And yes, in many (not all) cases we MUST be willing to do some experimentation and self-learning. Otherwise, stagnation sets in.

Dorothea’s right to criticize that notion. Jumping in isn’t always appropriate, but it’s frequently the only way to get a feel for something.

I read Dorothea’s post as a critique of a fairly specific behavior or attitude–the person who says “I can’t do anything until someone has trained me on this, and I am afraid to do something unless I know in advance it is the right thing to do.” These are the folks who ask “how did you learn to set up that blog?” You jump in and try it, that’s how.

To my mind, asking questions, reading books, etc. is still part of a “beat stuff with rocks” mentality. It’s not about being gleefully ignorant. It is about having the courage to do something without knowing exactly what will happen, and the determination and tenacity to stick with a problem until you figure it out.

-Speaking from way too many years actually creating library “IT” and seeing it as others have created it, I can suggest that “shelving the manuals and beating it with a rock” isn’t always ideal. Many early MARC implementations, for example, were pretty clearly done without actually learning MARC, and showed it, making a number of false assumptions that limited their generality (and usually resulted in the applications rejecting perfectly valid records). That’s one reason I wrote my first book…and I’m still not sure how much good it did. You know, sometimes the documentation (standards, manuals) is there for a reason, not just to fill bookshelves.

-Specifically *not* aimed at Meredith, but maybe a little at Dorothea, I’m with Mark in being a little discouraged at the apparent sense that arguing for balance or any sort of middle ground is being viewed so negatively. Do we really need more “My way or the highway” thinking?

And maybe that does speak to the cluster of posts. I’m certainly willing to look things up and try them out (and do so all the time)–but there are some questions where I’d trust a quick email answer from someone who I know ***has the right information*** a whole lot more than I’d trust Google, or Wikipedia, or an “expert” I don’t really know.

Our disagreement isn’t fundamental, then. You (and Meredith and others contributing to the discussion) see a generally healthy state of technology, full of promise, inviting us to take the plunge (and, according to you, doing so without even RTFM). I see a more tenuous fledgling technology, well worth wondering about with some caution before we dive in headlong.

No, I don’t think that’s the case. As I pointed out im my earlier comment, we are entirely dependent on technology for almost everything we do in libraries, from searching our catalogs to writing reports. If information technology was generally so bad that it routinely caused systems to crash, we wouldn’t be getting much done. If web forms were all like your plumbing supply site, Amazon.com would be out of business by now. We are getting plenty done, and Amazon’s doing quite well, because in aggregate information technology serves us pretty well.

Though I do have to note that one of the fears I’ve often encountered in training staff to use technology is the fear that they’ll “break” something if they actually press the enter key. The fear is real enough, whether or not we agree on its validty.

Adobe Confirms Unpatched PDF Backdoor

These sorts of stories are legion, some are myths or exaggerations, some aren’t. I offer this as an example of ordinary, ubiquitous software, Adobe Acrobat, used by librarians and non-librarians alike. Out of the box it runs fairly miserably, in my opinion, thanks perhaps to its developers operating under a “beating software with rocks” norm. Now it appears to pose a vulnerability for some users.

This might help to explain why users outside the culture of IT are leery of tinkering. The most innocuous, routine applications–Acrobat, IE7, and the like–continue to pose unpredictable problems in operation and for security.

“Simple web forms”? Just today, I tried in vain to order a replacement part for a faucet from a major producer. Their simple web form included a pull-down menu. It was perfectly empty, no options whatsoever. I resorted to the bland, uninformative “Contact us” form, from which I don’t seriously expect a response.

To repeat my earlier points, which do indeed resist–while I really hope they aren’t viewed as attacking anybody at all–the notion that a significant number of librarians are in some way seriously lacking initiative or reason, my take is that we’re putting this all in context, thinking outside the culture, if you will. Since I don’t understand “how Adobe works,” but only “how to work Adobe,” I worry when it yet again brings down the system for no obvious reason. This worry can (and should) be generalized to much of the technology we use. It’s a sensible skepticism, sometimes best addressed by asking for help.

I do believe, however, that it’s important for librarians to take a more proactive approach to developing IT skills, and to take more ownership of IT generally. In this day and age there is very little we do that is not done through information technology, and the continued view of IT as some discipline having nothing to do with librarianship is in effect ceding responsibility for the basic tools with which we do our work to others.

Thanks
Barry