Before I decided to choose WorldCat as a topic, I was browsing a copy of the magazine American Libraries. I saw the headline of a short article that drew my attention. I must admit that I was intrigued, but upon reading it, I still did not understand the topic fully. In a later issue, there was an update, which I again struggled to fully comprehend. Here are the articles that I read:
WorldCat Policy Revision Draws Librarians' Ire
OCLC Delays WorldCat Policy Pending Review Board
I decided I had to choose this as my topic, due to my initial interest and my lack of understanding.
As I previously mentioned, I was surprised to see that there was an issue that had arisen between librarians and OCLC concerning a new policy that OCLC had passed through their governing body. This appeared to cause a stir in the library community. I was surprised because up until this point, I had only the vaguest notion of OCLC and the other products, such as the ones I have since written about in this blog. I went to the WorldCat.org website and read that OCLC was a non-profit, which also brought up questions. The answer to me was clear. I needed to research WorldCat and OCLC further in order to understand the problem. Here is a description (in more easy to understand prose) of what happened. I have summarized this from the top two links and from this wiki.
In November of 2008, OCLC announced that it was going to replace an older policy concerning the rights of ownership of the records entered in to WorldCat with a newer one. They did not research whether this policy would be offensive to anyone, nor did they call a vote of dues-paying members of OCLC. The policy change was simply announced.
This was seen by some as a power grab, and a petition soon began to circulate online. Blogs picked up the issue and many librarians began to take part in the discussion. Only 3 weeks later, on 1 December, 2008, a new petition was circulated that further clarified the issue and what was being protested. Finally, on January 13th, 2009, OCLC announced that there would be a review board for the policy. Members were asked to take part if they wished, which seemed to mollify many of the critics. In June of 2009, the review board concluded that OCLC should start anew on the policy, with an eye for protecting the rights of libraries, their patrons, and library workers. They also asked that OCLC be more transparent in the writing of the new policy. To my knowledge, there has been no further announcements concerning the new development of this policy, however, they may be in the process of doing so currently.
My belief is that the reason this issue was so important to librarians was the feeling that their work may not be attributed to them any longer, and that they would lose control of it. Perhaps they felt that OCLC was becoming very corporate and driven by cost rather than the greater good; they likely felt that the owners of WorldCat were somehow hiding behind a veil of bureaucracy instead of being open about their processes and policies. WorldCat.org is a large scale operation, one which only works when everyone is on board and striving to make it successful. Many people feel a sense of ownership towards WorldCat, since they have worked on it and provided content to make it better. They are now being charged to be able to recall the content.
Without the backbone of support from the community they wish to serve, OCLC would not be as far-reaching and important as it is today. Each time a community librarian decides to enter their library's records in to WorldCat, they succeed. Every time a student uses FirstSearch to find a journal citation, OCLC is able to take credit (and charge for it). I believe this is why they so quickly recanted on the policy and allowed others to take part in the policy change process.
The main lesson that I learned from reading these articles is that it is important to read the blogs and trade publications for our profession. Had I not flipped open the magazine American Libraries, I may have never even known about the issue. Conversely, had I not done the research, I may have formed an incorrect opinion about OCLC and WorldCat. I will take this lesson with me as I continue my studies and will apply it when working as a librarian.
Sources:
Landgraf, G.. (2009, January). WorldCat Policy Revision Draws Librarians' Ire. American Libraries, 40(1/2), 31. Retrieved November 27, 2009, http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2008/december2008/worldcatobjections.cfm
Anonymous, . OCLC Delays WorldCat Policy Pending Review. (2009, March). American Libraries, 40(3), 25. Retrieved November 27, 2009, http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2009/january2009/worldcatreview.cfm
Code4Lib Wiki. (2001-2009). Retrieved September 16, 2009, from Code4Lib, Wiki section on OCLC Policy Change,
http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/OCLC_Policy_Change
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment