If the reason you became a librarian is because it’s quiet and you like to read books, it might be time to think about getting into a different profession.
“If the reason you became a librarian is because it’s quiet and you like to read books, it might be time to think about getting into a different profession.”
Curtis Rogers, “Social Media In Libraries: Keys to Deeper Engagement”, Information Today, June 2011, Vol. 28, 6. (via morerobots)
Completely true. When I tell people I’m going to become a Librarian they’re often surprised because I’m an extrovert and I can be loud at times. They don’t understand that not all libraries are tombs of silence and that all the really good librarians are people persons. Library buildings are stocked with books, yes, but libraries are really made of the people in the them, both the patrons and the librarians. If you don’t like working with the public, you won’t like working in a library. Also don’t expect to sit around all day reading books, believe me, there’s precious little time for that, for a Librarian pleasure reading happens on your own time.
Here, here. The introverts in the library world these days tend to be catalogers (and they seem to be growing rarer) and Library tech folks.
The idea that a librarian reads all day is a little silly. Librarians are there to help people find information (regardless of its media) and that means dealing with PEOPLE! It also means you have to spend the time you’re not dealing with people learning more about the resources available, which means reading articles ABOUT books, reading book reviews and lists of new publications, comparing prices and talking (or chatting, texting, emailing, blogging, etc.) to/with people about the best resources for your patrons.
In Defense of JSTOR
There was a recent piece posted by the Atlantic about the cost cycle and paywall of academic articles. It’s a big issue and access to scholarly journals is a topic that merits real discussion and hopefully change. However, the article itself was so poorly researched and inaccurate it does a disservice to the conversation.
The article supposes that the villain is JSTOR. It’s not.
The author of the Atlantic piece is bemoaning his inability to access the latest research in autism and blames JSTOR, even though the vast majority of JSTOR content (aside from their small and new “Current Scholarship” program) is 3 years old or older. JSTOR is designed to be the alternative to print journal storage for back issues; if you’re looking for current articles and the latest research, JSTOR is not where you should go. JSTOR is a not-for-profit that has done tremendous work digitizing and saving thousands of historic scholarly journals, dating back over a century of content, that libraries are throwing away. They are providing access to a treasure trove of valuable content that libraries cannot afford to maintain or store.
Actual current research is packaged and sold by for-profit companies like Elsevier, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis — if you have a problem with the model for academic publishing, those are the publishers you should take it up with.
Because of that poorly written article, I’m seeing “fuck JSTOR” going around on Tumblr as if JSTOR has anything to do with the problem. And therefore the internet is pissing me off.