(no subject)

[deborah]

Blake of Lisnews posted a list of things that Michael Gorman got right, namely:

1. Bloggers Ain’t Editors
2. Blogging is not always scholarly
3. We are boosters and hopeful
4. We do move too fast
5. Some of us are fanatical digitalists
4. We are quick to judge and criticize
5. Our writing tends to be short and emotional
6. Sometimes we only need random facts and paragraphs

(This is just his headings; read the entry for details).

But what comes out loud and clear in Blake's entry is what I think is wonderful about bloggers -- and why I think so many librarians blog. Bloggers, you see, can be excellent analyzers of information. Blake took Gorman's overly-defensive ramblings, parsed out what was valuable, and recreated it as a readable annotated list of things to notice. Many bloggers do the same thing with difficult-to-follow news stories.

You see, bloggers, like librarians, can be excellent at Internet collection development. That is, they see what's available, decide what will be most valuable to their readers, and make it available (usually, unlike other repackagers of information such as online newspapers, with direct links to whatever the source of the controversy actually is), and then provide annotations and explanations.

The substantial difference is that in most cases the blogger has an explicit bias and the librarian tries not to.

Comments

[in-parentheses.livejournal.com]

Bloggers also synthesize, like librarians do - make connections between various seemingly unrelated things. Have you read Orson Scott Card's novella about the librarians of Trantor, based on the Foundation series? It's what made me want to be a librarian. These librarians sift through endless online data, clicking on whatever looks interesting, and forging connections between things, essentially adding meta-data about the connection they made - in other words, blogging, only without the individual posts. It sounds like the coolest job ever.

synethesia

[deborah]

This is also what I love about literary analysis. I get a major rush from being able to interpret, synthesize, revaluate my understanding. I'm one of those freakish people who may have like Narnia *more* after I learned about the allegorical component, because I love finding little shout-outs to his theology, moments when I realise that The Last Battle has scenes which are reworkings of ideas he first explored in The Great Divorce. But I can find all those along with how they tie in to fantasy conventions, children's literature conventions, standard literary and philosophy conventions ... I love it. This, actually, is why if I go back to grad school (higher degrees! collect 'em all! trade 'em with your friends!) it will probably in media and culture studies. it's doing the same sort of analysis and synthesis, but with books *and* popular media *and* real life. *shudder of ecstacy*

I am such a nerd.

Thanks for the Card note; I'll look for the novella.

Re: synethesia

[in-parentheses.livejournal.com]

I'll look for the novella.

As far as I know, it's only in Maps in a Mirror, which I'd be happy to lend you; I mostly bought it for lending purposes.

"Hey, I'll trade you an English PhD for an engineering master's and a couple of technical certifications!" Hee.

[profundamente.livejournal.com]

hi,
found you through 'classification' - i figured that high school kids would not be interested in this! (my interest in classification is related to medical categories). your livejournal seems really interesting, mind if i add you?

[deborah]

You're welcome to add me -- and welcome to drop me, as well, if I get less interesting. No offense will be taken. ;)

What kind of medical classification or you're interested in? I took a class in medical librarianship in which we learned all about medical subject headings, but I suspect that isn't what you mean.

[profundamente.livejournal.com]

i'm a medical anthropology grad student and took a course last year in which we looked at the practice of biomedicine. i became interested in classification and how it relates to the way that (physical) signs are put together to form a diagnosis. and also how classification relates to medical protocal (if patient is X, that can lead to Y...and then to Z which means that the patient has THIS AILMENT). i mean, i am no expert on this and i am not even specialising on this for my research, but i like seeing how signs can abstracted and put together to make a different sign. i don't know anything about classification of medical subject headings, but am now curious.

[profundamente.livejournal.com]

wow, i used the root word "interest*" three times. so sorry - i am distracted.