Vast Active Library and Information Science blog. From a recent library science graduate in Wellington, New Zealand. A focus on reference and current awareness tools and issues, especially free, web-based resources.

 
Excellent, balanced article that introduces folksonomies, discusses their strengths and weaknesses, and compares them with traditional heirarchical and faceted classification schemes. Definitely worth reading.

Via Library Stuff.

| posted by Simon at 9:45 pm

 
I'm not "studying to be a librarian" anymore.

I handed my research paper in last Friday.

As soon as it's graded, I'm officially the holder of an MLIS!

28 months work is finally completed!

I'm happy.

| posted by Simon at 9:32 pm

 
Technology Review has an article on the problems archivists face regarding digital storage, and on what the US National Archives and Records Administration is doing about it.

Worth a read.

(via LISNews.com).

| posted by Simon at 9:32 pm

 
The US Supreme Court has ruled against Grokster (PC World) in Grokster v MGM. The plaintiffs were arguing that makers of file-sharing software products, such as Grokster, were liable for copyright violations committed by users of the software. The Court argued that Grokster (and StreamCast) were aware that users were primarily using their products to commit copyright infringement, and that both companies actively encouraged this.

Grokster backers argue that this will make technological innovation harder, as software creators will have to be mindful of any possible illegal uses that could be made of their products.

In Popular Science Cory Doctorow points out that the Court didn't state what actions legally constitute an 'affirmative step', and therefore make a company guilty of inducing infringement. He adds:

"This decision won’t kill P2P sharing. Engineering students write P2P software in 11 lines of code as class assignments....But what today’s decision will kill is American innovation. Chinese and European firms can get funding and ship products based on plans that don’t have to comply with this decision’s fuzzy test, while their American counterparts will need to convince everyone from their bankers to the courts that they’ve taken all measures to avoid inducing infringement. "

Xeni Jardin has more links on the Grokster decision (BoingBoing). Ernest Miller has notes on the decision, and argues that BitTorrent might be next.

The former head of the Recording Industry Association of America, Hillary Rosen, notes the futility of fighting the battle, even though the RIAA won. So obvious I feel ashamed for saying it, but the internet's a global institution, after all. This decision doesn't stop someone in New Zealand creating a file-sharing application - and the Supreme Court won't be able to do anything about that. Or China. Or Nigeria. Or wherever really.

| posted by Simon at 8:50 pm

 
Test the Nation is a TV quiz show with an interactive element - viewers can take part in the quiz online or record their scores with pen and paper. For the last two years (in New Zealand) it's run as an IQ test. This year, it's being run as a general knowledge quiz, with a focus on New Zealand topics. One of the gimmicks of the show is that they have different groups competing against each other. In the past this has included blondes, sportspeople (several of my former workmates were in the team), teachers - that sort of thing.

This year, they have asked "nurses, fitness gurus, farmers, librarians, trades and bankers". My girlfriend is part of the librarian team. Here's hoping they don't let us down...

| posted by Simon at 10:03 pm

 
The vivisection conference, scheduled to be held at the National Library, has been cancelled. The National Anti Vivisection Campaign has a press release which says ""The National Library didn't really want the hassle and controversy of hosting a vivisection conference, and ANZCCART knew that a lot of library staff opposed the conference and I think they decided that holding the conference there was too risky."


Here's the text of a post I made on NZ-Libs:


Firstly, I think as librarians we should be supporting the rights of others to free speech, whether or not we disagree with their views. We should also be presenting an image of neutrality, or at least impartiality, on controversial issues. It really makes no difference whether anti-vivisectionists will one day come to be lauded as heroes, or castigated as villains. Our impartiality should remain in place, no
matter what the public opinion is of either group. So I share Stephen's disappointment, irrespective of whether or not the staff protests had anything to do with the cancellation of the booking.

Secondly: the National Library is (obviously) a publically-funded institution, so any (legal) group should have the right to utilise the Library's services. This includes booking meeting rooms. It seems problematic to me that some organisations can be expected to pay tax to support the Library, but have librarians lobby against their use of the Library's facilities.

Thirdly: the National Library is part of the Public Service. This carries obligations of neutrality and impartiality. For example: "The public must have no basis on which to believe that decisions are made or policies are applied unevenly. Public servants must observe the principles of fairness and impartiality in all aspects of their work." [State Services Commission, Public Service Code of Conduct].

Now it seems to me that, by protesting against this conference, Library staff have been lobbying to have a policy applied unevenly.

Obviously, I fully support the right of Mark's group to conduct lawful protests against the conference, and of librarians to join those protests in their capacity as private citizens. But, as librarians, I think we should be supporting the right of the conference organisers to meet.

| posted by Simon at 9:58 pm

 
I like this a lot... Dilbert 26 June 2005:

"your design reminds me of hieroglyphics. Are you sure the ancient Egyptians didn't patent it?"
"First of all, I didn't use hieroglyphics. Secondly, the ancient Egyptians didn't have microchips. Thirdly, they didn't have patent laws".
"Oh yeah? Then how did they build the pyramids?"

| posted by Simon at 8:50 pm

 
LibraryELF provides email and/or RSS reminders of overdues and holds at your library. To my surprise and joy, Wellington City Libraries has signed up with LibraryELF, along with five other New Zealand libraries (out of a total of eight international (non-US/Canada) libraries).

Sweet! My account is already created. Given that I make an art-form of forgetting when my books are due, this is going to be very, very useful to me. Kudos to the librarians involved in this initiatives - and a shout-out to Jeff, as I see Upper Hutt libraries are involved as well :-).

| posted by Simon at 7:14 pm

 
Off-topic, but I obviously had to post this. Hanson Robotics has developed a robot Phillip K. Dick. The robot will be interacting with the crowd at WIRED magazine's NextFest, June 25-27, 2005.

I wonder if it thinks that it's really Phil?

via BoingBoing

| posted by Simon at 12:50 pm

 
Christian Science Monitor has some words of support for the American Library Association as they argue against a renewal of the PATRIOT ACT, especially s. 215 (the one that allows federal agents to secretly obtain library records without a warrant). (via LISNews.com)

| posted by Simon at 10:12 pm

 
LibrarianInBlack spots that Innovative will be introducing RSS features for patrons. Options will include one-to-many and one-to-one communication - so you'll be able to get RSS feeds for overdues, holds (and hopefully, though it doesn't say, customised new books lists).

This is exactly what I want in a catalogue....

| posted by Simon at 9:48 pm

 
I have nothing to say to this. I am truly speechless. But read it. Seriously.

"The California Assembly just passed a bill that bans textbooks longer than 200 pages, requiring publishers to shorten their tomes and include -- get this -- an appendix of related websites."

Techdirt: Books Over 200 Pages Considered Harmful To Students.

| posted by Simon at 10:15 pm

 
And speaking of the National Library....

The Sunday Star-Times reports that anti-vivisectionists are set to disrupt a conference being held at the National Library.

The paper writes: "The Australia and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART) conference is a gathering of research scientists and members of animal ethics committees."

There has been an interesting debate of this topic on the NZ-LIBS mailing list. Search on 'vivisection' in the list archives (also on the Knowledge Basket, though that contains many other lists too).

The debate was sparked by Mark Eden of the National Anti Vivisection Campaign (safe for work), who wrote to the list asking librarians to support his group's protests, or for the National Library to cancel the conference booking. National Librarian Penny Carnaby wrote in response, and a number of other librarians chimed in on both sides of the debate.

Many argued that the Library has a responsibility to uphold freedom of information, though Eden and others claimed that ANZCCART itself is guilty of concealing information, an apparent paradox. There were claims that the Library should side with powerless groups in society, rather than powerful ones such as ANZCCART, and that (by charging usage fees) the Library was shutting out some groups, even if it claimed to be open to all. Several librarians asked if they would be able to exercise their right to protest against the conference.

My few cents: the Library should allow ANZCCART to hold its conference. The Library is a public institution, funded by New Zealanders. It therefore should be open to all New Zealanders who wish to carry out lawful activities there. ANZCCART are breaking no laws. What they are doing may be distasteful to some (or even "murder" as one librarian called it). But it's lawful. It's not the Library's place to pass judgements about what is and isn't lawful - if vivisection should be banned, or restricted, that's a decision for Parliament, not for the Library as a public agency.

By those standards I would support the right of the National Front to meet in the Library as well. Equally, the Library should respect the right to lawful protest that NAVC and its allies possesses.

The fact that one person, or group - or many people - object to another group is no reason to prevent them from booking space in the Library. If we adopted that approach, the Library would be unable to hold meetings of gay rights groups (no doubt Destiny Church would object); nor of the Destiny Church (no doubt gay groups would object). Pretty soon no-one would be able to use the Library.

As for protesting, as public employees the librarians are of course bound by the Public Service Code of Conduct, so should give consideration to whether their actions contravene this code or not. (As a purely personal, non-legal-in-any-way opinion, I would guess that quiet protest probably wouldn't....)

| posted by Simon at 9:40 pm

 
Treasury has posted papers from the 2005 Budget on its website. The papers include Treasury briefing papers on Budget bilaterals, which are discussions between individual Ministers and the Minister of Finance, where the Ministers seek approval for funding for their projects. The National Library (PDF) bilateral paper includes a request for a staff salary increase. This is Treasury's response:

"Treasury does not support this initiative as we do not consider that there is evidence for of significant declines in outputs associated with not funding the bid. In the last budget it was agreed National Library receive $0.961 p.a. for the purpose of staff salary increases. There does not yet exist any evidence of declines in staff morale or increases in staff turnover that typically support funding such a proposal."

There you have it. We just need to start quitting our jobs more often, and complaining about how badly we are treated, and we'd be in line for big pay rises. What's worse, the National Library's Statement of Intent (PDF) says that one of the risks facing the organisation is an aging workforce and low turnover. So the fact that staff aren't leaving is a double whammy, a risk for the organisation and a reason for staff to be paid less.

Fortunately, the salary bid was approved (Cabinet minute, PDF). National Library's 385 staff can share an increase of $1.4 million. That works out at an average of a bit over $3000, so it's not too bad for someone at the lower-end of the scale (assuming that it was shared evenly, which it won't be anyway). But hardly enough to attract new talent. I'd quite like to work at the National Library at some point - but even at this stage in my career, I would have to take a pay cut to do so - unless I went straight into a team leader or manager position. There's something not quite right there.



| posted by Simon at 9:23 pm

 
What it says on the tin, basically. A simple list of features that a library web site should have (LibrarianInBlack).

| posted by Simon at 11:00 pm