|
|
|
Deadline |
. |
March 2004
Editorial The Google versus librarians debate reached the pages of the The Washington Post last month, in a long piece entitled We Wanted Answers, And Google Really Clicked. What's Next? This included the statement that "There's been a culture war between librarians and computer scientists. And the war is over. Google won", by Berkeley professor Peter Lyman that not surprisingly had librarians spitting feathers. As we all know, information professionals - and the media variety in particular - are constantly having to justify their existence. We can all argue that we are the best searchers, use only reliable sources, know about the invisible web and so on, but the message doesn't always get through. One argument is that we should accept that people want to do their own searching and put all our energies into training them how to do it more efficiently. Some have gone down this road and there is certainly a role here, but to me at least, this doesn't seem like the best use of our talents and resources. These issues are touched on in a number of the articles in this edition of Deadline. In a letter to the editor, Helen Martin, one of AUKML's founding members, mentions the great online versus cuttings debates of yesteryear, while Katharine Schopflin writes about the reskilling of the shrinking number of librarians at the BBC. The questionnaire is back and journalist Simon Hattenstone, while a prolific Google user, acknowledges that researchers possess valuable skills. Gertrud Erbach from News International lets us see her Day in the Week diary and Ian Watson reviews a book on copyright that actually sounds interesting. Finally, Alan Power does his usual news roundup. Richard Nelsson Joel Achenbach. We Wanted Answers, And Google Really Clicked,
What's Next? The Washington Post, February 15 2004. Deadline is produced by Richard Nelsson, Alan Power, Katy Heslop and Linda MacDonald from the Guardian Research Department. Please send news, reviews and letters to: richard.nelsson@guardian.co.uk or deadline@aukml.org.uk The opinions expressed in Deadline are not necessarily those of the AUKML.
News Lip service: new trade union group for librarians British Library news Site reviews HistoryWorld, a new site (new to Deadline anyway), has free access to factoids, specialist articles and timelines on around 4,000 world events. The archive can be searched or browsed and is organised by time period, topic and location. Check it out at: http://www.historyworld.net. A 12-volume encyclopedia of Jewish history and culture has been launched at: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com. Contents include information from libraries, book collectors and free access to more than 15,000 articles and illustrations.
In 2000 BBC Information & Archives started a programme of 'Reskilling' its research staff. Intended to spread fewer enquiries across a shrinking workforce, it involved librarians and researchers from different areas (eg news information, TV archive research and music research), learning how to carry out each other's enquiries and offering a shared research service. New telephony systems were put in place to support the new teams. The telephony system works in the following way: the researcher logs into their phone with a personal ID code (allowing supervisors to track how many enquiries researchers take). They then log onto different research lines depending on what kinds of enquiries they are taking that day. The customer rings a single number and is given a 'menu' of research options. If, for example, they choose the option for 'sound archive or sound effects' the phone will ring on the desk of whoever has logged onto sound archive research. The system searches for the person who hasn't picked up a call for the longest. If no-one is available the customer simply waits. Last year, after a secondment working on the departmental intranet, I returned to operational research and needed to be 'Reskilled'. Having been in a news information team before my secondment, which had since been closed down, I went to join a reskilled team offering a combination of music information research, sound archive research and Grams research (research on commercially recorded music). As it was felt that I was already skilled in information, I started off with a 'refresher' in music information for a month. The enquiries were very different from news-related enquiries: more in-depth, longer deadlines and really valuing quantity and quality, as compared to the speedy soundbite required by news departments. It so happened that I had a certain amount of subject knowledge, which meant I was not simply reliant on catalogues. After a month, however, I was sent to Sound Archives. The training here was well-organised and thorough, and after six weeks I was confident answering most telephone enquiries or at least knowing where I could send the person next. Coming from a news background helped me deal with demands for historical news archive and being a radio listener meant I knew my way around the schedules. Officially reskilled in two disciplines, I began my career as a multiskilled researcher. For the first two weeks I optimistically opened up both lines and kept them open all day - after all in a busy news information department the phone was nearly always answered and we somehow always got the work done. I was swamped and took on far more work than I could ever do - meaning I had to stay late, work through my lunch hours and, in extremis, instigate the Chinese whispers of passing on enquiries to colleagues. It didn't take me long to realise that I had to close my phone down when I had more work than I could do for the day - after all, every enquiry taken is a promise that the work will be done. I also found it very difficult combining sound archive enquiries which were logistically rather than intellectually difficult and had in many cases newsy-type deadlines, with the in-depth demands of music information. I would find that, piling up the sound archive enquiries, I couldn't focus on the music ones and would simply end up not taking them, or I would bury myself in finding background for a Radio 3 running order and not be able to take any sound archive enquiries. Eventually, as this was the team where I was physically sitting, I ended up doing mostly music information, only opening up my sound archive line when they were short staffed. I then got sent to reskill in Grams, where researchers provide suitable commercially recorded music for use in programmes. There was very little actual training here above learning how to use the catalogue. But in this case the subject specialist knowledge needed - of which I had only a small amount - far exceeded the information one could draw out from the catalogue. There was a bare minimum of enquiries which I could do without asking colleagues to help. And once again, once officially reskilled, I found myself mostly doing one kind of enquiry all day. This was particularly the case as my current desk was handy for customers to approach directly if they came in person (which, as they hadn't been able to get through on the phone, they frequently did). My observations on the experience are the following: Multiskilling information workers is common in organisations: you may well work in one where you have taken on information management, training and intranet roles as well as enquiry work. Because it has many different types of information service, the BBC can cut its library cake in this particular way rather than, for example, archive researchers also cataloguing sound or film, or information researchers also training end-users. It also has an interest in separating out chargeable enquiry work from centrally-funded information management. I have now left the department, but another set of reorganisations means that this multiskilled team is being broken up. The sound archives team joins the TV archive and non-news information research, while music information and grams research join the sheet music library. The plan is that eventually (and this has been said before) every researcher will be multiskilled to answer enquiries in every area. I can only wish them the best of luck.
Letter to the Editor
from Helen Martin I didn't, sadly, hear Charles Oppenheim's talk at the AUKML conference but maybe as one of the founder members of AUKML you'll allow me to reminisce a little in a way that may throw light on one of his major points. AUKML was extremely dynamic when it started and although it may not prove popular to say this, one reason was that it was made up entirely, in those days, of information managers, head librarians and the people in charge. We would sit round a table with a number of issues in front of us and talk into the night about what our view was on them, trying desperately to reach a concensus. We pretty much eschewed the formal meeting structure to discuss issue-related topics - what impact was online having, what were the likely outcomes, what could we do to avoid the likely outcomes we didn't like the sound of! We were pretty green in those days, much more so than now and there was a lot to discuss, but it was more of a think-tank out of which many, many good decisions came. We didn't all arrive at the same answers, but at least it forced us to think round the subject and exposed us to contrary arguments. I was one of those who felt strongly that membership should be opened up, not least because the frequency (almost weekly at one stage) of these constant meetings was becoming onerous, but also because working with the same group of people leads to a certain sense of stagnation after a while. I do therefore feel it was right, as well as more democratic, to open things up, but it is an undeniable fact that things have been less dynamic since then. This isn't because 'mere' employees are less dynamic in themselves, it is simply because the people who were making the decisions and having the discussions were the people who, first of all, were aware that the discussion had taken place, and secondly were in a position to put into practice the things that had been discussed. Difficult for a junior employee to go back and tell their manager what they should be doing. We were bound together in those days by a common terror that the advent of online (and our lack of understanding of it) was going to wipe us out. In the days of powerful unions in constant conflict with often poor managements, this seemed a very real threat, but the insidious leak of information staff that goes on today, most noticeably at the BBC, is no less of one. As time marched on I think managers had less time to attend 'open' meetings and in some cases their sheer success meant that they were put in the uncomfortable position of being themselves among the people who decided on redundancies and it would be only human if we missed our elite little club - we all like to feel we belong. Nevertheless I think one of the keys to more dynamism is firstly that managers be fully aware of what is going on in AUKML and secondly that they attend meetings. It may well be that in order to persuade them to do this you introduce some kind of two tier system with bi-monthly/quarterly meetings for managers, possibly discussing issues selected as important by the membership, and get them to report back to you. This may sound elitist but then again it may also work! All the discussion in the world is useless if not implemented. Other than that you could have think-tank meetings open to everyone, but again if managers don't attend you run the risk of the results not being heard. I think you have to try and appeal to the managers' sense of 'amour-propre' here and I think a touch of elitism may well be the way to do it! As I say membership could keep control by getting them to report back. Another thing we have talked of down the years is of having a PR appointment, someone who keeps an eye on the press and is ruthless in firing off letters to editors/reporters/outside bodies, public or private, when they read of issues that pertain to our daily lives; this would extend not only to policy issues but even the kind of weekly slurs/misunderstandings one reads about in daily copy. If we gained a reputation for being slightly 'chippy' and alert on these matters, we would at least be noted and recognised as a force to be reckoned with. Since one of our constant complaints seems to be that we aren't noticed at all and no one knows what we do, this may help to eliminate that a little. I'm sure for example that we have all read the Soham reports and marvelled that the police have a system that cannot pick up two names belonging to the same person, never mind their weeding processes. Clearly they need to employ information managers! This may be ranging too wide of our target audience, but on the other hand, maybe not. Reporters/editors are devouring every word of these reports just now and pertinent comment from an information professional in their own world will register - a well placed letter to the Times could be just the thing. Nothing I've suggested is meant to be set in concrete but maybe some discussion and modification around it will throw up a solution or two. Best wishes
Simon Hattenstone is a journalist and author. His books include Out of It (Sceptre), a look back to three years in the 1970s when a debilitating illness transformed him from a bright and healthy nine-year-old into a bedridden invalid reduced to baby talk. CAN YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU FIRST USED THE INTERNET? HOW OFTEN DO YOU GO ONLINE? WHICH SEARCH ENGINE DO YOU USUALLY USE? CAN YOU NAME ANY OTHER SEARCH ENGINES? NOW THAT YOU CAN SEARCH THE INTERNET YOURSELF, DO YOU THINK THERE IS STILL A ROLE FOR LIBRARIANS/INFORMATION PROFESSIONALS? NAME YOUR THREE FAVOURITE SITES. ARE THERE ANY SITES THAT YOU FIND REALLY IRRITATING? HAVE YOU EVER BEEN SO BORED THAT YOU'VE 'GOOGLED' YOURSELF? DO YOU STILL USE OLD MEDIA? WHAT HAS BEEN YOUR MOST PLEASURABLE EXPERIENCE WHILST SEARCHING ONLINE?
Martin looked at how traditional librarian and information science skills are being applied to the internet at the BBC. The meeting was well attended, although most people seemed to be from the Industrial and Commercial Libraries Group, rather than AUKML. Details from the talk can be found at: http://www.currybet.net/archives/000203.shtml.
Librarian credits And following recent the Oscars ceremony it's worth remembering the old fable that the world's premier film awards gets its name thanks to a humble librarian. Folklore has it that the Academy Awards became known as the Oscars when an academy librarian and eventual executive director, Margaret Herrick, noticed that the gold statuette resembled her Uncle Oscar. http://www.seeing-stars.com/Awards/OscarTrivia.shtml. Staff size survey Machines v the humans
Between a rock and hard place. The problems facing freelance creators in the UK media marketplace. A briefing document on behalf of the Creators' Rights Alliance, by Lionel Bently. Institute of Employment Rights, London, March 2002. 100pp ISBN 1 873271 93 X. £30 (discounts available). Commissioned by the Creators' Rights Alliance, this booklet has been around for nearly two years without attracting much attention, which is a pity because it provides a very readable account of the reasons why freelance creators (journalists, photographers, playwrights, musicians, composers etc.) of original works feel they are being treated unfairly and unlawfully by publishers and broadcasters. It makes very interesting reading for anyone who would like a better understanding of the UK approach to copyright and moral rights. Fundamentally copyright is quite a straightforward idea. If the creator of a work is given an exclusive right to exploit the commercial value of his creation, society at large will benefit from enjoyment of that creation and the creator will have the incentive to go on creating. UK law makes it clear that copyright belongs to the creator, except in certain circumstances (most importantly in relation to works created by employees in the course of their employment). Moral rights include the right to be identified as the author and the right to prevent or object to derogatory treatment of the work. So what is the problem? Well, copyright is a property which, like any other property, may be bought, sold or otherwise transferred, such transactions being governed by contract law. As few creators sell directly to the consumer, they must enter into contractual agreements with publishers, broadcasters, record labels, film distributors and so on. The CRA argue that the problem lies with onerous contracts which often require the author to assign copyright and/or waive moral rights in perpetuity in all media, known or yet to be discovered. The author makes the case for reforming the UK legal regime in order to allow creators to retain control of their work. Drawing on comparisons with other EU countries, recommendations are made as to how the law of contract could be amended to prevent publishers abusing their market power to enforce contracts that deprive creators of all rights over their creation. Unlike some other European countries, the law in the UK is not inclined to reverse contracts, regardless of how unfair they may be. This, it is argued, undermines the whole raison d'etre of copyright protection and is a fundamental breach of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 'Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.' Issue is taken with the requirement set out in the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act that authors must explicitly assert their moral right to be identified as the creator. This requirement appears at odds with the Berne Convention on Copyright which states that the enjoyment of moral rights should not be subject to any formality. The 1988 Act also provides that moral rights can be waived and the author points out that practice of seeking global waivers for future work, common in the UK, is unlawful in some European countries. On the question of the integrity right (the right to prevent or object to derogatory treatment of the work) the author argues that there should be no exemption for a work created for the purpose of reporting current events: ...the majority of journalism is creative and includes comment and opinion, backed up by research and investigation. There is no good reason why a third party should be free to distort the work, alter its meaning, selectively modifying so that it bears a different message'. Distortion of meaning is one thing and asking an author to waive moral rights may be unfair, but denying a newspaper the right to sub-edit is surely impractical. Much of the problem lies with the contractual relationship between author and publisher. In a newspaper context we know that the Tasini case in the USA resulted in the wholesale removal of freelance contributions from online archives. This, it could be argued, does not serve the interests of any of the three parties (creator, publisher and the public) to the copyright bargain. Newspapers aggregate material from many sources. A contractual regime is required in which a film review, for example, can appear in the electronic archive regardless of whether it was created by a staff or a freelance writer; this serves the interests of the customer who cares little about the contractual status of the writer. Future generations of scholars will also be poorly served by historic archives riddled with holes. If there is any criticism of this book it is that it tends to treat every creation as the same and characterises the process as a David and Goliath struggle between the poor creator and rapacious multinational hell-bent on exploitation. Publishers, broadcasters and film-makers do have a role to play in the creative business and the book would benefit from a recognition of the symbiotic nature of the relationship between creator and publisher. It is also worth reflecting that some copyright owners are very powerful businesses (Walt Disney for example) who have been known to thwart the efforts of very small scale film-makers and theatre groups. Writers such as Lawrence Lessig and Siva Vaidhyanathsan have warned that the abuse of power by copyright owners can be just as damaging to the creative process as the unfair exploitation of authors and musicians. That said this booklet is very well researched and raises many important issues. It presents many sensible suggestions as well as model contracts to help creators and publishers find workable contractual solutions that would ultimately benefit all three parties: creator, publisher and consumer. At thirty pounds a pop, I hope the creator of this work was well rewarded. Seriously, the price is a bit of a barrier and the sentiments expressed need wider dissemination and discussion if any progress is to be made. http://www.creatorsrights.org.uk/between_a_rock.htm . Ian Watson is Head of Rights and Information at The Herald (Glasgow).
Sometimes I find it hard to believe that I have now been at News International for 10 years. My first role was that of Online and Research Librarian. There has been more than one incarnation between this and my current job as Senior Editorial Services Manager. I no longer do much research, but I do miss the buzz it used to give me. Whenever I am approached directly for help with an enquiry, I try to find the answer myself, if I'm not too busy. In November 2001, when my request to go part-time was accepted, I started working four days a week, Tuesdays to Fridays. It's quite amazing what a difference a day makes that one doesn't have to spend commuting. I feel much more relaxed and more energetic when I come in on Tuesdays. The last week in January was the start of our annual budget preparations. Our departmental accountant had already emailed us the week before with the deadlines for submission of the operational and capital expenditure budgets. As usual, we only had one week to turn around our operational budgets. The submissions for capital expenditure were due a week later. When I came in on Tuesday, the Managing Director's budget instructions were sitting in my mailbox together with the briefing sheets from the accountant. These are spreadsheets for our cost centres showing the relevant accounts and the information needed for the forecast and the setting of next year's budgets. I downloaded the spreadsheets into my working area and proceeded to check the rest of my mailbox. As it was my first day back after the weekend, my mailbox was pretty full. Around 150 emails were waiting for me. I deleted at least 100 without even looking at them. They were those offering me cheap deals, enlargements and improvements of all kinds to body parts I don't even possess. I have no idea why I receive them but my colleagues next door do not. Apart from being annoying and a waste of time, the spams also activated the automatic systems administrator, which kept filling my mailbox by telling me that my mailbox is over its size limit. It took me the best part of an hour to clear the Inbox and to respond to some of the emails. I then created copies of the budget briefing sheets for the departmental managers. Once they had completed the figures for their respective areas I had to check them and consolidate them all into the large spreadsheet. At lunchtime I briefly popped across the corridor to a Weight Watchers meeting. These meetings had been arranged by our HR department and started before Christmas. Many of those who attended did so with the intention of losing some weight so that they could gorge themselves over the festive season without having to worry too much about putting on extra weight. I had joined as well but had found it hard to psych myself up. Consequently I didn't lose an ounce. The meetings continued after Christmas and I was more successful. It's all rather slow going though and it will probably be some time before I need to replace my wardrobe, if at all. On Wednesday I had my regular weekly update with the Editorial Services Director. We discussed issues arising in my areas of responsibility and, of course, anything that needed considering for the budgets. We arranged an additional meeting for later in the week before I had to send the final versions off to the accountants. I also had a meeting with the departmental accountant. This was one of the regular monthly meetings to discuss the monthly responsibility reports. He had sent me the first draft of the reports the day before and I had gone through them in the afternoon. We combed through the reports of the six cost centres, which are part of the Editorial Services department, and which I am looking after. We discussed items in the reports which seem dubitable and may need to be re-coded, and any accruals that we need to make. Two of the managers had completed their budget submissions. I checked them and noticed some discrepancies with my own preliminary figures for salaries. I wondered whether there was something wrong with the Excel software. One of my colleagues pointed out that mistakes in Excel are usually down to human error. It took me the best part of an hour and repeated checking and double checking to establish that I had transposed two numbers. Human error after all! Thursday started with regular weekly meetings with the departmental managers of Information Services and Picture Services. These meetings are important to keep the lines of communication open. We went through their budget submissions and they pointed out any unusual items we might have to justify when the budgets are presented to the Managing Director. Just before lunchtime I took a call from a journalist asking how much it would cost to replace a bound volume of The Times. She explained that she wanted to do a collage and needed to cut up a bound volume of The Times because there was no other way she could get hold of what she needed. I explained that our bound volumes are unique and irreplaceable and suggested she check the microfilm or the Times Digital Archive. At five o'clock I had a scheduled conference call from the States. Our account manager for one of our database hosts called to discuss some additional questions relating to a licensing contract we were in the process of negotiating. Friday turned out to be quite hectic. I was determined to meet my deadline for the operational budget so that the following week I could concentrate on the capital expenditure budgets. These tend to be more complex as we have to write a business case for large projects. The day started with a meeting with the Director of Editorial Services to finalise the operational budget. I also had a meeting scheduled with the departmental secretary to go over the royalty reports received from database hosts for the month. I chased some outstanding information for the budgets. With a sigh of relief and glad I didn't have to worry about them over the weekend I emailed the briefing sheets on to the accountant.
Just in case you need to find an answer to such questions as 'Can a werewolf be a librarian?', this is the site for you: http://www.ibiblio.org/librariesfaq/sect7.htm. We weren't going to mention those frisky librarians in Camden, but just in case you missed the story, this is what all the fuss was about: http://tinyurl.com/36d9j. Finally there's the library lovers site ( http://www.librarysupport.net/librarylovers/). All very embarrassing, but we know some of you crave this sort of stuff. Actually the Librarians in the movies: An Annotated Filmography http://emp.byui.edu/raishm/films/introduction.html is quite useful. Oh, and to return (sort of) to where we started, make sure that you don't hit the 'b' instead of the 'g' when typing in Google. You have been warned.
|
