Dead Fish and Unnamed Substances is an anonymous blog from a public library LA2. The stories are always worth reading (especially for the descriptive names of this person’s coworkers) but yesterday’s post titled among_stacks: IM So Pissed really got my attention. It seems that the library is finally starting to use IM to communicate within the library. Trouble is, the Circulation department has been exclusively banned from participating. From the post:
“Cut an entire department off from communicating with the rest. Their argument is the same that was given to me by our stingy-ass Information Tech when I asked her to create logons for me on other computers so the Gorilla would quit eyeing me hungrily for monopolizing her Gmail computer with my pesky work-related IM. IT had refused, telling me Circulation was not meant to have individual logons to their computers because, as she put it, ‘Well, the idea was that you were supposed to be helping the public.'”
I agree with all of the author’s comments and add the following. Some people in some departments may joke about sticking the catalogers and processors in the basement without windows, and may look down on the paraprofessionals, but without them, the system fails. In some cases, those parapros may been considering getting MLS’ and becoming the future of librarianship. With attitudes like the one discussed in that post, it’s a wonder the building is still standing.
I am a bit surprised, and frankly, dismayed, that someone would pass judgment on a library and its workplace culture based upon one person’s blog entry — at least you prefaced with “it seems.”
In my opinion (after all, that’s what this is all about, right?) it is certainly not advancing the credibility of blogging when one (obviously disgruntled) person’s interpretation of a situation is immediately elevated to “The Word” heights. I think there is an overall responsibility for a blog author (and successive reader-authors) to be professional (with or without the MLS) and act/post appropriately, particularly when something claims to be “life among the stacks.” This kind of post ultimately reflects not only on the author but “the library” and the profession. What about being “the standard bearer for accurate, unbiased information” (Karen Schneider, “The Ethical Blogger”). What a lost opportunity: an issue with potential for mature, rational discussion presented instead as a juvenile rant, and then accepted as the reality so readily. Credibility of blogs?…the jury is still out.
I wrote my post based on the assumption that the original poster’s comments were, although obviously biased and opinionated, accurate. The idea that the IT department will not allow someone to use technology because they should, instead, be “helping the public” just makes zero sense to me. This implies that technology and helping the public are not related to each other in any way.
I will readily admit that the blog in question has a particular style that does not live up to Karen’s standards but that doesn’t mean that the information presented should be dismissed. Had it been possible for me to contact the author to get more details I would have attempted it but since it’s not, I worked with the information that I had.
If it’s my ethics you’re questioning, this is something I deal with every day. Are there things about MPOW that I’d love to blog, even rant about? Sure. But I don’t. When I post photos from libraries of thing I disagree with, I don’t identify the library specifically since MPOW may have a business relationship with said library. When I comment on someone else’s posts, I do my best to present my opinion as my opinion. I may be sarcastic, but that’s just my way some times.
My last response is this. Whenever I comment on someone’s blog, I put my name on my comments. I find it odd that you criticize an anonymous blog yet don’t identify yourself.