Archive for the ‘collaboration’ Category.


Catching up on LISNews, I saw these two headlines within several posts of each other:

Wikipedia may restrict public’s ability to change entries.

Britannica’s New Site: More collaboration, participation from experts and readers.

Hmm, says I.

Brief references to the whole OMG publishing as we know it is ending theme

I blog, I blog again, then more articles cross my radar — while book publishing may be having its troubles, people aren’t running out of things to say any time soon. So, briefly noted, some recent publishing- and book buying-related squibs:

  • One thought on helping the industry recover would be: stop buying fake memoirs, people.
  • The Motley Fool thinks the publishing business will survive.
  • Used-book-buyer types might enjoy “Bargain Hunting for Books, and feeling sheepish about it” over at the NYT.

And, on a semi-related note and taking an interesting approach, the post “Academic Evolution: The Book” over at Academic Evolution notes:

This blog is intended to become Academic Evolution, the book. My model is Chris Anderson, whose Long Tail blog helped bring about his seminal book of the same name. Similarly, I am beta testing my ideas, developing them in keeping with the principle of transparency and with the goal of inviting public review and collaboration. I’m smart enough to know others are often much smarter, and I firmly believe that publishing one’s thinking process improves it.

If I’m remembering right, The Long Tail grew out of the Wired article, with the blog collecting data along the way and post-publication, but I like the acknowledgement here of the inherently collaborative process involved in creating a book, and look forward to seeing how the project develops.

Mine! Mine! Mine!

Maybe it’s just the grinchiness of the season, but I’m wondering what’s up with the recent spate of of librarians who don’t want to share. First, Code4Lib Journal publishes “We Love Open Source Software. No, You Can’t Have Our Code.” Here’s the abstract:

Librarians are among the strongest proponents of open source software. Paradoxically, libraries are also among the least likely to actively contribute their code to open source projects. This article identifies and discusses six main reasons this dichotomy exists and offers ways to get around them.

Go read the rest of it, please. (Which you can do, because Code4Lib Journal DOES share…)

Then, OCLC continues its power grabbiness, summed up with inimitable style at Caveat Lector under “Thursday WTFery.”

Here’s what it boils down to, guys. I have an almost 2yo already, so don’t need to hear about any more of these “NO! MINE!” toddler-inspired power struggles, mm-kay? Listen:

Librarianship is about sharing. Librarianship is about collaborating. Librarianship should darn well be about not having to reinvent the wheel every time. So play nice!

Speaking of sharing, The Free Range Librarian also has an awesome post up: “Hiding my candy: giving me the option to share my reading.”

I don’t want librarians to “protect my privacy” by purging my reading history from their catalogs. (One of the most useful features of Amazon for me? My purchasing history. Not just as a personal record — but as data Amazon uses to improve my experience.)

To which I can only say: YES. Not only for the option to share with and explore others’ reading, but for the option of having my record available to me — I can’t count how many times I’ve tried to remember a title I just returned, or recall the name of an author I enjoyed last month. If I’d bought the book on Amazon instead of getting it from my local library, this would be a given… As far as privacy concerns, how about: opt-in only, with the option to keep the data password-protected/private or share it with the world, and the option to not share any given item.