Jim -
I'm going to stick my neck out and make a prediction. That's truly a
risk since this will go into the archives and ten years from now someone can
read what I said and remind me that I was wrong, if, in fact, I am. Ah, for
the good old days when you could always say you didn't say whatever it was
that you said. :-)
So, here goes. I think over the next few years, as scads of law
librarians jump on the Internet (remember, we only have a fraction of the
total population now) all this complaining about too many lists will just
be an unpleasant memory. :-) Because in fairly short order, we will simply
not have the luxury of subscribing to lists that don't directly relate to
our everyday concerns because the volume will simply be too high.
Yes, I do enjoy getting a peek into the issues that are important to
academics on law-lib. And I frequently benefit from discussion of issues
we have in common. But I can see the day coming when I will have to cut
down on the volume of messages I receive. When that time comes, I may
unsubscribe to law-lib. Instead of throwing up my hands in despair at the
volume of my e-mail, and unsubscribing to all lists, I will be able to be
more selective about what I read and choose the lists that are most
important for me to see. I think there's material of value on law-lib, but
at some point the burden of reading large numbers of messages that I have no
interest in will outweigh the benefits.
And I don't believe that we are fragmented because there is more than
one list relating to law libraries in existence. We are quite naturally
fragmented to a certain extent because our jobs and the issues affecting
our jobs, frequently differ greatly. That doesn't mean we shouldn't
"mix", or that we don't benefit from interaction or that we don't have a lot
in common. But the fragmentation has always been there, and always will be.
The multitude of lists reflect the fragmentation that exist within our
profession, they don't cause it.
I must say, though, I still think Internet will help reduce the
fragmentation to the extent possible. Because as the volume on the lists
grow, hopefully they will become newsgroups, and we can all pop in to
eavesdrop, or participate with the "other groups" as the mood strikes us
and time permits. I really enjoy being able to do that now with AUTOCAT,
BIZLIB and PACS-L.
As far as the regional lists go, I don't think they will siphon
off "business" from law-lib, though it may happen from time to time.
Instead, they will create volume of their own (hopefully not too much!),
suited for a different purpose. Communication among members of the
regional groups will increase, as a result we will become
much more effective, and be able to accomplish a great deal more,
because we don't have to wait 3 months until the next newsletter
to communciate with each other. In addition, we won't have to clutter
up law-lib with announcements of local activities and seminars. That
will increase the value of law-lib, not reduce it, by keeping it
more focused. I can certainly live without seeing announcements
of seminars and jobs on the opposite coast where I can't benefit
from them.
Oh, I did go on, didn't I? Sorry. And by the way, I have no
opinion one way or the other on the Tech Services List. (I'd subscribe,
of course, 'cause I need that info.) :-)
*****************************************************
Cindy Chick CCHICK@DELPHI.COM
Graham & James (213) 689-6502
801 S. Figueroa, Suite 1400 FAX (213) 623-0960
Los Angeles, CA 90017
*****************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST