--can always return to their founding documents. The twopointopians don't have any founding documents worth returning to, so they wander in the desert trying to make sense of what they feel must be a worthwhile cult. Ugh.

The fact that this post has been picked up by so many other blogs helps me identify the dissatisfied twopointopians, those hoping to renew the faith. The twopointopians only listen to their own. I've been saying for a year and a half that Library 2.0 is a stupid term and a silly fad, but that just gets me attacks for not being user-centered or being technophobic or whatever it is the twopointopians say about their critics. Quite happily, I'm despised by the Pollyannas out there in libraryland, the ones who think we should all band together singing "Kumbaya" while thoughtlessly sacrificing ourselves for the greater good of humanity. (I always crack up at the responses to the AL that don't understand why anyone would even read this blog because I'm so mean and allegedly self-loathing.) And now some of the early sheep--the high priests and priestesses of twopointopia--are growing uneasy at the perversion of their faith by the hapless masses.

And now to you, hapless masses, also known as the late sheep. You think none of this is your fault, don't you? You think it's all the early sheep thrusting themselves upon you. To some extent that's true. It's difficult to resist the propaganda when you hear it chanted from every blog and article and conference session, but you can resist. Some of us manage to. But not you, late sheep. You're all the ones who go to any talk or workshop with "2.0" in the title, the ones who get all excited by workshops where you set up a blog that you will never post to, a wiki that you will never update, or a feed reader you will never visit again. The ones who are more puzzled than inspired by the insipid rhetoric of the twopointopians and other faddists but nevertheless don't have the fortitude to resist the fads. You have only yourselves to blame. The cult members are happy chattering away to themselves and having no impact whatsoever on the outer world, but you're so enticed by the appeal of being in the know that you listen to their empty messages. The priests and priestesses themselves might know the cult is void of ideas, but the major appeal of a cult is being an insider. But you late sheep want to be insiders, too. You want to know what all the excitement is about.

They're both part of the problem, but the early sheep don't like the late sheep very much. Without the late sheep, the early sheep wouldn't have anybody to feel superior to, but the late sheep have this bad habit of "debasing" the pure faith. The late sheep don't make much of the supposed ideas behind the fad, and they just focus on alleged incidentals like the technology. There aren't any coherent ideas behind the 2.0 fad, so it's no wonder the late sheep have debased the faith. And now the early sheep are upset, and insist upon a return to fundamentals.

The rest of us, perhaps the vast majority, can watch from the heights while the early sheep flock toward their new fads in search of hope and belonging, and the late sheep come along and spoil the celebration for everyone by focusing too much upon the rituals and not enough on the purity of the faith.

The high priests and priestesses of the Cult of Twopointopia insist that their flocks return to fundamentals, that they don't just mutter in darkened corners counting feed subscriptions like so many rosary beads and thinking they know something about Library 2.0. The great thing about this racket for the cultists themselves is the way they can always feel superior, if only because they know that the faith has a fundamental purity and they can spend a couple more years pretending that they're on to something while they give talks and workshops and laughingly survey the late sheep mucking about with execrable blogs and barren wikis. A couple of years ago Blyberg wrote: "If you’ve been reading my blog, you’ll know I believe L2 is a vital and very real movement. You’ll also know that I think it is an ever-changing amalgam of ideas, dreams, and visions." It's vital and real, but fortunately ever changing so the twopointopians always have a new dream or vision to chase.

So the call has gone out to renew the pure faith of this tiresome fad, but there is one consolation. If it wasn't for Library 2.0 and the twopointopians, it would just be some other fad, one that might actually have consequences outside the fevered minds and blogs of the cultists, and that might be much worse for us all.

Libraries Need to Deliver the MOM Factor

Over at LIS News I read about some blogger saying we need to deliver the "Wow factor" in libraries. LIS News seemed excited, but you know me well enough by now to tell that I wasn't. I didn't click through to see if there were any exclamation points used, but obviously there should be. The WOW! Factor! Etc.

Here's the excerpt from LIS News: "As in so many other areas of our profession that need change, another critically important one is to change our own ways of thinking about how to do business. We absolutely must pay more attention to how we can impress our user communities, and what must be done to leverage that to increase our visibility, community buzz and word of mouth about the library."

Whenever I hear words like "business" or "leverage" in a discussion of libraries I usually lose interest. Next thing you know we're talking about "customers," "selling," "synergy," "marketing," "availability floats," "margin accounts" and all the other things that sensitive, cerebral, non-commercial types like myself got into librarianship to escape. I know some librarians get all excited when they think about the latest insipid management fad or marketing technique, but I do wish they would just go work for the Man out in the business world and save the rest of us from this drivel. Apparently they haven't realized that this stuff doesn't work in libraries, because libraries lack things found out in the business world such as profit margins and financial incentives. Perhaps you've heard of them. We can all work ourselves to death delivering the WOW Factor! and we still won't get rewarded for it. Oh, I know, there's the reward of a job well done. Try telling that to a sales manager or an investment banker and see what kind of laugh you'll get. Besides, I don't want to work myself to death. That's why I became a librarian.

No, we'll have to do better than silly phrases like "WOW Factor!," and I think we can. Librarians need to turn such silly phrases on their head, and if you turn WOW on its head, you know what you get? MOM. Isn't that sweet. It's true, too. Just try it and see. What libraries can deliver is the MOM Factor.

And what is the MOM Factor? It's all the stuff good moms should be. Let's explore this for a moment. First, good moms are boring. By that I don't mean they have no interests and have nothing to say. I mean they don't disrupt things too much. Good moms don't get thrown in jail for peddling drugs, nor do they suddenly run off to Acapulco with the gardener. They don't get so obsessed with their latest hobby (tennis, golf, whatever) that they can speak of nothing else, and they don't throw out all your old books and stuff to make room for Dance Dance Revolution parties. They keep your stuff because they know it'll be important to you someday, and that just because something isn't used every day doesn't mean it's not important.

Good moms are there for you, always ready with a cup of tea and a cheering word. They help you when you need help, and that knowledge is like a warm throw on a winter evening. However, they know to let you have your privacy. They aren't always invading your life to tell you how great they are and how much they could do for you if you'd just recognize that greatness. They also don't spend all their time fretting about whether the rise of Google means that moms aren't necessary anymore. Moms don't market or sell themselves. Why should they? They're your mom. Moms are there when you need them and happy to help. They want you to succeed on your own, but they want you to know that you can always come to them if you're having trouble. And when you're grown up and not around all the time, they go about their business because they have lives, too.

Doesn't this sound more cozy and comfortable and useful than that silly old "WOW Factor"? Most of us don't want to be wowed. We want the MOM Factor, and libraries can provide that. Librarians should be welcoming but not too pushy, helpful but not too invasive. Librarians should say, come on in, sit down, have a cuppa, and tell mom what you're looking for.

We Know What Library Five-0 Is and Is Not

Before we begin, I'd like to apologize for the technical problems last week. That Annie Linney is sneaky, and I was totally unprepared for the powerful computer skills she'd honed playing videogames with pimply teenagers. I had to give my security team a good tongue-lashing. Then I sent them out to find Annie and euthanize her, which I figured would be best for all of us. However, she was so bubbly and apologetic once she realized that my security team meant what they said about the maple syrup and the Valium that I relented, and even agreed that I might let her guest post again some time in the distant future. We satisfied ourselves by driving over her laptop with the East Skeeter Public Library bookmobile and making her write a thousand times on the ESPL white board: "I will not hack the AL."

So down to business. We here at the Annoyed Librarian Flea Libary know things about Libraries 1.0 and 2.0, as well as 3.0 and 4.0 (which we've long past). As my long time readers know, the ALFL is a Library Five-0 library, and we're darn proud of it. Considering we've been Library Five-0 for a year and a half, we might have to upgrade to Library Six-0, but we change so constantly we no longer know where everyone is supposed to show up for work, either in person or virtually. While some twopointopians have lately been going on about Library 2.0 as if anyone cared anymore, and some others have been commenting upon their goings on, I thought it would behoove us all to see where the real trends are leading. Library 2.0 and the twopointopians (which might make a good name for a bad band) are sooo last year. Library Five-0 is the future, baby, and, I might add, is the only library trend with its own cool theme song. Since you may be confused about Library Five-0, I'll share some incontrovertible and indisputable facts with you, since I know what Library Five-0 is and is not, and you, obviously, don't.

Library Five-0 is librarian-centric. Actually, we could go further than that. Library Five-0 is techie librarian-centric. Library Five-0 is for all of you librarians feeling useless and unappreciated, who want to show library users how cool and techie you are. This proves that the librarians actually know about something. Unfortunately, it's not anything the users care about, but that's not the point. The point is to show that instead of being shushing spinsters who know about yucky old books and stuff like that, librarians are now computer geeks who go to conferences to get out of their little computer techie shells, get together with a large group of real people, and then spend the entire time blogging about their surroundings. Yep, that's bound to impress normal people as the kind of thing they want from their librarians.

What matters is us, and what we like to do is post pictures and videos of ourselves on the Internet, then Twitter everyone about our latest movements ("Hey, just finished lunch and then had my latest movement"), then IM a bunch of fellow techies and congratulate ourselves about how we "get it," then go to a conference where we either speak in an excited proselytizing tone about how cool everything we do is, or sit staring at our computer screens blogging and IMing while completely ignoring the real people around us.

Library Five-0 is about constant change. From the website of the world's first Library Five-0 library: "We change constantly. We are revolutionary. Do not try to find us in meatspace, as our address changes daily to keep up our reputation for constant change. Do not try to call us, because our phone number changes hourly to keep up our reputation for constant change. Do not try to email us, because our email address changes every half-hour to keep up our reputation for constant change. You can try to reach us through IM, but we change our IM username and client every 15 minutes--to keep up our reputation for constant change. We also change the location of our blog every 10 minutes to keep up our reputation for constant change. Quite frankly, you are lucky to have found this page at all, as we change the URL of our homepage every 5 minutes to keep up our reputation for constant change. We do not even have an RSS feed because we change so fast the director's aggregator exploded. The only thing that never changes is the rhetoric."

We know how everyone loves constant change, and we want to fulfill that need. Not the library users, of course. They don't want constant change, but then again we're not here to make them happy; we're here to make us happy, and it's about time librarians got to be happy about something. Is that so wrong? Oh, wait, most of the other librarians don't want constant change, either. Some of them go so far as to say that the whole idea of "constant change" is just gibberish. Well, fooey on them.

Library Five-0 is just about the technology. Let's be honest for a moment. Some of the twopointopians claim that Library 2.0 isn't just about technology, that it's just the stuff librarians have always been doing, or would have been doing if they weren't such evil librarians and we weren't such good librarians. We know that's malarkey, because if that was the case there would be no need to coin such a stupid phrase to describe something that is already going on. Unless of course the point is to coin a stupid phrase to make it seem like we're doing something new when we really aren't, which will allow a few of us to congratulate ourselves in a heated circle-blog and get ourselves invited to conferences so we can talk about all this stuff that's old but that we've somehow made to seem new. No, wait, that's getting too complicated.

Let's just say that we Library Five-0 librarians prefer not to be so duplicitous. Library Five-0 is about the technology. We like to play around with techie gadgets; what can we say? We're just a bunch of techie geeks who want to start a bunch of new techie initiatives that no one but us wants so that we can pretend our libraries are just big techie toylands for our benefit. Library Five-0 is all about the technology, baby. You know, it felt good to get that off my chest. I'm glad we Library Five-0 librarians don't have to dissemble so much as those poor twopointopians. Those poor devils have to go around hopelessly trying to convince other librarians that Library 2.0 isn't just about the technology when everyone knows it is. I'm not sure who they think they're fooling, but we Library Five-0ers prefer the truth, consequences be damned!

Library Five-0 isn't political. Politics is such a messy sport, especially in libraries, where the politics are so nasty because so little is at stake. The twopointopians are always running into political problems as they try to shove their half-baked techie ideas down everyone's throats while pretending that the users are clamoring for these ideas. Of course one is going to run into political problems when one's idea of politics is all about the Good Us and the Evil Them. The Good Us just wants to have free reign over the entire library to implement whatever silly uncalled-for service we think we might like to waste time playing around with for a while, and the Evil Them just wants to thwart our plans by asking about silly things like empirical research, data-driven change, library budgets, impact on other librarians, actual user expectations, and other big, mean grown up things.

Library Five-0 doesn't have to worry about that, because we're not interested in thrusting ourselves upon everyone else. We don't really care about the library users or our colleagues, and unlike the twopointopians we don't have to pretend we do. We're happy if our administrations give us some computers and cubicles and let us play around all day. They know we won't bother the rest of the librarians if we're busy IMing and Twittering and Flickring and stuff like that, and they like to keep us quiet. That way, everyone benefits.

There, I hope this has set the record straight about what Library Five-0 is and is not. The twopointopians already know this feeling, because they revel in it, but I can say it really does feel great to be superior to the rest of you poor schlubs and tell you like it is. Remember, I'm right and you're wrong, and if you disagree with me it's just because you don't get it and don't love the library users as much as I do. At the Annoyed Librarian Flea Libary, "we love you more than your mama does."®

Library School is Fun!

Some of you out there think playing videogames and hosting dance parties in the library make the library "fun" so that the illiterate kiddies who'd normally never come near the library will show up. (One might ask what difference does it make if they show up, but that's another question.) Now someone has the great idea to make library schools "fun" as well, to make sure that the library school students won't get to bored with all this "education."

If you're reading this blog, there's a good chance that you consider(ed) library school to be tedious and something of an intellectual joke. Library school is boring. We all know that. I think library school could be made less boring by making it more rigorous, in keeping with real graduate programs. But the majority in this, as everything prevails, and we know that can never happen. It'll always be library "science," so why don't we put some fun into it? Thanks should go to Dr. Webtamer, who's putting the FUN into library school!

The Shifted Librarian writes: "I love that my friend, the newly minted Dr. Stephens [i.e., Dr. Webtamer], devoted one of his LIS class nights to gaming. I’m sorry I couldn’t be there to help out, but it sounds like the students did quite well on their own. I would love to see more LIS courses playing and exploring like this, helping the students form their own opinions."

Yep, me too. I'd love to see more so-called graduate school classes devoted to people sitting around playing videogames, you know, so the students can "form their own opinions." Forming opinions--that sounds almost educational! But who cares if it's educational, it's fun! Library school wasn't particularly educational before, so it's not like spending an entire class playing videogames is dumbing down the standard LIS curriculum.

Forming opinions is, as I noted, almost educational. Perhaps I didn't need this class, though, because I've already formed an opinion. I wouldn't want to pay money for a graduate school class and then sit around playing videogames, but that's just me. If this thing absolutely has to be done, then it might be appropriate for a homework assignment (which would be a typically easy and intellectually vacuous library school homework assignment), but I couldn't tolerate it in a class. Is this what graduate school seminars have become? But I know the problem. I just don't like fun.

I've written before that my suspicion that library school was an intellectual joke was confirmed when I was asked to make a poster presentation, which showed me how library school was like the third grade. At least with the poster I was supposed to convey information. If I had been subjected to gaming during class in library school, I'd have been very tempted to sue the university for breach of promise. Graduate programs in universities aren't supposed to have classes where people sit around and play videogames. Or at least I thought so. Apparently I'm wrong. Always remember, it's not graduate school, it's library school, and with a little more of this it could be library FUN school.

I think we've reached the nadir of library "education," the point at which we've given up any pretense of intellectual endeavor, but that's okay. We should embrace this diversity. Library science isn't much of an intellectual endeavor anyway, so we might as well have FUN doing it. You can't really have a graduate "education" worthy of the name when you teach classes in storytelling and pop-up books. It was always my hope that there was some possibility of intellectual engagement in a program that billed itself as a graduate school, but intellectual pursuits are so elitist. Better just to play games, because apparently everyone in the world wants librarians to play games and host parties.

Get away from training people to entertain the kiddies, and the rest of the program has at least the possibility of something remotely resembling graduate education, right? Absolutely not, so let's rejoice that someone has seen the light, and offer more classes on "library 2.0 and social networking." I think we can now see the intellectual content of library 2.0. I haven't been hearing much from the twopointopians lately, and now I suspect it's because they've been playing videogames, apparently an important part of both library 2.0 and social networking.

Shifted also quotes from a couple of blogs related to the class. One student writes: "How do you make your college-age son jealous? Tell him you played Guitar Hero… in school…for a class…while the teacher was there." There's another way of looking at that. What if you're a young student and your parents are paying for all or part of your "graduate education"? How do you make your parents happy? Tell them you played Guitar Hero . . . in school . . . for a class . . . while the teacher was there. Or when you groan while paying back that $25,000 in student loans (and that day will come), just remember how much fun library school was, when you got to sit around in class and play Guitar Hero . . . in school . . . for a class . . . while the teacher was there. Education 2.0 in action, baby!

What's better than to pay for a course where you get to sit around and play videogames? It might seem like you're just wasting your money, but remember, this is library "education." It's not like "Libraries, Society, and You" has much intellectual content anyway. Sit through this stuff and you'll have an intellectually bankrupt "graduate" degree that might get you a mediocre library job somewhere if you're lucky. But after all, what do you expect of a degree where you sit around in class playing videogames?

If we just admit that library school is an intellectual joke, then libraries can also benefit. Libraries should do themselves a financial favor. If library school is to teach you how to play videogames and libraries are there to host dance parties and bring in the kiddies, forget these "educated" librarians. Libraries don't need them for this kind of work. This stuff doesn't require a master's degree, or even a college degree. Cataloging? Not necessary if everything's online. Reference? Are you kidding? We've got Google, what do we need with reference librarians.

The salvation of libraries is videogaming and parties, and we don't need librarians for that. Hire some smart teens for $12/hour to host dance parties and play videogames and troubleshoot the computers and check out the occasional DVD. Plus, they already know how to play videogames and dance. They wouldn't have to waste time in class learning these things. The teens are motivated and self-directed and they play games on their own. They'd probably do just as good a job as the librarians and the libraries wouldn't have to pay extra for the so-called master's degree. That sounds like the best thing for the "customers," and that's what we're really all about.

For This We Need Librarians?

"The Commonwealth requires the education of the people as the safeguard of order and liberty." That's what it says on the side of the Boston Public Library building. These days order and liberty don't need to be safeguarded, I guess, or at least libraries have nothing to do with it since that requires the education of the people. Educating the people is so boring, though. These days the Boston Public Library is "moving with the times," according to this article. "At the Boston Public Library each month, teenagers get down to the vigorous techno thumps of the popular arcade game Dance Dance Revolution."

Kimberly Lynn, president of the Massachusetts Library Association, likes it. "We are not your grandmother's library," she says, whatever that means. What if my grandmother lives in Boston, though? Doesn't that mean you are in fact my grandmother's library? Oh, I know. It means they don't like old people in the library. Old people read books and pay taxes and stuff. Teens "get down" to "vigorous techno thumps." I have to admit, my grandmother doesn't do that very often. I haven't seen her get down a vigorous techno thump since Christmas two years ago when she'd had too much sherry and my brother started playing some Dave Clarke music. It wasn't a pretty sight.

According to the article, "In the era of waning readership and Internet search engines, libraries in Massachusetts and across the country are shifting their resources and expertise to areas once unthinkable." Resources, sure, but expertise? Where's the expertise? "Public libraries are finding new niches that make them appealing to patrons, and patrons are increasingly using libraries as a free alternative to DVD rentals, music stores, Internet cafés, and even gaming arcades." Oh, expertise in being Internet cafes and gaming arcades. I guess I missed that class in library school. Maybe my library school just wasn't hip enough.

And what's the appeal for the patrons? "People are realizing how much money they can save their family, not going to a video rental store or even buying DVDs but instead renting them for a week for free," said a video librarian. Hmm, I wonder if they could save any money for their family by lowering their taxes by, say, reducing library taxes. I for one don't want to subsidize video arcades. That's what we have malls for.

The danger is that if libraries don't "move with the times," that is, become something else other than libraries, they'll close. "Library officials do not have to look far to see what happens when towns decide their services have become irrelevant. Last summer, libraries in Saugus and Bridgewater, which had relied mostly on books, were on the verge of being shut down and were forced to reduce their hours." Better to do anything to get people through the door than educate the people to safeguard order and liberty. Hey, let's have dance parties! Yay! People like to dance!

"It's cool that we have activities other than reading books at the library now," said Leon Shaw, 15, panting after a particularly difficult Dance Dance Revolution pirouette in one of the library's basement rooms last week. "More libraries should do this." Finally, libraries are "cool." And reading books is so boring compared to dancing. Now dancing, that's important! Reading isn't very important. Let's not try to get the kids reading, like some foolish librarians want. Let's get them dancing!

As one teen librarian says, "We're not only trying to meet the [patrons'] reading needs but we also want to meet their social and recreational needs. This is where libraries are going." But if they're not reading anyway, why bother to try to meet their reading needs? Why not save money you might have spent on books and buy video games instead? Oh wait, that's what you're already doing. Good job!

I'm glad somebody is finally admitting it. Social and recreational needs. The library as recreation center. Why doesn't the ALA change its mission statement to reflect that this is "where libraries are going"? Here's what the ALA says its mission is:

"The mission of the American Library Association is to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all."

I'm not sure the ALA accomplishes any part of this mission, but it's definitely time they "move with the times." If they want to support libraries, then they should say they want to improve library and entertainment services to ensure access to entertainment for all. We can all entertain ourselves to death while education, order, and liberty disappear.

I keep hearing that "professional" librarians need master's degrees. Does an MLS now qualify one to run a recreation center? Obviously library "education" needs to change as well. It's already intellectually stultifying, but now library schools should just close down. Buying video games and hosting dance parties isn't professional library work by any stretch of the imagination. So why should libraries hire people with library degrees? What a waste of money.

If librarians want a good way to deprofessionalize themselves and completely convert themselves to clerks, what better way than hosting dance parties and staying fully stocked with DVDs? You don't need a master's degree to work at Blockbuster. You don't need a master's degree to run a recreation center. Important as these jobs might be, they don't require even the laughable education an MLS provides. So public libraries should save themselves the money that might be spent hiring so-called "educated," "professional" librarians, which is ironic since it's obvious that librarians are "moving with the times" not because people need more "free" entertainment, but because otherwise the libraries will close down and librarians will lose their jobs.

The Commonwealth requires the entertainment of the people as the safeguard of librarian jobs.

Sex @ Your Library

I've been saying it for years--if you want to get more people into your library, use sex to do it. As a recent article in American Libraries cleverly puts it: "Sex sells."

Private Internet viewing booths, infoporn literacy, strippers, Penthouse in the children's section--I've recommended all of these initiatives to make the library more popular. Some people object to this sort of stuff in the library, but not librarians. They know that everything that's "constitutionally protected" speech deserves to be in the library.

I'm glad to see that the other AL is catching up with me. Sure, plenty of librarians love porn in the library, but they tend to be the public librarians, the ones who think the First Amendment goes like this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and view publicly subsidized pornography in their local library."

But now an academic library is jumping on the "sex @ your library" bandwagon. Some librarians at Penn State Altoona joined the fun of some campus sex thing and started passing out condoms with the library's name on it. If you don't believe me, just check out page 60 of the most recent American Libraries to see pictures of condoms with little stickers on them saying "Eiche Library Facts you Need Between the Covers." How risque!

Some people expect academic librarians to be all intellectual and stuff, to portray the library as a place to study and learn, but not those librarians at Penn State Altoona. Nope, they make the library out to be a place to come have sex. And I bet it will work, too. Now all those undergraduates will think of the library as they're about to get down to business. Heck, maybe they can get down to business in the library (or should I say @ the library) and scatter those condom packages all over the stacks.

We might ask why would a group of librarians do something so vulgar, but the answer is obvious. It's to fight the stereotypes, of course. We don't want a stereotype of a librarian who knows a lot about academic research. What a boring stereotype. "In marketing sessions," we're told by the authors of the article, "librarians are encouraged to shed their profession's stereotypical image and make the library 'sexy.'" That might be true, and it would explain why I don't attend marketing sessions. However, I think the authors might have misunderstood the use of those quote marks around "sexy." "Sexy" doesn't mean sexy. To make the library "sexy" doesn't mean one should invite people to have sex in the library or identify the library in the user's mind with sex. It's a metaphor, but they seem to have taken it literally.

Still, what's more "sexy" than sex?

In addition to passing out condoms with the library's name on it, they also set up a computerized sex quiz and displayed books about sex from the library. This is sort of like infoporn literacy. Exciting stuff! And then it gets even better:

"In keeping with the book theme, we also used the ALA Graphics Read CD to create glossy, color bookmarks highlighting the general call number areas of sex-related library materials--RG133 Contraception, RC200 STDs, and HQ12-440 Sexual Life."

Yay! Maybe next they can create some of those "READ" posters with Ron Jeremy or Jenna Jameson holding their favorite books over their naughty bits. That would be fun! That would make the library "sexy"!

Some of us librarians are trying to do a good job and impress the students and professors as knowledgeable professionals. But that might lead to a stereotype of librarians as serious, intelligent, educated, and professional. What a tragedy! Fortunately, we have librarians like those at Penn State who want to turn the library into a sex joke with students. Hey, we're librarians and we know things about sex! We're cool! That way the librarians can be seen as the trained monkeys they sometimes are, dancing and grinning like mad trying to curry favor in any way they can. That's a much better stereotype!

So, Penn State, you've got the condoms with your library name on them and you've got infoporn literacy. Next, you need private Internet viewing booths and strippers. Since you like passing out condoms so much and consider that appropriate behavior for librarians, why don't you go ahead and be your own strippers. Nothing brings people to the library faster than the thought of naked librarians.

The Glorious President Speaks

The Glorious President of ALA spoke last week at the University of Buffalo. As with all ALA presidents, she is doing her best to bore a lot of people by emphasizing the same few points over and over. The emphases of the current Glorious President seem to be stereotypes and diversity. These sound like tiresome themes to me, but apparently the Buffalo crowd ate it up. According to the article, "Gender Week wrapped up this past Thursday with a lecture that shattered the stereotypical librarian image depicting a prudish, middle-aged, silence-loving white woman."

Shattered, no less. And how did she shatter that stereotype? Of course she referred to that NYT article on the "hip" librarians. Whereas some people thought the article was stupid (well, I at least thought it was stupid), the Glorious President loves it and seems to quote it all the time. We should all be more like these "hip" librarians, and less like the boring "white women [that] still make up the majority" of librarians.

"The article depicted the new, hip librarian as a person who could combine skillful use of technology with locating the right information upon request," the GP said. Did it? I don't recall that from the article. I recall it depicted a bunch of "activists" and "creative types" who wore used clothes and had a lot of tattoos and used librarianship as the functional equivalent of waiting tables to support their real lives. But then the Glorious President corrects herself.

"Reporter Kara Jesella described a group of 20 and 30-something librarians, gathered in a bar, drinking margaritas, wearing retro clothing and sporting an abundance of tattoos."

Yes, that's how I remember it.

Her lecture was entitled "Librarianship: A Testbed for Gender and Diversity Issues." What I like about the title is the way she's so upfront about her true agenda. Her agenda is political, and she wants to use librarianship and hence librarians to promote it. Librarians are her guinea pigs, the experimental subjects the Glorious President needs to usher in her utopia. According to the article, the lecture "also focused on how the history of the library system in the United States defines its present-day mission for librarians to advocate for social justice." The prose is a bit stilted, but I think you get the point. Our mission as librarians is to advocate for social justice. The great thing about the phrase "social justice" is its vagueness.

This isn't what I recall from the ALA's mission statement, which says that the "mission of the American Library Association is to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all." If that's the mission of the ALA, then doesn't it make sense that the mission of librarians should have something to do with information services and access to information? By the twisted ideologic of the Glorious President and her regressive minions, only if this interest in information lets us advocate for social justice.

That's the only thing that makes sense if our mission is to advocate for social justice. So forget all that stuff about collecting, organizing, and disseminating information and go man the barricades. The revolution could begin any minute, and you know librarians will be in the vanguard. Except for the AL, of course, because come the revolution I'll be the first up against the wall.

Her speech went over well with some of the crowd who aren't as critical of the politicization of librarianship and using librarians as tools for an non-library political agenda as I am. "Roy's message of social activism appealed to [a] graduate student in library and information studies.

'I am glad to hear that the purpose of my profession is to ultimately change the world,' she said."

I bet she's glad. That way librarianship isn't so boring. The purpose of librarianship is to change the world, presumably one library card at a time. And another starry eyed idealist enters the profession, probably willing to work for peanuts so she can change the world, if she can find a job.

The Glorious President then discussed the "Diversity Counts" study, for what would a speech from the ALA president be without mentioning "diversity," another term as vague and devoid of exact meaning as "social justice." But then again, the advocates of "diversity" and "social justice" count on this vagueness.

This time we learn more than that librarians are mostly white women and that this is a bad thing. Now we're told as well that "the study showed that librarians are becoming better educated than ever before." That seemed unlikely, but fortunately the GP clarified that statement. "'Over the ten years (between 1990 and 2000), the number of degreed librarians increased by 21.6 percent,' Roy said." Oh, I see. They're not necessarily better educated, it's just that more of them have library degrees. Very different thing.

I would have been speechless after a performance like this, but the organizer of the event had to find something nice to say. "As ALA president, Loriene heads a very influential organization that lobbies Congress," he said. That was sweet. The "influential" part was a bit of a stretch, but the ALA does indeed lobby Congress, and we can see just how successful they've been in stopping CIPA, DOPA, and the death of Net Neutrality , among other things. We should just say it's the thought that counts.

I look forward to another nine months of being told that I'm not hip enough, or diverse enough, or concerned enough with promoting an extralibrary political agenda to be a good librarian. If I were a good librarian, I'd be the kind that the GP could hold up for praise in her political speeches. I'd be something other than a boring white woman, I'd go on about how my social activism trumps my professional responsibilities, and I'd have some tattoos. It should be a fun ride for us all.

I Work in a Library

Every couple of days it seems like I run across one of those stupid "i work on the web" thingies. This trend may not have begun with the Webtamer, but that's where I first saw it. Not content with obsessively posting his own photo online every day, he encourages many others to post photos of themselves online and say "I Work on the Web!" I guess this is supposed to inspire all of us unhip librarians to think that hey we're really cool because we don't work in libraries anymore. No, dammit, we work on the Web! We're cool! We're supposed to see this, I suppose, and go IWOW! This seems to be another attempt to fight the stereotypes. I choose to embrace the stereotypes.

I'm not cool. I don't work on the Web. I work in a library. Sometimes I work in my apartment. Occasionally I've been known to work at the little coffeehouse down the street, the one that doesn't have wifi. More than once I've worked on a train. The Web is a tool. I don't work on a tool. I use tools.

I mean really, what are we supposed to get out of this mini-movement? Let's think about this for a moment. What might it mean to "work on the web"? What it means in practice is that you sit and stare at a computer screen all day, occasionally moving the mouse or fingering your touchpad, occasionally typing a few keys. That's all it means. Is this supposed to impress anyone? From the outside, your work is indistinguishable from that of a data entry clerk.

But naturally I'd like to add my perspective to this movement. We're supposed to post pictures of this, right? So here's you "working on the web":

Me, I work in a library.

The Cult of Twopointopia

Earnest, humorless librarians should never read the AL. I only say this to save the time of the reader, which supposedly I'm obliged to do, since it's a "law" of library "science" (perhaps I put the quotes in the wrong places; repunctuate to suit yourself). The earnest humorless folks just don't get it. Wait. No, the earnest and humorless librarians should read, because then they comment and give me something humorous to read while occasionally providing me with blog fodder. Earnest, humorless librarians, read on!

My favorite responses to the AL are from those librarians who just can't seem to believe anyone would write this stuff. They are shocked, SHOCKED, that anyone would disagree with them or make fun of this pompous profession. The regressive librarians probably don't fit in this category, since they're used to people disagreeing with them. Disagreement just shows how righteous they are and how evil everyone else is.

But the twopointopians definitely do. For them, disagreement lets them show how self-righteous and "user-centered" they are, while showing how clueless and selfish everyone else is. You see, the twopointopians "get it," while the rest of us just don't understand. They're like religious converts preaching the gospel of 2.0 to everyone, and they just can't understand either that nobody cares, or that everyone already knows about it.

[Note: I should state for the record that not everyone who advocates "user-centered" services or the use of social software is a twopointopian. Twopointopians are those folks who have the fervor of converts or ideologues, who want a "movement" and a "manifesto," who want to preach their gospel and ignore criticism, who claim all their critics are just selfish and not sufficiently "user-centered," who believe there's only one good way, their faddish new way.]

Take one comment from last week, for example.

"Pretty please, tell me that this blog is a joke - an SNL-like spoof of postings by a librarian who hates their job and the people they serve (and ought to get the heck out of the field). In case it's not - I have to respond..."

Hmmm. I'm never sure how to consider comments like this. Since the person said "pretty please," I'll attempt an answer, even though I think that "pretty please" was smug and self-righteous. In a sense, this blog is a joke, and sometimes it's even funny. Is that what you wanted to hear? On the other hand, it's not a joke. That's what we librarians call a paradox. (I guess that's what everyone else calls it, too.) Then comes the ungrammatical advice about how if it's not a joke then I hate my job and the people I serve, and I ought to get the heck out of this field. Well, that's possibly true. Since I rarely talk about my job or my users, I'll ignore that swipe as being based on inadequate knowledge. But let's not let total ignorance ever get in the way of criticizing something; my critics often don't worry about that.

But should I leave the profession? Or should, instead, all the people who annoy me leave? Whose profession is this, anyway? It's an open question. Though what such advice implies is that anyone who doesn't go along with the twopointopian rhetoric or who has any criticisms of the profession just shouldn't be a librarian. It's sort of like that stupid "America: Love It or Leave It" rhetoric. Librarianship: love it or leave it! One might be tempted to say the same thing to the rabid twopointopians, since they seem to be the ones so frustrated by their crusty colleagues. Maybe I'm trying to save the profession from looking like it's run by simpletons and humorless ideologues who think library 2.0 daily affirmations are supposed to impress intelligent people as anything but gibberish.

But the commenter goes on:
"'What if my users are complete idiots?'
This is your problem in a nutshell."

But what exactly is my problem? I've never been inside a nutshell, so I need some elaboration. Are you saying that I said my users are idiots? That's certainly not what I said. My question was in response to the daily library 2.0 affirmation for me to "educate myself about the information culture of my users" and adapting to it. But the question stands. What if my users are idiots? Do I adapt myself to their culture? Or what if, like many of my users in academia, their information culture won't get them what they need? Should I adapt myself to them, or should I teach them? Should I give them what you seem to think they want, or what I think they need? Or are you in fact saying that my users are actually idiots, and that's my problem? That's certainly one interpretation of your vague comment. But how do you know who my users are, and why are you calling them idiots?

And then the correction:
"Library2.0 has never been solely about the technology - it's always been about providing user-centered library services. As I've said to IT departments who've been arrogant toward librarians whom they are supposed to support - you need to start with a basic respect for the people you serve."

Oh, okay. That clears everything up. So no librarian before this "library 2.0" bandwagon pulled into town every thought about "user-centered library services." And I'm glad it's only those IT folks who are arrogant, and not the twopointopians who seem to think that anyone who criticizes them can't possibly be "user-centered." This commenter seems to think I don't read what the twopointopians themselves say. I hate to break it to you, baby, but it ain't all daily affirmations. Disagree with any part of the program, and suddenly you don't care about the "users." Point out evidence that plenty of users don't want anything to do with some of these initiatives, and you're just not on the "cluetrain." Dare to suggest that the twopointopians actually come up with some arguments instead of just gushing homilies, and you're just mean.

And then comes the stinger:
"And in case you can't remember who it is you're serving - think about this, your "idiot" users are providing you with a paycheck.
[OK, in that case - perhaps your characterization was correct - they're idiots for keeping someone like you employed.]"

Ouch! That would hurt if the commenter wasn't so clueless. So let me make sure I have this right. If I'm critical of any of the propaganda, self-righteousness, or contempt of the twopointopians, then I'm not sufficiently "user-centered" and shouldn't be allowed to work as a librarian? Is that what you're saying? If I disagree with you or criticize your little religio-political library 2.0 movement, then the problem is me, right? I just need to join the 2.0 church, is that it? And I'm not allowed to think dissident thoughts or question the wisdom of my 2.0 betters, who are obviously so much smarter and wiser than I am because they have blogs? It that it? Oh, and why do you keep calling my users idiots?

This has all the hallmarks of the convert and the ideologue, political or religious. The converts and ideologues all like to set up these false dichotomies: Agree with me or you're evil (or perhaps just stupid). Accept without criticism whatever gobbledygook my fellow convert and ideologue says, or you're a bad person. Do things my way or you aren't "user-centered."

For the diehard twopointopians, their way is the way. They don't like criticism or discussion, because they're not up to it. They like captive audiences of neophytes who they can impress with their speeches about all this great new stuff. They like to use the mystique of social software and new technologies to impress upon their crusty colleagues how hip they are. They like to pretend that people who aren't impressed with how righteous and "user-centered" they all are are just ignorant clowns who don't know anything about how libraries ought to be run.

The problem is, I'm not a neophyte. I am a librarian who knows how to use all this stuff, and I've been serving "users" for years. I'm the knowledgeable skeptic who isn't awed because some librarian knows how to blog. Also, I'm skeptical, and whenever anyone starts jabbering about yet another "movement" with its own "manifesto," I can't help but criticize it. I don't jump on bandwagons. I don't follow fads. I'm not a convert or an ideologue. I'm interested in healthy discussion and debate, and am all for appropriate "user-centered" services, but I'm not impressed by some librarian doing her Stuart Smalley impression in American Libraries.

So save your daily affirmations and your professions of faith for someone else. I'm not interested. I, like a lot of librarians, am perfectly comfortable with using technology to connect with library users and teaching other people about it. But I don't want to join your cult, because I can't check my brain at the door and chant your mantras with you.

Oh, and thanks for reading.

A Librarian's Anti-2.0 Manifesto

A spectre is haunting librarianship - the spectre of "Library 2.0."

As if it's not bad enough when encountered in the blogosphere, now there's a "Librarian's 2.0 Manifesto" published in the August issue of American Libraries (on p. 48 for those of you with the stomach for it). I thought the whole idea of the traditional publication process was to weed out all this stuff. Oh wait, that's to weed out critical voices like mine. On second thought, this stuff seems like about the right intellectual level for American Libraries. And there's a note that ACRL is going to release some book related to this manifesto. Et tu, ACRL?

Like almost all documents with "manifesto" in the title, it's pretentious and silly at the same time. And like another silly manifesto, it should end with a stirring call - "2.0 Librarians have nothing to lose but their brains; they have speaking fees and book contracts to win. 2.0 Librarians unite!" The presentation in the other AL doesn't improve it any, either. It's made up to look like old parchment nailed to a wooden wall. How quaint. I can print this out and paste it all over my library!

In the spirit of camaraderie and good will that I'm famous for, I thought we could take a look at the "manifesto" together. So here goes. This isn't for the faint of heart, so women and children may not want to read this. Wait, what the heck am I saying. Read on, just don't say I didn't warn you.

"I will recognize that the universe of information culture is changing fast and that libraries need to respond positively to these changes to provide resources and services that users need and want."

It's just so enthusiastic, isn't it. I love enthusiasm. Yay! Information culture is changing fast. Okay, I'll grant that, though there's an argument that it's been changing fast for at least 150 years if not more, but let's not let any silly historical perspective get in the way of our breathless enthusiasm. But should we "respond positively" to every change? That's the implication. What if some of the changes are bad? Oh, let's not think about that. In fact, let's not think at all. Let's just get all gooey inside and start chanting our mantras.

"I will educate myself about the information culture of my users and look for ways to incorporate what I learn into library services."

What if my users are complete idiots? What if their "information culture" consists of staring at the television 10 hours a day watching game shows? Should I then make the library more like a game show? "Come on down, Luella! You've just won yourself a free library card!" How about just stopping at "I will educate myself." That'll weed out a lot of librarians right there.

"I will not be defensive about my library, but will look clearly at its situation and make an honest assessment about what can be accomplished. I will become an active participant in moving my library forward."

I certainly won't be defensive about my library, but I might be defensive about my intelligence. My library may be moving forward, but what if they direction it's moving is stupid? Should I then become an "active participant" in keeping it going? And is this any different from just being a "participant"? If the library is "moving forward" toward an abyss, then I should try to stop it, shouldn't I? Or would that just be mean?

"I will recognize that libraries change slowly, and will work with my colleagues to expedite our responsiveness to change."

Let's paraphrase this a bit, shall we? How about, "I won't get too frustrated that my stupid colleagues don't jump on the Twopointopia bandwagon just because I'm all giddy with enthusiasm. I'll try working with them as long as I can stand it, or until they all retire or die off."

"I will be courageous about proposing new services and new ways of providing services, even though some of my colleagues will be resistant. I will take an experimental approach to change and be willing to make mistakes."

Courage isn't the virtue it used to be, is it. How courageous do you need to be to propose a new service? It must be terrifying to know that some people "will be resistant." I wonder what this person's colleagues think of her. Probably about the same as she seems to think of them. The Twopointopians contempt for their non-Twopointopian colleagues is palpable.

"I will not wait until something is perfect before I release it, and I’ll modify it based on user feedback."

Yay! Beta forever! Why even wait until something makes sense to release it? Why not just immediately implement every stupid idea someone has? It's not like any of this takes up anyone's time or energy or money, right? Just do it! Yay!

"I will not fear Google or related services, but rather will take advantage of these services to benefit users while also providing excellent library services that users need."

Who fears Google? I fear big guys walking behind me on the sidewalk at night, but never Google.

"I will avoid requiring users to see things in librarians’ terms but rather will shape services to reflect users’ preferences and expectations."

That makes a lot of sense in an academic library. Let's take a bunch of students who don't know anything and cater to their ignorant expectations. Why don't we just abandon the library all together? After all, even having books on shelves is just those mean old librarians making people see things in their terms. Why not just toss the books into a big pile in the basement since no one will read them anyway. And while you're at it, link all the databases on the library website randomly, because we know they just want to google them instead of relying on the mean old librarians to categorize anything.

"I will be willing to go where users are, both online and in physical spaces, to practice my profession."

I've already covered this one. Go where the users go! That's what I always say. Just be sure to wash your hands afterwards.

"I will create open websites that allow users to join with librarians to contribute content in order to enhance their learning experience and provide assistance to their peers."

I don't want anyone contributing any content in order to enhance their "learning experience." If they want to contribute content, they can get their own website. Or better yet, a blog. Any moron can start a blog. (No wisecracks!)

"I will enjoy the excitement and fun of positive change and will convey this to colleagues and users. I will let go of previous practices if there is a better way to do things now, even if these practices once seemed so great."

So I won't tolerate or criticize anything. No, I'll "enjoy" it. Yay! Excitement and fun, indeed. "Positive" change is in the eye of the beholder, so I guess I'll have to "enjoy" whatever change the Twopointopians want to subject me to. Otherwise, I'm just a big old meany. Why don't we just let go of all practices and close down the libraries to see who notices.

"I will lobby for an open catalog that provides personalized, interactive features that users expect in online information environments."

I'd settle for a catalog that actually had an excellent catalog record for everything the library owned in it.

"I will encourage my library’s administration to blog."

Not if you worked in my library, you wouldn't. I shudder to think. Besides, most library blogs are boring. Do we really need more boring blogs? Could a "library administration blog" be anything but boring? Would it be anything like a "Library 2.0 blog."

"I will validate, through my actions, librarians’ vital and relevant professional role in any type of information culture that evolves."

No, I won't, until the librarians in question can prove to me they actually are "vital" and "relevant" in "any type of information culture." Validate, indeed. I wouldn't validate their parking.

I think I know what my problem is. You might have guessed this, but I was never a cheerleader. I didn't even try out. I thought the cheerleaders were mostly idiots. I thought when I grew up and became a "professional," I'd leave the cheerleading behind. So I don't like cheerleaders very much. I also don't like motivational speakers very much. What I like are people to give me good arguments for doing things, not just gushing and cheering and trying to inspire me with insubstantial nonsense. And I don't like hype and fads, because I'm skeptical and critical. It comes with being smart, I suppose.

And I certainly don't like manifestos, because they're always somebody's vague idea of how they think the world should be without any argument to back it up. There's always some paradise where everyone's happy or everyone "embraces" change or whatever. There's always some villain, whether it's those bourgeois liberals or the mean people who just won't get with the program - always the program of the manifesto-writer.

It's called a "Manifesto for Our Times." If that's true, then our times are just as annoying as all other times. What are we supposed to do with this? Are we supposed to read this and jump up and cheer? Are we just supposed chant our 2.0 mantras? Embrace our inner Twopointopian? Maybe every library should start a 2.0 support group, where we could all get together and whine about how unfair the world is but affirm our righteousness nonetheless. "Hi, my name is AL, and I haven't had a critical or skeptical thought about any faddish and insubstantial idea for change in 6 months!" And all the Twopointopians say, "Yay! AL! Keep up the good work!"

Always change. Never think. Always change. Never think. Always change. Never think. That's your mantra. Keep chanting it.

The only thing that never changes is the rhetoric.

Antisocial Software and Asynchronous Communication

I was reading some hyperbolic omniborous blog the other day where the blogger gushed about how he'd been helped with some technical task or other because he could contact yet another blogger and get immediate help. It's this social software, we're always told, that can get us the help we need.

I guess I'm not impressed, for a number of reasons. First, I don't need any help. Rarely do I encounter any problems that I can't solve myself, so I don't need any social software to call up someone in an emergency. In fact, what I prefer is antisocial software.

You might just say I'm selfish, and of course you'd be right. But AL, we know you can solve all your own problems, but what about your colleagues? Don't you have an obligation to be there for them? Yes and no. I have an obligation to be there for them in my professional capacity, but I don't have any obligation to be there for them to solve all their technical problems or teach them how to use software or any number of other things people might bother me about. These relationships have to be mutual to be fair, and they're never mutual. It's always other people asking for my help, not the other way around. It's like I'm living in a society of free riders.

There are other reasons I don't want to be easily contacted by hapless librarians in need. I don't like IM much, for example, because it gives people instant access to my time, and I can think of very few people who deserve that instant access. (Actually, I can think of three, and you know who you are.) No colleagues qua colleagues deserve instant access to my time.

I certainly don't think I'd like Twitter, one of the applications the Omnibores are currently wetting themselves over. This from Twitter: "A global community of friends and strangers answering one simple question: What are you doing? Answer on your phone, IM, or right here on the web!" Is that supposed to excite me? I guess so. I can tell why lots of librarians are excited--just look at that exclamation mark! I don't have to answer the question through Twitter. I'll answer it right now on my own blog. What am I doing? None of your damn business, that's what I'm doing.

The problem with some, but not all, so-called social software is that people bother you with it. I suppose there are some insecure folks out there who desperately want people to contact them so that they feel they have a reason to exist. "Look! Someone's IMing me! I must be worthwhile! I want to share my thoughts and feelings!"

But lots of normal people don't like the hegemony over their time that technology gives other people. Some people get excited when the phone rings, or an email or IM pops up. I don't. I haven't answered my home phone in years. I don't even like to answer my office phone, which is why I screen the calls and only answer if I think the call won't be annoying.

The problem isn't one of communication. I communicate all the time. The problem is the assumption that whenever someone else wants me for something, I'm supposed to stop whatever I'm doing for them, even if what they want isn't very important, and it rarely is. Email is a nice civilized communication tool that lets people respond at their own convenience, which in my case is promptly if the email requires promptness. But IM, like the phone, is a communication device that implies the initiator of the communication is more important than the recipient, or at least that her time is more important.

Unless there's some sort of emergency, your time is not more important to me than my time. I should hope you'd feel the same way. (About your time being important to you, I mean. You might feel that my time is more important than yours, and you might be right, but I wouldn't expect it of you.) I will resist any technology or trend that gives other people control over my time. It's a simple time management tool.

I guess I've been mischaracterizing the problem. The problem isn't really one of social or antisocial, and it isn't limited to software. For me, it's a matter of synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous communication tools give control to the needy, while asynchronous communication tools give the control to the needed. Just as your crisis doesn't translate into my problem, your need doesn't translate into my dropping everything to satisfy you. I have to manage my time to work effectively, not let someone else manage my time.

Any "social software" that allows me to communicate effectively with others while allowing both of us to retain control over our time is good. Any synchronous communication tool that allows people to track me down and instantly bother me is bad. Being "connected" is only a good thing is you want to be connected and if it benefits you. Being connected is a bad thing if it's always other people want you to be connected for their benefit, not your own. Some of the people who gush about social technology should remember that not everyone wants to be connected to them, and for a good reason.

Making Your Numbers

Last week there was an article in the Wall Street Journal about kids not using the library as much as they used to (the WSJ article is subscription only, but you can view it here).

This prompted a writer at Bloggingstocks to speculate on how public libraries might draw in more readers. I think one of his suggestions will appeal especially to all those librarians who are so excited about "business" and "marketing" and like to think about library users as "customers." I prefer the genteel library tradition, but some people want to sell their soul to Demon Commerce. Here's the suggestion:

"One of the problems with libraries (and public institutions in general) is that there is no strong incentive to attract new customers. Why is service at the DMV so bad? They don't care if you like it, and it's the only show in town. To encourage libraries to find ways to attract new readers, a portion of the compensation that librarians (particularly head librarians) receive should be tied to their performance: Did they see an increase in the number of books checked out? What about the number of young people signing up for library cards? Just like the CEO of a company gets paid more for improving profits, librarians should be paid for gathering more patrons. After all, libraries are taxpayer dollars at work and the more they're used, the more value we get out of each dollar."

Isn't that exciting! That's just like real business! I know some librarians get very excited and like to froth at the mouth when discussing "business" stuff, but we all know that if they knew anything about real business they'd be out making money instead of being librarians. But now all that can change!

Providing actual incentives to librarians to bring in the "customers"! That's definitely an idea that's been missing from all the business blather I've seen in cloud-cuckoo libraryland. Some librarians act as if librarians should all be working like dogs at breakneck pace to satisfy all their "customers." As any reasonable person might notice, though, there's no reason to work at that kind of pace if you're a librarian. Librarians get paid, and sometimes poorly, no matter what they do. I have no doubt that I could double my salary tomorrow if I wanted to work in some hectic, risky, private sector job and put in 60-80 hours a week. Heck, I could have been a corporate lawyer or an investment banker. But I don't like to work very hard, especially with no incentive. That's why I'm a librarian.

But with this strategy, librarians would have some actual incentive. Why work hard to increase those checkouts? Because your pay depends on it, baby. So take that, library "marketeers"!

As I understand it from my business friends, a commission model would probably be best. Since libraries don't generate much income and have little money to work with, we can't just give people raises to get this thing going. Instead, let's say we cut the base salaries of public librarians in half, and then set a quota for them of number of books checked out. I suppose to make it easy, we should let them circulate other items as well. I'm not sure if computer signups should count, but I'm flexible. We could probably add in "number of reference questions answered" or "number of videogames cataloged" to make sure everybody gets a square deal. The closer librarians come to making their quota, or "making their numbers" as the sales folks say, the closer they'll come to their old base pay. (Items circulated to library staff members don't count!)

Not only will this provide a businesslike incentive for librarians to get people reading, but ultimately it will save money. How? Easy. Just like in the business world, quotas are variable and subjective things. I have a friend who sells stuff (I won't tell you what it is, but she makes about twice as much as I do--and I don't do that badly--IF she makes her numbers). She just had her quota doubled, but with no increase in clients. Now she needs to get out there and move some product if she's going to make as much as last year. With no bottom line, quotas are more or less arbitrary, and under the new model libraries could just keep raising the quotas, thus guaranteeing that librarians will keep working harder and harder for less and less money. From a taxpayer's perspective, this is what's known in business-speak as a "win-win" situation.

I take back all my criticisms of the library "business" folks. This is definitely a way to run a library. I think it's about time for all those librarians who jabber on about business and their library "customers" put their money where their mouth is.