Okay, so we spend all of this time ingesting and digesting Richardson's advice that we not disregard community created knowledge ("folksonomies," p.90, Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms) but instead embrace them as the new reality, a move he directly contrasts with what we did "Back in the old days" when we depended upon librarians to categorize information for us.
Then, like slamming into a brick wall, we encounter Catalog It! and its continuing mantra that one MUST NOT (gasp!) create one's own subject headings but follow strictly those carefully and microscopically created for us by committees of people who spend months debating the relative merits of Seuss, Dr. vs. Geisel, Theodor, vs. Dr. Suess (AACR 1988 ed.). One almost wonders, when the tears of laughter have subsided, whether so many trees needed to die for this significant development to be shared or implemented.
Thank god they do spend some time assuring us that cataloging police do not, in fact, exist. Even this comes with the caveat, however, that if our catalog is online and can be shared (and thus viewed critically by others) well, then, uh - better have your subject headings in order!
From the weekly overview and discussion posts (not to mention the horror in the eyes of my mentor that appears when I murmur "cataloging decision") I gather that earlier versions of this content have been loads more brutal.
Sears used to be much more of an issue when librarians were typing cards by hand. But because of the keyword search, it is not such an issue anymore. I think K&R are trying to nod to that for the "subject heading" field, but they do talk about broader tagging later in the book.
ReplyDelete