Michael Gorman, I'm ashamed of you.
Feb. 27th, 2005 07:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bunnyjadwigaOk, as Librarians, we've all had occasions when our deans, directors or what-have-you administrative supervisor says something that makes us want to hide in the basement behind the 020s until everyone forgets.
But Michael Gorman has done it for the whole profession. His "Revenge of the Blog People" editorial in proves that narrowminded, longwinded professionals can get quite poorly-thought-out things through the printed press. Now, the original article that started the debate, "Google and God's Mind," was a little problematic but well within the restraints of scholarly debate about something that is in the news. (As well as pointing out the well-known issues with relying on electronic media, Gorman complained that Google Print would be problematic because it would provide only snippets of information from books, and allow books to be read and used non-sequentially.)
Some net-addicts with blogs reacted negatively to criticism of Google Print. In his place, I would regard this as a good sign that someone outside the library press had read his work. But the hapless and thin-skinned Gorman decided to dump vitriol on those who blogged criticisms of his statements. He did so in an editorial in LJ, using a broad-brush in a way that was thoroughly unprofessional. He appeared to characterize all blog writers as 'unpublishable' and otherwise unintelligent Blog People. Many librarians with blogs took offense, as well they should. *
Were Mr. Gorman merely the Dean of the Libraries at a school in California, his remarks, which he later characterized as 'satire,' would have been an exercise of the right to make a fool of oneself in print or online as many times as one wishes. However, his publication in LJ was really as the president-elect of the American Library Association.
However, I dispute the idea that a librarian in that position has the right to use LJ, or any other library publication for that matter, as a platform for expressing his personal feelings about people who objected to him. The editors of LJ, and Gorman himself, should have been able to clearly see how offended librarians and their patrons would be by his "rant."
Frankly, if Gorman wanted to say something like this-- the best place would be in his personal blog. With a note above it saying, "The opinions below do not represent other librarians or the American Library Association.
* Links to annoyed librarian bloggers who express themselves far better than I:
http://www.libraryplanet.com/2005/02/gorman http://librarianinblack.typepad.com/librarianinblack/2005/02/michael_gorman_.html
http://freerangelibrarian.com/archives/022405/gorman_on_bloggers.php
But Michael Gorman has done it for the whole profession. His "Revenge of the Blog People" editorial in proves that narrowminded, longwinded professionals can get quite poorly-thought-out things through the printed press. Now, the original article that started the debate, "Google and God's Mind," was a little problematic but well within the restraints of scholarly debate about something that is in the news. (As well as pointing out the well-known issues with relying on electronic media, Gorman complained that Google Print would be problematic because it would provide only snippets of information from books, and allow books to be read and used non-sequentially.)
Some net-addicts with blogs reacted negatively to criticism of Google Print. In his place, I would regard this as a good sign that someone outside the library press had read his work. But the hapless and thin-skinned Gorman decided to dump vitriol on those who blogged criticisms of his statements. He did so in an editorial in LJ, using a broad-brush in a way that was thoroughly unprofessional. He appeared to characterize all blog writers as 'unpublishable' and otherwise unintelligent Blog People. Many librarians with blogs took offense, as well they should. *
Were Mr. Gorman merely the Dean of the Libraries at a school in California, his remarks, which he later characterized as 'satire,' would have been an exercise of the right to make a fool of oneself in print or online as many times as one wishes. However, his publication in LJ was really as the president-elect of the American Library Association.
However, I dispute the idea that a librarian in that position has the right to use LJ, or any other library publication for that matter, as a platform for expressing his personal feelings about people who objected to him. The editors of LJ, and Gorman himself, should have been able to clearly see how offended librarians and their patrons would be by his "rant."
Frankly, if Gorman wanted to say something like this-- the best place would be in his personal blog. With a note above it saying, "The opinions below do not represent other librarians or the American Library Association.
* Links to annoyed librarian bloggers who express themselves far better than I:
http://www.libraryplanet.com/2005/02/gorman http://librarianinblack.typepad.com/librarianinblack/2005/02/michael_gorman_.html
http://freerangelibrarian.com/archives/022405/gorman_on_bloggers.php
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-28 11:16 am (UTC)*grin*
Date: 2005-02-28 03:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-28 06:40 pm (UTC)Blogs pose no threat to the press. They do pose a great threat to the cultural filters put in place by librarians. - vintercept
That got my attention, and as my resident librarian, i would love your opinion of librarian-imposed cultural filters.
Cultural filters
Date: 2005-02-28 09:52 pm (UTC)"We are often considered society's gatekeepers, but librarians are actually the gateways. We are the one profession dedicated to ensuring the right to know. We must never lose sight of this mission despite the seductive siren songs of our information age's mythology."
-- Patricia Glass Schuman
Basically, our role as librarians is to help people pick out the information, etc. that they need. That means helping them pick the right filter for the job. Librarians tend to provide/control collections with a certain emphasis: on reliable, objective information whose pedigree is vouched for in one of the ways we are trained to look for it. Peer review is one of those ways; publication by reliable presses is another.
But, like any other filter, using librarians to filter material doesn't stop the rest from being available. Think of librarians as a water gate-- we let through PART of the flood of information in order to make it more manageable. Perhaps we add other filters or metadata to the information to make it easier to use. But if you want the whole, messy river, you can have it-- just go past the gated area.
Re: Cultural filters
Date: 2005-02-28 09:55 pm (UTC)