Rick Anderson 內華達大學 圖書館 資源徵集部 主任
在過去戲劇化變遷的十年裡，沒有任何疑問的，我們圖書館員以我們最正面的意願努力工作來服務我們的讀者。如果專業是條船的話，那麼我想我們正如英雄般完美的划著它。但是我不確定我們是不是已經注意到橫亙在目前航道上的潛在危險。特別是有三個「冰山」 會對我們的將來的成功造成顯著的威脅。當所有過去資訊時代已成過去，我們很難對這些已不再有意義的慣例和態度就此鬆手。當然，我們的讀者們並不會有這類的擔心疑慮，像是Web 2.0的出現。我所見正威脅我們的前進我們的存在的冰山是下面這幾個：
I don’t think there’s any question that we librarians are working hard, with the best intentions, to serve our patrons well in a world that has changed dramatically in the last decade. If the profession is a boat, then I think we’re all rowing pretty heroically. But I’m not sure we’re paying enough attention to the potential disasters that lie in our current path. In particular, there are three “icebergs” that I believe pose significant threats to our future success. All are remnants of a bygone information age, practices and attitudes that no longer make sense but which we have difficulty letting go. Our patrons have no such qualms, of course, as the emergence of Web 2.0 demonstrates. The “icebergs” that I see threatening our progress, indeed our existence, are these:
儘管這可能聽起來像發瘋了，我們已經來到對圖書館”典藏”的中心思考存疑的時間點上。建構一個預想讀者所有的需求而廣泛收集各式資料(不包括浪費不存在的)總是很不確定，但是這曾是在資訊只能由紙本獲取時唯一合理的方法，因為這樣，要很困難、昂貴並且緩慢才能建立。但是如果他們很難找到資料而收集訊息產品這事兒已不再有意義。因為不難了。事實上傳統的典藏觀念已經完全不在適宜了。在我的圖書館裡，在過去的二年裡我們看到流通在數據上掉了55%，讓証明持續大量的「以防萬一」式典藏紙本是合理的。當Web 2.0不斷的浮現與發展，我們的讀者將會期望能檢索到所有的事-數位館藏如期刊、書、blog、podcast等等。你想他們無法擁有所有的東西嗎? 再想一下。這可是我們的大好機會啊。
The “just in case” collection
Crazy as this may sound, the time has come for us to look skeptically at the very idea of a library “collection.” Building a comprehensive collection of materials that anticipates the user’s every need (without providing wastefully where no need exists) has always been problematic, but it was an approach that made sense when information was available only in print formats, and was therefore difficult, expensive and slow to distribute. But it no longer makes sense to collect information products as if they were hard to get. They aren’t. In fact, it may no longer make sense to “collect” in the traditional sense at all. In my library, we’ve seen a 55 percent drop in circulation rates over the past twelve years, making it harder and harder to justify the continued buildup of a large “just in case” print collection. As a Web 2.0 reality continues to emerge and develop, our patrons will expect access to everything – digital collections of journals, books, blogs, podcasts, etc. You think they can’t have everything? Think again. This may be our great opportunity.
圖書館在教學上訓練不足。問問你自已你「讀者對館員」的比率是多少(在內華達大學大約是680比1)，然後再問問自已你是如何受訓來面對這些讀者，我們需要專注於排除讀者與資訊間的阻礙而不是花精神在這些教學技巧上，然後他們可以花費一點點時間來和那些廢柴的搜尋介面摔角就如他們實際上閱讀與學習這些技號一樣。很明顯的，當我們夠行時，我們會幫忙和教讀者，更好的話，我們會將我們的服務也整合進去。但是如果我們的服務在沒有訓練下是無法使用的，這表示這服務是需要修正-而不是我們的讀者要修正。一鈕搞定，像是Flickr的Blog This功能，並且易於使用的程式像是Google PAGE Creator，提供了使用者為中心的使用模組。
Reliance on user education
Libraries are poorly equipped and insufficiently staffed for teaching. Ask yourself what your patron-to-librarian ratio is (at the University of Nevada it’s about 680 to 1) and then ask yourself how you’re going to train all those patrons. We need to focus our efforts not on teaching research skills but on eliminating the barriers that exist between patrons and the information they need, so they can spend as little time as possible wrestling with lousy search interfaces and as much time as possible actually reading and learning. Obviously, we’ll help and educate patrons when we can, and when they want us to, and the more we can integrate our services with local curricula, the better. But if our services can’t be used without training, then it’s the services that need to be fixed—not our patrons. One-button commands, such as Flickr’s “Blog This,” and easy-to-use programs like Google Page Creator, offer promising models for this kind of user-centric service.
The “come to us” model of library service
There was a time, not very long ago, when libraries exercised something close to monopoly power in the information marketplace. During the print era, if you wanted access to pricey indexes or a collection of scholarly journals, you had no choice but to make a trip to the library. It wasn’t a good system, but it worked. Sort of. That is to say, it worked moderately well for those privileged with access to a good library. In the post-print era, libraries no longer have the monopoly power that they had in the days before the Internet. We have to be a bit more humble in the current environment, and find new ways to bring our services to patrons rather than insisting that they come to us—whether physically or virtually. At a minimum, this means placing library services and content in the user’s preferred environment (i.e., the Web); even better, it means integrating our services into their daily patterns of work, study and play.
No profession can survive if it throws its core principles and values overboard in response to every shift in the zeitgeist. However, it can be equally disastrous when a profession fails to acknowledge and adapt to radical, fundamental change in the marketplace it serves. At this point in time, our profession is far closer to the latter type of disaster than it is to the former. We need to shift direction, and we can’t wait for the big ship of our profession to change course first. It’s going to have to happen one library—one little boat—at a time.