One of Weinberger's propositions is "Filter on the way out, not on the way in" (p. 102). What do you think the implications of this statement are in terms of a library's support of your own personal information pursuits?
Librarians as gatekeepers or human filters of information will no longer effectively serve patrons under Weinberger’s proposition. Although libraries have increased third order sources, created to be queried by patrons, and offer on-line catalogs and databases, the 21st century reference librarian will need to provide patrons with a greater abundance of alternate data sources. Weinberger (2007) writes, “…[F]iltering on the way out vastly increases our shared potential for knowledge” (p. 103). Even if I don’t find the alternate sources useful, the possibility for data beyond the norm is there and should be given as an option. The library will need to provide users with alternate tools and sources such as forums, electronic bulletin boards or peer-reviewed on-line journals. It will be up to me as the patron to be the filter of what is relevant or irrelevant to my topic of research. “Watching customers’ browsing and buying patterns enables places like Amazon to pull together offerings across category lines” (Weinberger, 2007, p. 189). Libraries are becoming more mindful of operating in a business model such as Amazon’s method of making further book suggestions based on initial searches. If a library catalog or database can “read” what I am researching by evaluating my queries and tags, it could automatically generate other research options. The recipe for successful library support of my research could be two cups third order data and one cup of first order data with a dash of blog.
In the generation I grew up in there was a lot of filtering by those who “knew best” like Weinberger’s friend who worked at the Harvard Business Review (Weinberger 2007, p. 102). If I was doing a research project my mother, my teacher, and the librarian would point me in the direction I needed to go. They were very helpful in getting me to the information necessary to complete the project with the knowledge they had. This happened everywhere not only in research but in any information highway one chose to take. It isn’t a deliberate misdirection nor is it a conscious feeding of specific information but a classification based on the organization of complex items.
Weinberger states, “The basic fact that order hides more than it reveals has sometimes itself been hidden within the art and science of organizing our world.” (p. 88). That there is a hidden aspect of information is enticing and makes one want to search all the more for that one speck of information that no one else seems to have. With the ability to search using so many different expressions someone may find that connecting piece that was missing before. Allowing the process of filtering to happen on the way out gives consumers the opportunity to connect the pieces themselves and veer onto a path that may not have existed before.
Consumers will be able to maintain control of their own learning and understanding by having the opportunity to not only filter information themselves but by organizing that information in a way that makes sense to them. Just as people learn different ways, tactilely, visually, and audibly, people separate and classify information in various ways. It’s as Weinberger says, “[It] goes beyond simply organizing your information so you can find it again.” (p. 96). It is a way for people to connect what they know to what they learn and to have the possibility to find the missing piece to their puzzle.
Weinberger’s (2007) discussion in the chapter aptly titled "The Laws of the Jungle," talks about the “wild diversity of human interests and insight” (p.100). This statement illuminates the necessity to refrain from “filtering in” when looking for information for ourselves, or when offering assistance to someone else. My interest in a specific topic may be my own, or it may stem from an external situation. What if I was unsure of the exact topic I wanted to use? If my search was limited by what someone else thought I was looking for, I would most definitely miss vital pieces of information, and possibly data that would totally change my understanding of the topic.
“Filtering in” gets in the way of business marketing also. When a business is “thinking that [we] exist as a market – as something more than a random slice – gets in the way of seeing the truly fascinating phenomenon: miscellaneous customers finding one another in the digital world…” (p. 118) it becomes problematic. As stated above, if something is not directed for all audiences, there will be instances where incomplete data is used. This lack of comprehensive data could damage credibility, could affect a student’s scores, or could cause serious health issues – all dependent on the issue at hand.
I would hope that when I pursue information with the help of an individual, they will freely offer ideas. Ideas that may seem absurd to them, but may be just what I am looking for.
This book was an eye-opener for me, it made me think about information and how we obtain it and organize it in ways I never had before. The internet has changed how we receive and search for information. When I was in school we looked up data in the encyclopedias, or we used books, which were organized according to the Dewey Decimal System, of course. My children on the other hand immediately go to the internet for their information. This has significantly changed the way that librarians assist people in accessing information. It has now become the responsibility of the librarian to steer people toward information, not just help them to find whatever books are available in their library. The sources of information available to people on the internet are almost limitless and the librarian needs to ensure that when helping people they do not limit a person’s information based on what they, the librarian, believes is relevant. As Weinberger writes (Weinberger, 2008, p.102) “filtering on the way out, on the other hand, increases the value of the abundance by locating what’s of value to a particular person at a particular moment.” This means that librarians need to take the time to get to know the person they are helping and also that librarians must stay impartial, it is not the job of the librarian to tell a person what information they need, but to let them know what information is available and let the individual decide what they need. Weinberger writes that “to get as good at browsing as we are at finding –and to take full advantage of the digital opportunity-we have to get rid of the idea that there’s a best way of organizing the world.” (p. 10) This is especially true in libraries. When obtaining information via the internet, there is no place for the general rules of organizing data such as the Dewey Decimal System. When finding information this way, it allows each person to organize the information in a way that is most relevant to them. It is the librarians’ responsibility to not hinder this search, and to keep it about the person who is finding the information, not about the librarians’ preferences. It is also important that the librarian share their knowledge with their patrons, so that the patrons can become better facilitators of knowledge themselves.
I think that Weinberger’s (2007) idea of filtering on the way out is definitely the wave of the future. The many examples he cites, such as Delicious, Flickr, Wikipedia, and the BBC, are all miscellaneous and “how their content is actually arranged does not determine how that content can and will be arranged by their users” (p.100). This basically means that the content is there for the users to utilize in their own unique way once it has been retrieved.
In terms of my own use of library services from the time I was young until now, the methods have definitely changed. In the past, you would need to use the card catalog or ask a librarian, and the data available were limited since you were dealing with paper-based resources. Now, with the advent of computer-based resources, you can access data from the library using your home computer without the help of a librarian, or you can enlist a librarian to help you with your online search. Library websites provide numerous ways to search for data, such as: article databases; journal databases; multidatabase engine searches; basic searches for books and other media through the catalog, other library catalogs and interlibrary loan; news and feeds; databases of theses and dissertations; subject research guides; and many more resources. All of these ways of accessing data “increases the value of the abundance by locating what’s of value to a particular person at a particular moment” (p.103).
I know when I am researching items using a library website, having the flexibility to pick and choose from a large amount of data is preferable as opposed to being limited to only a few choices.
Back before I had ready access to a computer with the internet and the virtually unlimited information it can provide, I was relieved that there were people whose jobs were to make decisions for me on the information I had access to. Weinberger states that we "rely on experts...to spare us from having to wade through the slush piles on our own"(2007, p.102). It was indeed easier to have someone else filter through the information, but I didn't always have the exact information I needed, so I had to use whatever books that were in the Library that I was in. Now that I have access to huge amounts of information on the internet, I am able to find exactly what I need, and with databases, I have access to reliable information. These tools filter on the way out to the user to find the information that they need. In order to serve students and other patrons in a library, the system needs to be able to have information in more ways that the patrons will be able to use it. Weinberger mentions Wikipedia and how that it "reminds us that even a word as simple as elephant has a touch of the miscellaneous about it"(p. 98). Allowing people to chose information for themselves, gives them more opportunity to find what they need and this is accomplished by filtering information on the way out to consumers.
As I read this book I found lots of interesting ideas that I would of otherwised never thought of. Organizing information is such a big part of libraries and making information easier for people to find. It was interesting to see the different types or ways to organize things. Weinberger(2007) writes, "Hanging a leaf on multiple branches makes it more findable by customers" (p.104). I think this displays a good picture of how we can find information and that there is more than one way to find it. As stated by Weinberger (2007), "filtering on the way out, on the other hand increases the abundance by locating what's of value to a particular person at a particular moment." I think this really ties into my first quote because if you dont find what your looking for in one section it may be in another section. When we are searching it is really about knowing how to search the right words in the right combination. Also by filtering on the way out it allows for more articles to be researched and then decided if they are reliable or not. I think this book has alot of good points and is very interesting to read. It really opened up my eyes to things I never woould of thought about with library science.
In the last year we have seen several long standing newspapers close down due to a declining number of customers. The 5:30pm broadcast news programs are also experiencing a noticeable decline in viewers. In fact most people that are still reading newspapers and watching Network news are older in age, and grew up with them. Weinberger’s (2007) description of news rooms across the country where middle age white men use their power to filter information for their reader’s consumption has long been the tradition, but not in the future. Most young people look online for news and information at unfiltered sites such as Reddit.com and Digg.com (p.129, 130). In sympathy with the challenge libraries face when dealing with the miscellaneous (p. 133) Weinberger notes that “customers, patrons, users, and citizens are not waiting for permission to take control. And we’re doing it not just as individuals. Knowledge – its content and organization – is becoming a social act”.
The future may be brighter for those dreading the thought of trying to organize the miscellaneous for users. Sir Tim Berners-Lee inventor of the World Wide Web came up with a plan to cleanup the web called the Semantic Web. “Its purpose is to smarten up the Web through the power of metadata, and works by tagging relevant pages with metadata”. He has improved the Semantic Web with a system called Description Framework (RDF) which the legal system has used successfully (p. 189-193). As more data is opened to Web users it will be up to the individual to filter out the information we access.
As library media specialists, we naturally are information providers given that we provide patrons what they want whether that is a recommendation on what to read, a way in which to find a particular topic on a database, or the best way in which to search for a given subject. We filter things on the way in or as they come to us so that by the time the patron gets to use a particular resource, we know that it is the best resource available—but that is based on our standards. That’s where filtering on the way in goes awry. Weinberger writes, “Filtering on the way in decreases the value of that abundance (the abundance of access to an abundance of resources in the third order) by ruling out items that might be of great value to a few people” (Weinberger, 2007, p. 103). When librarians decide what their valuable information is, they are making a weighty decision that ultimately eliminates a segment of their library’s population by cutting out things that would have been of use to someone. Sorting information on the way out would solve this problem as it would allow librarians (using a third-order oriented technology) to effectively meet the needs of everyone without having to make the difficult decision on what is important and what is not.
When talking about the third-order miscellany Weinberger states an interesting thing saying, “Things have their places, not a single place. We get to create our own categories, ones that suit our way of thinking” (p. 102). The fact that one thing does not necessarily have to be tied down to a single place is a revolutionary concept. By allowing for a certain idea to be spread across multiple areas, we are getting that idea out to more and more people. In the case of Amazon.com, patrons can tag a book in as many different ways as they want, ultimately spreading that book across a wide variety of places. Sorting on the way in puts limits on where things can go, forcing them into constraints they might not fit it whereas sorting on the way out allows for the freedom to spread a topic to as many areas as necessary. Librarians should not put limits on what their patrons are looking for; they should indulge their patrons and give them the means to create their own system for finding information.
Database research is an excellent example of how library research tools here at UNO “filter in” information (Weinberger 2007) by not labeling everything. I often hear one of the Librarians complain that when you search for something in a database, the database only searches the abstract. Weinberger (2007) states, “Everything is metadata and everything can be a label.” (p. 104). If databases let us search through every single word in an article, then the next time someone was looking for an article they read that mentioned the words purple pens (which wasn’t what the article was about so it’s not in the abstract) they would have no problem finding it again. Weinberger (2007) uses Shakespeare plays as an example for everything being a label. You can type in a Google search box just a line from the play you remember, or the author, or the title of the play, and find what you are looking for (p. 104). If academic databases available at the library made everything a label like Weinberger (2007) is talking about, then searches would be much easier, and the next time someone’s looking for a weird mention they remember from an article that had nothing to do with what the article was about, they would be able to find it. This idea that “every word in a book (can) count as metadata” described by Weinberger (p. 104) should be applied to article database searching so that it is user friendly and information is readily available.
Filtering on the way in restricts what we are allowed to view; that means that there is someone who decides what is right to view and what is not. Filtering on the way out allows patrons to decide for themselves what is important information to them, and what is not. It allows us to move further away from what libraries used to be. A place that you had to ask for other information and did not always have access to what you wanted. With filter on the way out, we can find information that we didn't know that we would need. This gives us a freedom of information and data that we have not always had.
on the way in" (p.102). This is because if we are filtering out we are hindering the individual from finding a unique book or subject that they and only 2 others might have interest in. If people are searching for personal information that is unique solely to them and a select few, but we as libraries are filtering out on the way in the "items of great value to a few people" (p. 103) then we are hindering the pursuit of personal knowledge and information. Filtering on the way in weakens the ability for the library to provide the best opportunities for its patrons. Filtering on the way out works because you are removing items that are never used and are able to monitor how and when products are being used. Another learning item that jumped out at me from this book was in the interview with the Staples employees. Bob Medill says, “we learn by watching our customer’s eyeballs” (p.2). I thought that this was an interesting idea to use in the library. To stop and watch the patrons as they enter the library. What are they looking for? What do they use to help them find what they need? Do they find the catalog? Come to a librarian for help? By watching how our patrons use the library we can best organize the layout of the library to their advantage and provide them with the resources they need and use the most.
I recently had a patron come into my library looking for information on Julius Caesar for a report. I and the other librarian on duty proceeded to spend the next half hour running around finding books for her. However, the task turned out to be harder than we originally thought it’d be. When searching our catalogue, we came up with results that included everything from the Shakespeare tragedy, to a book about art from ancient civilizations, which was obviously, not kind of information a grade-schooler would be looking for in order to write a report. The whole ordeal ended with the patron switching her report topic to Adolph Hitler and me having piles of books to put away while thinking “there has to be a better way to organize this stuff!”
After reading “Everything is Miscellaneous” I’ve realized that there are an infinite number of ways to organize information, from the questionable Dewey Decimal System (Weinberger 2007, p. 47-48), to the wild, hodge-podge of Wikipedia (p. 97-100). However, no one system will satisfy every, single person every, single time.
I both agree and disagree with Weinberg’s statement that we should “filter on the way out, not on the way in.” (p. 102). During times like the afore mentioned Julius Caesar fiasco, I think filtering would be in order. A 10-year-old girl looking to write a report probably won’t need, want, or even understand the unabridged Julius Caesar as it is found in “The Tragedies of Shakespeare.” However, on the flip side, if a grade-schooler would ask for “The Tragedies of Shakespeare,” who am I to say “Oh, honey, that’s too advanced for you, how about I find you some ‘Hannah Montana’ books, instead?” They might be checking something out for a parent, they might be a precocious reader, or they might simply want to look “cool” carrying a big book around. It’s their prerogative, I’m simply there to help them get the information they want.
As for not filtering information on the way in, I agree with Weinberger, “where there’s an abundance of access to an abundance of resources, filtering on the way in decreases the value of that abundance…” (p. 103). If we keep a strangle-hold on the information we let into our libraries, making sure that we like it, we’re not serving our patrons as we should.
Before I had easy access to the internet all of my research was done at the library. It is overwhelming walking inside and seeing all of the reference materials lined up, and knowing that somewhere on those shelves I was going to find enlightenment. Then I would have to take on the daunting task of filtering on the way in. I have spent hours in libraries trying to find the perfect article or source, but now with the internet I can easily sort through the clutter and find exactly what I am looking for. Weinberger (2007) writes, “We are rapidly miscellanizing our world, breaking things out of their old organizational structures, and enabling individuals to sort and order them on the fly”(p. 96). Making everything miscellaneous and allowing people to put their own tags on information lets people easily find exactly what they are looking for. In a library setting filtering on the way out makes finding information for a patron a lot less painful.
I never realized that filtering was even going on. It happens so naturally that it is a part of human nature. Weinberger (2007) says, “The world started out miscellaneous but it didn’t stay that way, because we work so damn hard at straightening it up”(p. 10). We organize everything from store shelves to our silverware, but the internet is a different story. Order is needed in libraries; if everything was miscellaneous the library would be useless. The internet, on the other hand, is very effectively miscellaneous allowing people to “window shop” or find exactly what they are looking for by typing in a few key words. Library databases are widely used because of this feature. Patrons can decide for themselves which information they want to use and don’t have to consult a librarian for help finding information. The selection on the internet greatly outnumbers the selection in a library, and everybody likes options.
I think it is empowering. It is like what Weinberger (2007) said, “while we would continue to grant our doctor sole authority over our treatment, we were no longer willing to let her be the sole source of information” (p. 124-5). We search and find what we want. We are responsible to check the sources we use. We are searching for what we are interested in, not excepting the first answer is the only answer, and it may well not be the answer we seek. The information we gather is only important to us as it relates to our purpose. We are building our information into an “infrastructure of meaning” (p.171). We can see the context we create, and if others benefit from that information to our advantage great! Business may see it as a resource to understanding what we want; however we are using our information by connecting to friends, family, peers, and compatriots. We define the meaning. We set our tags and search on the vast sea of the Internet through ever growing knowledge for answers that we define.
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous. New York: Times Books.
In his book Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder (New York: Times Books, 2007), David Weinberger argues that in the digital age hierarchal classification systems are no longer useful nor necessary. He argues that controlled classification systems, from library catalogs to scientific taxonomies, are outdated and limit knowledge. Weinberger divides organizational structures into three broad categories (p.17): first order, the physical arrangement of the item, second order, the cataloging of the physical item, and third order, the digital representation of an item. Weinberger believes that with digitalization, old methods of organizing information should be abandoned in favor of user generated classification. He believes that the digital nature of information allows for nearly limitless search paths and that these unrestricted search paths will lead to new and novel connection which will generate new knowledge. Weinberger rejects hierarchies as false constructions that exist only because we had no other way of representing an idea. At the heart of his proposal is the philosophical question “Do things have an agreed upon name?’ Weinberger proposes that information users will be better served if they construct for themselves an organization structure and search path (tagging) that suits their unique needs. This is entirely possible given the new power of digital information storage, search, and retrieval systems. The question is, is this desirable? The fundamental basis for Weinberger’s philosophy is his rejection of hierarchal thought. He uses Carolus Linnaeus’s eighteenth century groundbreaking taxonomy, Systema Naturae, in an attempt to demonstrate the limitations of hierarchal and thought. Weinberger cites several examples of errors in the first edition of Systema Naturae (p.77) and contends that Linnaeus classified plants according to their reproductive systems as opposed to their flowers to save on colored ink and paper. This is intellectual trickery used to future Weinberger’s assertion that hierarchies are false constructions, the truth is Linnaeus used reproductive systems as his classifier because many plants are non-flowering. Weinberger does his argument a disservice by twisting history to fit his argument. Weinberger also criticizes Melvil Dewey, for his narrow world view, ignoring the fact that the Dewey system has been adapted over the years to reflect modern society. Criticizing Dewey for his nineteenth century ideas is like faulting the Wright brothers for not using an auto-pilot during their flights at Kittyhawk. The tagging system that Weinberger proposes allows user to create their own system of finding and organizing information. It is a beautiful and democratic system. It allows for new ways of linking information and making intellectual connections. However it is not the only way. One need only examine the tags for Everything is Miscellaneous to see that tagging does not describe a work as a whole, but is more like a subject index. The Library of Congress subject heading, as well as Dewey, are flexible and dynamic organization structures. They use universally agreed upon terminology to help users across disciplines find what they are looking for. If used together with user generated terms they can provide powerful information tools for years to come.
Librarians are there to help patrons find the books, information, resources, etc. that they want. One of the things that really stood out to me was that "filtering on the way in decreases the value of that abundance by ruling out items that might be of great value to a few people” (Weinberger, 2007, p. 103). When a librarian filters on the way in, it is based on his or her own opinions, beliefs, and standards – not on what the patron thinks and therein lays the problem. For the most part, librarians are not able to tell what is pieces of information are most appropriate for a particular patron. Who is to say that an adult cannot or should not read a children’s biography on Albert Einstein or that a younger person is incapable of reading or understanding an adult biography of the same person? If the information is there, it is the librarian’s duty to make sure that the patron is aware of it.
Weinberger also states that “filtering on the way out, on the other hand, increases the value of abundance by locating what’s of value to a particular person at a particular moment” (p. 103). On one level, it simply means that a librarian cannot and should not impart his or her own opinions when helping a patron find and access information. On another level, it means that the patron is responsible for how the use the information that is available to them. It is up to them to decide what is beneficial to them and what is not. By giving this responsibility to the patron, they will appreciate the information they find beneficial and useful more than they would if they were simply given books by the librarian. Filtering on the way out can also broaden a patron’s knowledge and perspective on a given topic. Since they are acting as their own filter, they are looking at a wider scope of information on the given topic. There could be instances when the patron does not agree with the opinions of the author, but more importantly it makes them aware of the different viewpoints and also expands their knowledge of the topic.
It should not be up to the library or the library to act as the filter for the patron. The patron should be able to and be expected to make their own decisions about the information available to them and filter it to fulfill their specific purpose
Charlene Wells "Filtering on the way in decreases the value of that abundance by ruling out items that might be of great value to a few people (Weinberger, 2007, p. 103). I agree with the author's statement that the ruling out approach may hinder results in searches. However, in terms of a library's support of your own information pusuits, sometimes it is pertinent to consolidate search ideas and terms to reach results without an excess of options. Notice the author includes the words: "few people" which demonstrates that filtering will not directly affect many searchers. I see his idea as valid in a lot of cases because of the helpful information that could be right on the money with what a person is looking for. I think time is very valuable, but so is quality and using resources to one's advantage and by ruling out it is possible that information of value could remain undiscovered. In the case that a patron wanted information on autism, but wanted more statistical and study-based results, we would perhaps type a search of "autism research." While typing in simply autism would deliver a larger amount of items to choose from, some of the excess information would be completely irrelevent. There is the chance that the patron will click on a site that does not deliver statistics or studies, but a valuable resource cited in the resource that they could then search. Many people want exactly what they ask for and if you throw them a heap of options they could become annoyed with all the possibilities. I think this flows back to the reference interview, you must find out what the patron is truly looking for, whether they are wanting to know more than one aspect of a topic, and if they are opposed to "any and all" options.
Weinberger (2007) talks about David Remsen and his want for a database that has all the scientific names and all of the slang terms for certain fish. He says that “he welcomes any and all possibilities; no matter how regional or oddball, it’s better to have it in the pile than out” (p. 114). I think this speaks to filtering on the way out because Remsen wants it to helpful to everyone by putting every term that is thrown at him, he doesn‘t “filter in“. You can have the same name for two things and by including them both and not “filtering” they are making it accessible to everyone.
It is impossible to have a perfect classification system. Though by “filtering out” instead of filtering on the way in, people can find what they need according to their own criteria. Weinberg (2007) talks about the work Hamlet and its many manifestations and ISBNs. On Hickey’s xISBN, if you type in Hamlet’s ISBN you will receive many different editions and formats, but not all of them, and maybe even works that aren‘t Hamlet, but I thank this ensures that you aren’t receiving just one copy of that novel and that the you can “filter out” and decide which one is best suited for you needs. Weinberger says “…gathering leaves imperfectly is better than leaving them scattered. (p. 122).
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York: Holt.
When I think of my view of librarians growing up, it comes down to one word, control. Librarians had the control back then. In the 21st Century, they have rapidly lost most of that control because of the internet. We’ve heard the old adage, “power is information, and information is power” and it rings very true. Years ago, only the rich, clergy and a select few were educated and could read or write. Very few people had access to information and those that did kept a very tight lid on it. By doing so, it gave them an advantage over the general populace at large. They “filtered” as they deemed fit and for their own benefit. Weinberger writes “Objects that used to be organized by individuals or institutions are rapidly becoming available to us free of their old structures” (Weinberger, p. 95). Librarians and other scholars used to filter “on the way in” with their customers. They controlled the flow of information. Today, much of the world is literate and has some type of access to the internet. Librarians have been entrusted with the knowledge and have the keys to unlocking that knowledge. They still can “filter in” if they choose to, but the chances of someone not being able to find a better librarian or accessing the information on their own without a librarian’s assistance becomes rarer by the day. The author gives the reader a lot of history and information of how items have been organized. He uses a lot of good examples and analogies in presenting what is of utter importance in library science; the unlimited potential of how items can be organized for society. Weinberger (2007) makes a great point in describing the brokenness of the Dewy Decimal System, when he writes “Knowledge is diverse, changing, imbued with cultural values…the world is too diverse for any single classification system to work for everyone” (p. 56-7). Herein lies the problem with filtering “in”, people do not want to be denied access to any data they desire. I and as much of America has become, are spoiled. We want it all, right now. Living in such a fast paced society, we demand it. I personally own a computer, laptop, PSP, IPod, cell phone, and GPS device. Throw in on-demand cable and wireless internet, and I can access information from just about anywhere that I want to. I get upset when I can’t check my e-mail, the news, fantasy football, Facebook, scores, etc. The same goes with libraries. If an internet provider or device denies me access to any data, I simply try a different device or site. But, it is my choice. I don’t have anyone making that choice for me. I would rather be “filtered out” and figure it “out” for myself. We need multiple options to information.
I agree with Weinberger (2007) when he proposes that we should “filter on the way out, not on the way in” (p.102). I had previously never given a whole lot of thought to the whole idea of filtering and who controls it. However, when reading about Wikipedia, Delicious, etc., I understand filtering more clearly, especially when Wienberger states, “how their content is actually arranged does not determine how that content can and will be arranged by their users” (p. 100). This means that with websites like these, the user controls what they see and can pick out what is truly relevant to them. All the information is there, it’s just up to them to use it as they please.
I think librarians need to be attentive to the needs of the patrons, but not overstep their boundaries, so to speak. It should not be up to them to decide what resources they will lead their patrons to, based on their own standards or opinions. As Weinberger says, “filtering on the way in decreases the value of that abundance by ruling out items that might be of a great value to a few people” (p. 103). It is the job of the librarian to lead the patron to the information, but it is the job of the patron to use the information wisely.
In theory, filtering on the way in rather than on the way out seems like it would be the perfect. People will have access to much more knowledge and information than they would have had previously, all people and sources would be able to share their own knowledge and experiences with the world, and there would be no limit to what we could learn from all of this free available data. But unfortunately this could also do some harm. According to Weinberger, "we need experts to go through information, ideas, and knowledge and put them neatly away." (Weinberger 2007, p. 22) This allows information to have some sort of organization so that it is able to be found and used when it is needed. These experts have to impose some sort of order on the information because if there is no way to find the information it is useless. Another problem with filtering on the way out is that the average person does not know how to find the information that they need when it is organized. They want someone to give them what they need and they may not care that it is only one person's opinion of what is important. Others do not have the skills to evaluate reliable or not so reliable sources and may not get good information from these sources. For filtering on the way out to work, people have to be more aware of how to find good sources and get information out of them that they can use. The average person must take responsiblity for their own search for information, or they will have to settle for something that has been filtered for them.
This is a blog site in support of TED4710-8716: Reference Resources & Services and ISLT 7314: Reference Sources & Services course offered by the cooperative MLS program from the University of Nebraska at Omaha and the University of Missouri.
22 comments:
Librarians as gatekeepers or human filters of information will no longer effectively serve patrons under Weinberger’s proposition. Although libraries have increased third order sources, created to be queried by patrons, and offer on-line catalogs and databases, the 21st century reference librarian will need to provide patrons with a greater abundance of alternate data sources. Weinberger (2007) writes, “…[F]iltering on the way out vastly increases our shared potential for knowledge” (p. 103). Even if I don’t find the alternate sources useful, the possibility for data beyond the norm is there and should be given as an option. The library will need to provide users with alternate tools and sources such as forums, electronic bulletin boards or peer-reviewed on-line journals. It will be up to me as the patron to be the filter of what is relevant or irrelevant to my topic of research.
“Watching customers’ browsing and buying patterns enables places like Amazon to pull together offerings across category lines” (Weinberger, 2007, p. 189). Libraries are becoming more mindful of operating in a business model such as Amazon’s method of making further book suggestions based on initial searches. If a library catalog or database can “read” what I am researching by evaluating my queries and tags, it could automatically generate other research options. The recipe for successful library support of my research could be two cups third order data and one cup of first order data with a dash of blog.
In the generation I grew up in there was a lot of filtering by those who “knew best” like Weinberger’s friend who worked at the Harvard Business Review (Weinberger 2007, p. 102). If I was doing a research project my mother, my teacher, and the librarian would point me in the direction I needed to go. They were very helpful in getting me to the information necessary to complete the project with the knowledge they had. This happened everywhere not only in research but in any information highway one chose to take. It isn’t a deliberate misdirection nor is it a conscious feeding of specific information but a classification based on the organization of complex items.
Weinberger states, “The basic fact that order hides more than it reveals has sometimes itself been hidden within the art and science of organizing our world.” (p. 88). That there is a hidden aspect of information is enticing and makes one want to search all the more for that one speck of information that no one else seems to have. With the ability to search using so many different expressions someone may find that connecting piece that was missing before. Allowing the process of filtering to happen on the way out gives consumers the opportunity to connect the pieces themselves and veer onto a path that may not have existed before.
Consumers will be able to maintain control of their own learning and understanding by having the opportunity to not only filter information themselves but by organizing that information in a way that makes sense to them. Just as people learn different ways, tactilely, visually, and audibly, people separate and classify information in various ways. It’s as Weinberger says, “[It] goes beyond simply organizing your information so you can find it again.” (p. 96). It is a way for people to connect what they know to what they learn and to have the possibility to find the missing piece to their puzzle.
Weinberger’s (2007) discussion in the chapter aptly titled "The Laws of the Jungle," talks about the “wild diversity of human interests and insight” (p.100). This statement illuminates the necessity to refrain from “filtering in” when looking for information for ourselves, or when offering assistance to someone else. My interest in a specific topic may be my own, or it may stem from an external situation. What if I was unsure of the exact topic I wanted to use? If my search was limited by what someone else thought I was looking for, I would most definitely miss vital pieces of information, and possibly data that would totally change my understanding of the topic.
“Filtering in” gets in the way of business marketing also. When a business is “thinking that [we] exist as a market – as something more than a random slice – gets in the way of seeing the truly fascinating phenomenon: miscellaneous customers finding one another in the digital world…” (p. 118) it becomes problematic. As stated above, if something is not directed for all audiences, there will be instances where incomplete data is used. This lack of comprehensive data could damage credibility, could affect a student’s scores, or could cause serious health issues – all dependent on the issue at hand.
I would hope that when I pursue information with the help of an individual, they will freely offer ideas. Ideas that may seem absurd to them, but may be just what I am looking for.
This book was an eye-opener for me, it made me think about information and how we obtain it and organize it in ways I never had before. The internet has changed how we receive and search for information. When I was in school we looked up data in the encyclopedias, or we used books, which were organized according to the Dewey Decimal System, of course. My children on the other hand immediately go to the internet for their information. This has significantly changed the way that librarians assist people in accessing information. It has now become the responsibility of the librarian to steer people toward information, not just help them to find whatever books are available in their library. The sources of information available to people on the internet are almost limitless and the librarian needs to ensure that when helping people they do not limit a person’s information based on what they, the librarian, believes is relevant. As Weinberger writes (Weinberger, 2008, p.102) “filtering on the way out, on the other hand, increases the value of the abundance by locating what’s of value to a particular person at a particular moment.” This means that librarians need to take the time to get to know the person they are helping and also that librarians must stay impartial, it is not the job of the librarian to tell a person what information they need, but to let them know what information is available and let the individual decide what they need.
Weinberger writes that “to get as good at browsing as we are at finding –and to take full advantage of the digital opportunity-we have to get rid of the idea that there’s a best way of organizing the world.” (p. 10) This is especially true in libraries. When obtaining information via the internet, there is no place for the general rules of organizing data such as the Dewey Decimal System. When finding information this way, it allows each person to organize the information in a way that is most relevant to them. It is the librarians’ responsibility to not hinder this search, and to keep it about the person who is finding the information, not about the librarians’ preferences. It is also important that the librarian share their knowledge with their patrons, so that the patrons can become better facilitators of knowledge themselves.
I think that Weinberger’s (2007) idea of filtering on the way out is definitely the wave of the future. The many examples he cites, such as Delicious, Flickr, Wikipedia, and the BBC, are all miscellaneous and “how their content is actually arranged does not determine how that content can and will be arranged by their users” (p.100). This basically means that the content is there for the users to utilize in their own unique way once it has been retrieved.
In terms of my own use of library services from the time I was young until now, the methods have definitely changed. In the past, you would need to use the card catalog or ask a librarian, and the data available were limited since you were dealing with paper-based resources. Now, with the advent of computer-based resources, you can access data from the library using your home computer without the help of a librarian, or you can enlist a librarian to help you with your online search. Library websites provide numerous ways to search for data, such as: article databases; journal databases; multidatabase engine searches; basic searches for books and other media through the catalog, other library catalogs and interlibrary loan; news and feeds; databases of theses and dissertations; subject research guides; and many more resources. All of these ways of accessing data “increases the value of the abundance by locating what’s of value to a particular person at a particular moment” (p.103).
I know when I am researching items using a library website, having the flexibility to pick and choose from a large amount of data is preferable as opposed to being limited to only a few choices.
Back before I had ready access to a computer with the internet and the virtually unlimited information it can provide, I was relieved that there were people whose jobs were to make decisions for me on the information I had access to. Weinberger states that we "rely on experts...to spare us from having to wade through the slush piles on our own"(2007, p.102). It was indeed easier to have someone else filter through the information, but I didn't always have the exact information I needed, so I had to use whatever books that were in the Library that I was in.
Now that I have access to huge amounts of information on the internet, I am able to find exactly what I need, and with databases, I have access to reliable information. These tools filter on the way out to the user to find the information that they need. In order to serve students and other patrons in a library, the system needs to be able to have information in more ways that the patrons will be able to use it. Weinberger mentions Wikipedia and how that it "reminds us that even a word as simple as elephant has a touch of the miscellaneous about it"(p. 98). Allowing people to chose information for themselves, gives them more opportunity to find what they need and this is accomplished by filtering information on the way out to consumers.
As I read this book I found lots of interesting ideas that I would of otherwised never thought of. Organizing information is such a big part of libraries and making information easier for people to find. It was interesting to see the different types or ways to organize things. Weinberger(2007) writes, "Hanging a leaf on multiple branches makes it more findable by customers" (p.104). I think this displays a good picture of how we can find information and that there is more than one way to find it. As stated by Weinberger (2007), "filtering on the way out, on the other hand increases the abundance by locating what's of value to a particular person at a particular moment." I think this really ties into my first quote because if you dont find what your looking for in one section it may be in another section. When we are searching it is really about knowing how to search the right words in the right combination. Also by filtering on the way out it allows for more articles to be researched and then decided if they are reliable or not.
I think this book has alot of good points and is very interesting to read. It really opened up my eyes to things I never woould of thought about with library science.
In the last year we have seen several long standing newspapers close down due to a declining number of customers. The 5:30pm broadcast news programs are also experiencing a noticeable decline in viewers. In fact most people that are still reading newspapers and watching Network news are older in age, and grew up with them. Weinberger’s (2007) description of news rooms across the country where middle age white men use their power to filter information for their reader’s consumption has long been the tradition, but not in the future. Most young people look online for news and information at unfiltered sites such as Reddit.com and Digg.com (p.129, 130). In sympathy with the challenge libraries face when dealing with the miscellaneous (p. 133) Weinberger notes that “customers, patrons, users, and citizens are not waiting for permission to take control. And we’re doing it not just as individuals. Knowledge – its content and organization – is becoming a social act”.
The future may be brighter for those dreading the thought of trying to organize the miscellaneous for users. Sir Tim Berners-Lee inventor of the World Wide Web came up with a plan to cleanup the web called the Semantic Web. “Its purpose is to smarten up the Web through the power of metadata, and works by tagging relevant pages with metadata”. He has improved the Semantic Web with a system called Description Framework (RDF) which the legal system has used successfully (p. 189-193). As more data is opened to Web users it will be up to the individual to filter out the information we access.
As library media specialists, we naturally are information providers given that we provide patrons what they want whether that is a recommendation on what to read, a way in which to find a particular topic on a database, or the best way in which to search for a given subject. We filter things on the way in or as they come to us so that by the time the patron gets to use a particular resource, we know that it is the best resource available—but that is based on our standards. That’s where filtering on the way in goes awry. Weinberger writes, “Filtering on the way in decreases the value of that abundance (the abundance of access to an abundance of resources in the third order) by ruling out items that might be of great value to a few people” (Weinberger, 2007, p. 103). When librarians decide what their valuable information is, they are making a weighty decision that ultimately eliminates a segment of their library’s population by cutting out things that would have been of use to someone. Sorting information on the way out would solve this problem as it would allow librarians (using a third-order oriented technology) to effectively meet the needs of everyone without having to make the difficult decision on what is important and what is not.
When talking about the third-order miscellany Weinberger states an interesting thing saying, “Things have their places, not a single place. We get to create our own categories, ones that suit our way of thinking” (p. 102). The fact that one thing does not necessarily have to be tied down to a single place is a revolutionary concept. By allowing for a certain idea to be spread across multiple areas, we are getting that idea out to more and more people. In the case of Amazon.com, patrons can tag a book in as many different ways as they want, ultimately spreading that book across a wide variety of places. Sorting on the way in puts limits on where things can go, forcing them into constraints they might not fit it whereas sorting on the way out allows for the freedom to spread a topic to as many areas as necessary. Librarians should not put limits on what their patrons are looking for; they should indulge their patrons and give them the means to create their own system for finding information.
Database research is an excellent example of how library research tools here at UNO “filter in” information (Weinberger 2007) by not labeling everything. I often hear one of the Librarians complain that when you search for something in a database, the database only searches the abstract. Weinberger (2007) states, “Everything is metadata and everything can be a label.” (p. 104). If databases let us search through every single word in an article, then the next time someone was looking for an article they read that mentioned the words purple pens (which wasn’t what the article was about so it’s not in the abstract) they would have no problem finding it again. Weinberger (2007) uses Shakespeare plays as an example for everything being a label. You can type in a Google search box just a line from the play you remember, or the author, or the title of the play, and find what you are looking for (p. 104). If academic databases available at the library made everything a label like Weinberger (2007) is talking about, then searches would be much easier, and the next time someone’s looking for a weird mention they remember from an article that had nothing to do with what the article was about, they would be able to find it. This idea that “every word in a book (can) count as metadata” described by Weinberger (p. 104) should be applied to article database searching so that it is user friendly and information is readily available.
Filtering on the way in restricts what we are allowed to view; that means that there is someone who decides what is right to view and what is not. Filtering on the way out allows patrons to decide for themselves what is important information to them, and what is not. It allows us to move further away from what libraries used to be. A place that you had to ask for other information and did not always have access to what you wanted. With filter on the way out, we can find information that we didn't know that we would need. This gives us a freedom of information and data that we have not always had.
on the way in" (p.102). This is because if we are filtering out we are hindering the individual from finding a unique book or subject that they and only 2 others might have interest in. If people are searching for personal information that is unique solely to them and a select few, but we as libraries are filtering out on the way in the "items of great value to a few people" (p. 103) then we are hindering the pursuit of personal knowledge and information. Filtering on the way in weakens the ability for the library to provide the best opportunities for its patrons. Filtering on the way out works because you are removing items that are never used and are able to monitor how and when products are being used.
Another learning item that jumped out at me from this book was in the interview with the Staples employees. Bob Medill says, “we learn by watching our customer’s eyeballs” (p.2). I thought that this was an interesting idea to use in the library. To stop and watch the patrons as they enter the library. What are they looking for? What do they use to help them find what they need? Do they find the catalog? Come to a librarian for help? By watching how our patrons use the library we can best organize the layout of the library to their advantage and provide them with the resources they need and use the most.
I recently had a patron come into my library looking for information on Julius Caesar for a report. I and the other librarian on duty proceeded to spend the next half hour running around finding books for her. However, the task turned out to be harder than we originally thought it’d be. When searching our catalogue, we came up with results that included everything from the Shakespeare tragedy, to a book about art from ancient civilizations, which was obviously, not kind of information a grade-schooler would be looking for in order to write a report. The whole ordeal ended with the patron switching her report topic to Adolph Hitler and me having piles of books to put away while thinking “there has to be a better way to organize this stuff!”
After reading “Everything is Miscellaneous” I’ve realized that there are an infinite number of ways to organize information, from the questionable Dewey Decimal System (Weinberger 2007, p. 47-48), to the wild, hodge-podge of Wikipedia (p. 97-100). However, no one system will satisfy every, single person every, single time.
I both agree and disagree with Weinberg’s statement that we should “filter on the way out, not on the way in.” (p. 102). During times like the afore mentioned Julius Caesar fiasco, I think filtering would be in order. A 10-year-old girl looking to write a report probably won’t need, want, or even understand the unabridged Julius Caesar as it is found in “The Tragedies of Shakespeare.” However, on the flip side, if a grade-schooler would ask for “The Tragedies of Shakespeare,” who am I to say “Oh, honey, that’s too advanced for you, how about I find you some ‘Hannah Montana’ books, instead?” They might be checking something out for a parent, they might be a precocious reader, or they might simply want to look “cool” carrying a big book around. It’s their prerogative, I’m simply there to help them get the information they want.
As for not filtering information on the way in, I agree with Weinberger, “where there’s an abundance of access to an abundance of resources, filtering on the way in decreases the value of that abundance…” (p. 103). If we keep a strangle-hold on the information we let into our libraries, making sure that we like it, we’re not serving our patrons as we should.
Before I had easy access to the internet all of my research was done at the library. It is overwhelming walking inside and seeing all of the reference materials lined up, and knowing that somewhere on those shelves I was going to find enlightenment. Then I would have to take on the daunting task of filtering on the way in. I have spent hours in libraries trying to find the perfect article or source, but now with the internet I can easily sort through the clutter and find exactly what I am looking for. Weinberger (2007) writes, “We are rapidly miscellanizing our world, breaking things out of their old organizational structures, and enabling individuals to sort and order them on the fly”(p. 96). Making everything miscellaneous and allowing people to put their own tags on information lets people easily find exactly what they are looking for. In a library setting filtering on the way out makes finding information for a patron a lot less painful.
I never realized that filtering was even going on. It happens so naturally that it is a part of human nature. Weinberger (2007) says, “The world started out miscellaneous but it didn’t stay that way, because we work so damn hard at straightening it up”(p. 10). We organize everything from store shelves to our silverware, but the internet is a different story. Order is needed in libraries; if everything was miscellaneous the library would be useless. The internet, on the other hand, is very effectively miscellaneous allowing people to “window shop” or find exactly what they are looking for by typing in a few key words. Library databases are widely used because of this feature. Patrons can decide for themselves which information they want to use and don’t have to consult a librarian for help finding information. The selection on the internet greatly outnumbers the selection in a library, and everybody likes options.
I think it is empowering. It is like what Weinberger (2007) said, “while we would continue to grant our doctor sole authority over our treatment, we were no longer willing to let her be the sole source of information” (p. 124-5). We search and find what we want. We are responsible to check the sources we use. We are searching for what we are interested in, not excepting the first answer is the only answer, and it may well not be the answer we seek.
The information we gather is only important to us as it relates to our purpose. We are building our information into an “infrastructure of meaning” (p.171). We can see the context we create, and if others benefit from that information to our advantage great! Business may see it as a resource to understanding what we want; however we are using our information by connecting to friends, family, peers, and compatriots. We define the meaning. We set our tags and search on the vast sea of the Internet through ever growing knowledge for answers that we define.
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous. New York: Times Books.
“Democracy or Specificity?”
In his book Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder (New York: Times Books, 2007), David Weinberger argues that in the digital age hierarchal classification systems are no longer useful nor necessary. He argues that controlled classification systems, from library catalogs to scientific taxonomies, are outdated and limit knowledge. Weinberger divides organizational structures into three broad categories (p.17): first order, the physical arrangement of the item, second order, the cataloging of the physical item, and third order, the digital representation of an item.
Weinberger believes that with digitalization, old methods of organizing information should be abandoned in favor of user generated classification. He believes that the digital nature of information allows for nearly limitless search paths and that these unrestricted search paths will lead to new and novel connection which will generate new knowledge. Weinberger rejects hierarchies as false constructions that exist only because we had no other way of representing an idea. At the heart of his proposal is the philosophical question “Do things have an agreed upon name?’ Weinberger proposes that information users will be better served if they construct for themselves an organization structure and search path (tagging) that suits their unique needs. This is entirely possible given the new power of digital information storage, search, and retrieval systems. The question is, is this desirable?
The fundamental basis for Weinberger’s philosophy is his rejection of hierarchal thought. He uses Carolus Linnaeus’s eighteenth century groundbreaking taxonomy, Systema Naturae, in an attempt to demonstrate the limitations of hierarchal and thought. Weinberger cites several examples of errors in the first edition of Systema Naturae (p.77) and contends that Linnaeus classified plants according to their reproductive systems as opposed to their flowers to save on colored ink and paper. This is intellectual trickery used to future Weinberger’s assertion that hierarchies are false constructions, the truth is Linnaeus used reproductive systems as his classifier because many plants are non-flowering. Weinberger does his argument a disservice by twisting history to fit his argument. Weinberger also criticizes Melvil Dewey, for his narrow world view, ignoring the fact that the Dewey system has been adapted over the years to reflect modern society. Criticizing Dewey for his nineteenth century ideas is like faulting the Wright brothers for not using an auto-pilot during their flights at Kittyhawk.
The tagging system that Weinberger proposes allows user to create their own system of finding and organizing information. It is a beautiful and democratic system. It allows for new ways of linking information and making intellectual connections. However it is not the only way. One need only examine the tags for Everything is Miscellaneous to see that tagging does not describe a work as a whole, but is more like a subject index.
The Library of Congress subject heading, as well as Dewey, are flexible and dynamic organization structures. They use universally agreed upon terminology to help users across disciplines find what they are looking for. If used together with user generated terms they can provide powerful information tools for years to come.
Librarians are there to help patrons find the books, information, resources, etc. that they want. One of the things that really stood out to me was that "filtering on the way in decreases the value of that abundance by ruling out items that might be of great value to a few people” (Weinberger, 2007, p. 103). When a librarian filters on the way in, it is based on his or her own opinions, beliefs, and standards – not on what the patron thinks and therein lays the problem. For the most part, librarians are not able to tell what is pieces of information are most appropriate for a particular patron. Who is to say that an adult cannot or should not read a children’s biography on Albert Einstein or that a younger person is incapable of reading or understanding an adult biography of the same person? If the information is there, it is the librarian’s duty to make sure that the patron is aware of it.
Weinberger also states that “filtering on the way out, on the other hand, increases the value of abundance by locating what’s of value to a particular person at a particular moment” (p. 103). On one level, it simply means that a librarian cannot and should not impart his or her own opinions when helping a patron find and access information. On another level, it means that the patron is responsible for how the use the information that is available to them. It is up to them to decide what is beneficial to them and what is not. By giving this responsibility to the patron, they will appreciate the information they find beneficial and useful more than they would if they were simply given books by the librarian. Filtering on the way out can also broaden a patron’s knowledge and perspective on a given topic. Since they are acting as their own filter, they are looking at a wider scope of information on the given topic. There could be instances when the patron does not agree with the opinions of the author, but more importantly it makes them aware of the different viewpoints and also expands their knowledge of the topic.
It should not be up to the library or the library to act as the filter for the patron. The patron should be able to and be expected to make their own decisions about the information available to them and filter it to fulfill their specific purpose
Charlene Wells
"Filtering on the way in decreases the value of that abundance by ruling out items that might be of great value to a few people (Weinberger, 2007, p. 103). I agree with the author's statement that the ruling out approach may hinder results in searches. However, in terms of a library's support of your own information pusuits, sometimes it is pertinent to consolidate search ideas and terms to reach results without an excess of options. Notice the author includes the words: "few people" which demonstrates that filtering will not directly affect many searchers.
I see his idea as valid in a lot of cases because of the helpful information that could be right on the money with what a person is looking for. I think time is very valuable, but so is quality and using resources to one's advantage and by ruling out it is possible that information of value could remain undiscovered.
In the case that a patron wanted information on autism, but wanted more statistical and study-based results, we would perhaps type a search of "autism research." While typing in simply autism would deliver a larger amount of items to choose from, some of the excess information would be completely irrelevent. There is the chance that the patron will click on a site that does not deliver statistics or studies, but a valuable resource cited in the resource that they could then search.
Many people want exactly what they ask for and if you throw them a heap of options they could become annoyed with all the possibilities. I think this flows back to the reference interview, you must find out what the patron is truly looking for, whether they are wanting to know more than one aspect of a topic, and if they are opposed to "any and all" options.
Meggan Luszcak
Weinberger (2007) talks about David Remsen and his want for a database that has all the scientific names and all of the slang terms for certain fish. He says that “he welcomes any and all possibilities; no matter how regional or oddball, it’s better to have it in the pile than out” (p. 114). I think this speaks to filtering on the way out because Remsen wants it to helpful to everyone by putting every term that is thrown at him, he doesn‘t “filter in“. You can have the same name for two things and by including them both and not “filtering” they are making it accessible to everyone.
It is impossible to have a perfect classification system. Though by “filtering out” instead of filtering on the way in, people can find what they need according to their own criteria. Weinberg (2007) talks about the work Hamlet and its many manifestations and ISBNs. On Hickey’s xISBN, if you type in Hamlet’s ISBN you will receive many different editions and formats, but not all of them, and maybe even works that aren‘t Hamlet, but I thank this ensures that you aren’t receiving just one copy of that novel and that the you can “filter out” and decide which one is best suited for you needs. Weinberger says “…gathering leaves imperfectly is better than leaving them scattered. (p. 122).
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York: Holt.
When I think of my view of librarians growing up, it comes down to one word, control. Librarians had the control back then. In the 21st Century, they have rapidly lost most of that control because of the internet. We’ve heard the old adage, “power is information, and information is power” and it rings very true. Years ago, only the rich, clergy and a select few were educated and could read or write. Very few people had access to information and those that did kept a very tight lid on it. By doing so, it gave them an advantage over the general populace at large. They “filtered” as they deemed fit and for their own benefit.
Weinberger writes “Objects that used to be organized by individuals or institutions are rapidly becoming available to us free of their old structures” (Weinberger, p. 95). Librarians and other scholars used to filter “on the way in” with their customers. They controlled the flow of information. Today, much of the world is literate and has some type of access to the internet. Librarians have been entrusted with the knowledge and have the keys to unlocking that knowledge. They still can “filter in” if they choose to, but the chances of someone not being able to find a better librarian or accessing the information on their own without a librarian’s assistance becomes rarer by the day.
The author gives the reader a lot of history and information of how items have been organized. He uses a lot of good examples and analogies in presenting what is of utter importance in library science; the unlimited potential of how items can be organized for society. Weinberger (2007) makes a great point in describing the brokenness of the Dewy Decimal System, when he writes “Knowledge is diverse, changing, imbued with cultural values…the world is too diverse for any single classification system to work for everyone” (p. 56-7).
Herein lies the problem with filtering “in”, people do not want to be denied access to any data they desire. I and as much of America has become, are spoiled. We want it all, right now. Living in such a fast paced society, we demand it. I personally own a computer, laptop, PSP, IPod, cell phone, and GPS device. Throw in on-demand cable and wireless internet, and I can access information from just about anywhere that I want to. I get upset when I can’t check my e-mail, the news, fantasy football, Facebook, scores, etc. The same goes with libraries. If an internet provider or device denies me access to any data, I simply try a different device or site. But, it is my choice. I don’t have anyone making that choice for me. I would rather be “filtered out” and figure it “out” for myself. We need multiple options to information.
I agree with Weinberger (2007) when he proposes that we should “filter on the way out, not on the way in” (p.102). I had previously never given a whole lot of thought to the whole idea of filtering and who controls it. However, when reading about Wikipedia, Delicious, etc., I understand filtering more clearly, especially when Wienberger states, “how their content is actually arranged does not determine how that content can and will be arranged by their users” (p. 100). This means that with websites like these, the user controls what they see and can pick out what is truly relevant to them. All the information is there, it’s just up to them to use it as they please.
I think librarians need to be attentive to the needs of the patrons, but not overstep their boundaries, so to speak. It should not be up to them to decide what resources they will lead their patrons to, based on their own standards or opinions. As Weinberger says, “filtering on the way in decreases the value of that abundance by ruling out items that might be of a great value to a few people” (p. 103). It is the job of the librarian to lead the patron to the information, but it is the job of the patron to use the information wisely.
In theory, filtering on the way in rather than on the way out seems like it would be the perfect. People will have access to much more knowledge and information than they would have had previously, all people and sources would be able to share their own knowledge and experiences with the world, and there would be no limit to what we could learn from all of this free available data. But unfortunately this could also do some harm. According to Weinberger, "we need experts to go through information, ideas, and knowledge and put them neatly away." (Weinberger 2007, p. 22) This allows information to have some sort of organization so that it is able to be found and used when it is needed. These experts have to impose some sort of order on the information because if there is no way to find the information it is useless.
Another problem with filtering on the way out is that the average person does not know how to find the information that they need when it is organized. They want someone to give them what they need and they may not care that it is only one person's opinion of what is important. Others do not have the skills to evaluate reliable or not so reliable sources and may not get good information from these sources. For filtering on the way out to work, people have to be more aware of how to find good sources and get information out of them that they can use. The average person must take responsiblity for their own search for information, or they will have to settle for something that has been filtered for them.
Post a Comment