--- Gee, Carl -- "stupidity of the masses" as you're endeavoring to sift out my
post is n o t my point. Of course I had no idea I would be explaining
the customary methods of database-searching training -- to me it seemed given
that everybody would already know the issues & "nuts & bolts". Oh well.
Another case of expecting people to understand syntax & semantics when writing
their term papers...
The point i s: Libraries are usually underfunded, understaffed,
underequipped. Explaining one's needs to the diverse parent offices is
challenging enough. Most libraries have hardly enough funding to pay for their
ongoing commitments, publications, equipment/supplies, personnel, facilities
maintenance -- an unfortunate backdrop for the question of allocating
additional resources for training.
Training involves more than simply walking an individual through set-by-step
keystrokes -- it shares the deeper "mode" of teaching people how to "think
through" the database's intricacies for them themselves with the ultimate
objective of ensuring that people are "linguistically" proficient in the
intricacies of aa given database's search logic, what type of search strategy
yields what types of results, which "computer crossroads" to take to ensure
tapping into the sort of information relating to one's topic of question.
this requires planning on the part of the library staff, setting aside
organised time segments in which to organise workshops, more money to fund the
additional needs to financially cover the increased online access due to group
access in a teaching context, setting aside time to survey the public as to
most appropriate times to hold such courses so that the constituencies can take
advantage of these training sessions, addressing any inhouse
staffing/scheduling needs, a n d last but not least a commitment by the
public to actually show up. And the question of whether to charge for these
course to recover at least some of the database-access costs or absor the cost
in stoic resignation...
The aspect which attorneys and law libarians have in common is that both
"specimens of humanity" have undergone rigorous schooling in terms of
specialised research (not to mention "treasure hunting" for especially elusive
kind of information in search for some law-based precedent in determining the
direction of one's own ongoing case) and the old adage of "paper aided" and
"computer aided law research". The latter typically involves teaching people
the various search engines -- in law school, at least an entire semester is
devoted to the singular aspect of drilling people in legal research (paper and
computer) and finding nit-picky, hard-to-find information. That group effort
is of course funded in part through tuition, library budget, and the law school
administering this teaching. T h i s is the underlying point of
contention when "librarians" (whether politely or impolitely is not my point
here) try to limit online access to attorneys, themselves, and any individuals
who have their own accounts (all three of which groups have been previously
trained, and by the way, lawyers coming in to use these database: chances are
they also have their own accounsts) and thus do not incur database access cost
to the library in which the terminals are housed.
The problem with "the public" is that "the public" really constitutes a cross
section of society in every imaginable category. Aside from the obvious
socioeconomic factors, there are also varying degrees of knowledge base and
familiarity with computers. Ideally training would address all level --
sounds great, but without allowing the libraries the additional tools in staff
time and funding, the idea of letting untrained people tap into online access
which will cost you potentially uncontrollable amounts of money for which
you'll end having to sacrifice other budget items becomes an impractical brand
of egalitarian romanticism.
Ok, Carl, here's your post back in your face
>I agree with Antje. Non-lawyer U.S. citizens
>are generallt too stupid or too poorly trained to
>use up our valuable resources. Crap on 'em.
>carl hartmann
you win Pulitzer Prize for Poetic Sarcasm.
>SInce this discussion is about a PUBLIC
>LIBRARY, I'm shocked.
>ps. If the databases cost $12.00-25.00 like they should,
>there would be many, many times the ammount of
>"resource" for dollars spent--and then even the
>stupid, poorly trained, annoying public
>could use the resources. (Prices on a per/hour basis)
--- yes, prices. So, should the fees be passed on to the patron, or should the
cost be absorbed by the library? How do you purport to anticipate the library
budget when the fiscal expenditure-based-on-absorbed-online-connect-fees is
completely unpredictable? Do you "cut" another budget item in order to fund
this unpredictabley-sized online expenditure incurred by users whose numbers
(nor online-connect time) you cannot predict?
-- your argument is a valid one -- we're back to square one in the discussion
of legal information governing public conduct being an appropiriate candidate
for "free" accessibility by the public whose conduct is governed by law (ok,
enough circular connection of these matters).
-- What s h o u l d be and what i s, however, does not always add up.
There is always the small but significant, non?, matter of practicality in
ensuring a given library's financial ability to survive as an entity.
-- The point which most people do not understand is that libraries functions
like businesses, with necessary functioning/operating mechanisms, budget items,
time constraints, staffing realities, basic needs, etc. The romanticised
storefront of information made available to the public is much like displays in
the front ("publicly seen") part of the shop -- while the operational nuts &
bolts of accounting, staffing, merchandise receiving, etc are invisible to the
public but nonetheless do very much exist.
-- perhaps instead of arguing about an idealist premise of which we all
intrinsically see value, we all should out our heads together and think about
some ways to make it happen within the parameters of realistic practicality &
feasibility ??
Ok, gotta get back to a big project,
Antje
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST