I had that CILIP Chief Executive in the back of my cab

"So I jump into this taxi from Broadcasting House to the House of Commons and the taxidriver looks at me in his mirror. "I don't recognise you," he says," Which are you? Broadcaster or politician?" He's looking quite fierce. "Neither," I reply, "I'm a librarian." His face softens. "Ah, libraries," he says, "My daughter uses the library all the time. That's much better then being a broadcaster or a politician - I don't trust any of them." And there you have it - why libraries (and librarians) are at the heart of the debate about what sort of relationship we want between society and the State: because people care about their libraries."

This encounter sounds unlikely to us. But does it really demonstrate that libraries are "at the heart of the debate about what sort of relationship we want between society and the State"?

If, for example, the cabbie had gone on to say that his daughter also swam regularly, would that mean that swimming pools (and lifeguards) are at the heart of the debate too? And what if the driver had instead replied "My daughter has been invoiced for a book she's sure she returned, I hate librarians, get out of the cab!" ... what would that show?

CILIP's "clear and compelling" messages (2)

Since they failed to get someone on Newsnight a few weeks ago, CILIP have become obsessed with the idea of "rapid response" in case of future media requests and building a more general campaign of advocacy in the face of likely cuts. However, they apparently believe that most librarians are incapabable of making a lucid case on their own and have therefore begun to produce a series of one-sheet lists of "compelling" arguments "to help CILIP members and library advocates".

The two lists produced so far take a bullet point approach to defending our profession and, sadly, are of the same standard as earlier CILIP documents we have highlighted.

We can't help thinking that merely parroting that "libraries change lives" will impress no-one, whilst claims that they "act as a cost-saver for society by combating ignorance, alienation, isolation, division and the lack of aspiration" or "stand for important values in our society including intellectual freedom, equality of opportunity, engaged citizenship, informed democracy, and a society in which people have the chance to achieve their potential" are both ludicrous and meaningless. Worse still is the assertion that we "enable learning and literacy from cradle to grave" - not least because it blithely appropriates a phrase associated so closely with the founding of the NHS. And surely it is dangerous to talk of "essential services" such as "author events and exhibitions" at a time when many truly essential services will be reduced.

All sectors will face cuts. These are big claims to make. How about some evidence?

CILIP's "clear and compelling" one minute messages

Who writes this twee rubbish?

"They are not intimidating in the way other professionals can be. But just because they are unassuming, do not assume they are unimportant. It is the library staff who bring the library to life."

The Information Professional versus Google

CILIP’s website includes “Practical Guides” written by their Information and Advice Team which are considered of sufficient value to be password protected. One of them, The Information Professional versus Google, seems to be intended as a crib sheet for librarians to use when their role is being questioned. One would expect it to gather together and articulate the strongest arguments in favour of our profession. Unfortunately, it is a shocking example of bad writing, grammatical inconsistency, and the muddled thinking and poor reasoning that blight our discourse.

These are its main arguments:

• "A course at CILIP mentions that in 2007 Google only indexes 6% of the web."
• "Most material on the web is not vetted."
• "Information Professionals have a role in teaching information literacy; we are often in a good position to educate people about the web".
• Young people tend to skim read articles. Librarians are good at writing abstracts.
• "Information Professionals are often providing a service for the public good, not every one can afford to subscribe to the internet or afford books."
  
• "Information Professionals are developing IT skills to encourage users to library websites." (Is this wise?)
  
• "Information professionals save time. Frank Ryan says the three things he has learnt are that time has a value, the internet is not free (it still takes staff time to find free material) and pay-as-you-go pricing does not work for users." (Who is Frank Ryan?)
• "With the growth of web 2.0 and social media the role of information professional has changed, our role can often now be of "moderator" – providing quality control rather than being susceptible to popular low-quality information." (Eh?)
• "Search engines are constantly being updated to improve the service; this can result in them going offline, addresses changing or "broken links". Information professionals are able to update and index their own collections in a consistent manner." (What does this mean?)
• "Archives of things such as news items often go offline after a while. Libraries often have access to buy in online or physical collections." (“Things such as news items”!)
• "The cost of digitising a library is approximately $10 a book so physical libraries are likely to exist for some time. It has taken Google book search 3 years to digitize a million books, so it is likely to take 200 years to index all the books." (Assuming, that is, there are no further advances in scanning technology in the next 200 years)

Maybe CILIP should consider "vetting" its own material on the web?

Save your library: open up a Twitter feed

There's an interesting debate going on regarding a report which, in passing, suggests that public libraries might be staffed by volunteers.

One thing it shows is the limitations of Twitter as a forum for debating complex issues. The Twitter comments are either moronic (e.g. "This is scary #libraries keep being mentioned as being choppable today") or, more usefully, refer people to blog posts. The CILIP forum includes a couple of robust and persuasive comments from actual volunteers, and this is very good too

Library 2.0 guru Phil Bradley doesn't see it like that. This is his solution:

"Take a video camera, video it all, put it on YouTube, open up a Twitter feed, stream questions from the rest of us in order to give us better insight. Then go out onto the streets and ask people what they think?"

Defining our professional future

On the subject of CILIP, it's depressing to see that this lucid, thoughtful contribution to their Conversation has produced no response and yet there has been much chatter about the "ethics" of tweeting at conferences ...

Update blog

What's going on over at CILIP's Update?

The magazine (and its somewhat pointless blog) appears to have become a outlet for Matthew Mezey's interest in weird American management gurus.

Open letter to the Prime Minister

This is a letter written by some librarians to the Prime Minister. It was sent in February and is regarding school libraries.

It is a typical information literacy text. It’s badly written, lacks self-awareness and makes ludicrous claims for the profession. The timing is also strange: hadn't they seen the opinion polls?

Take this extract: leaving aside the offensive nature of the metaphor, can tidal waves "gradually but inexorably" drown people? And will the 21st century really be "symbolized", not by climate change or the rise of China, but by distance education?


Link

Making money from rubbish librarians

Twitter for librarians, CILIP Training course, 27 July 2010. Course leader: Phil Bradley.

Under "Who should attend?":

"Any library/information professional who needs to keep up to date with new resources ... No technical understanding or ability is required or expected."

!!

Cost = £305-£430 + VAT.

From Phil's post "CILIP in 2020": "I want CILIP to continue to run courses ..."