An Analysis on the Discussion List: Young Adult Library Association & Digital Preservation

        Subscription to professional discussion lists allows librarians a place to share interesting information and talk about issues within respective areas of librarianship. This analysis will cover the discussion lists of Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA) and Digital Preservation (DigiPres), and hopes to discuss the material posted, things learned, interesting posts that stood-out to the author, likelihood of following continuation, the likelihood of the author recommending this discussion list to others, and what population would likely gain the most from subscription.

            Discussion lists can be the lifeblood for new research and professional development within communities. While all librarians share similarities, having a group of professionals that do exactly what you do available for discussion and idea bouncing is invaluable to the growth of that specialized community. Not only can they offer guidance in your current position, they can offer listings of new positions or professional development seminars/conferences practitioners and researchers may wish to attend. Just like snowflakes, each discussion list is different from the next. This paper compares and contrasts the discussion lists of Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA) and Digital Preservation (DigiPres), and hopes to offer insight on what discussion lists really can offer the library community.

What type of material is posted?

YALSA

            The YALSA discussion list is very active, having close to 100 unique posts within a month. The information posted varies, and can range from casting of upcoming movies/TV shows based on young adult literature to help with a reference request. The members also offer recommendations for personal reading as well as professional initiatives within a library. No question or topic is off the table within the realm of young adult literature/patronage on this discussion list.

DigiPres

            The DigiPres discussion list had a moderate amount of posts, 37 within a month. The main material posted is job postings, call to papers, course listings, and conference information. There did not seem to be collaboration between digital preservationists, as there were no responses to the only interesting post I found.

Did you learn anything of interest?

YALSA

            Early in my YALSA subscription, I came upon a cataloging question. I found it rather interesting. It was in regards to genre stickers, stickers that are used to denote the different genres within young adult literature (e.g. dystopian future, romance, science fiction, etc.). Some librarians stated they used colored dots with a posted legend, but patrons did not seem to use it. However, it proved to be easy for librarians to shelve the material with said stickers. I thought this was a unique way of dividing the literature and making it easier for patrons to find books within the genre they enjoyed.

DigiPres

            I was made acutely aware of the job and publication opportunities in the field. I also found it interesting that there was little to no interaction between the users of the discussion list. There was a specific post that I discuss below that I thought would insight discussion, however, there was no feedback.

Did anything specifically stand out?

YALSA

            There was a recent post that discussed transgender individuals (Schultz, 2016), novels that offer reading support, and supplemental information about librarian interactions (what to say/not to say). I thought it was great that this discussion list not only supported and offered information about young adult literature/services, but it also supported the patrons themselves, as well as the librarians. I thought this was great, because dealing with young adults, their time in life is so volatile with hormones and emotions, that having literature and librarian training on how to interact with their specific clientele.

DigiPres

One post really stood out to me (Williams, 2016), a link to an article on cultural genocide that received no response. I thought for sure this would insight conversation, as it very applicable to modern times, but it seemed to be taken as a link only.

Do you plan to continue following this discussion list? Why or why not?

YALSA

            I will definitely continue following the YALSA discussion list, because my guilty pleasure is young adult literature. Books, movies, TV shows, you name it – I am in. I think this is an excellent resource for not only young adult librarians, but also for fans of young adult literature. I feel as though there is enough of variety in information that I will be able to find multiple posts daily interesting and informative.

DigiPres

            While I am interested in digital preservation, I did not find enough useful or interesting information offered by the discussion list members to interest me in maintaining my subscription. If anything, I felt it was “junking up” my inbox.

Would you encourage others to follow it?

If so, what type of person would this discussion list be of most interest to?

YALSA

            I would definitely encourage others to follow this discussion list. Particularly, young adults, those interested in young adult literature, and young adult librarians. Not only is this a valuable list for librarians, if you care about the genre of young adult literature, or the things that are most important to young adult culture right now – this is the place for you. I would even suggest high school English teachers to keep an eye on this message board, as there are a number of invaluable discussions and posts going on here.

DigiPres

            I would only encourage those interested in finding a job in preservation or in presenting preservation research to follow this list. Other than these two topics, the discussion list is useless.

References

Schultz, L (2016, January 28). [yalsa-bk] What Not to Say to a Transgender Person [Electronic
           mailing list message]. Retrieved from http://lists.ala.org/sympa/info/yalsa-bk

Williams, J (2016, February 9) [Digipres] Why can't we protect cultural heritage? [Electronic
           mailing list message]. Retrieved from http://lists.ala.org/sympa/info/digipres

Article Summary for Lecture # 6 - Wajenberg

A Cataloger's View of Authorship

                Wajenberg cautiously approaches the subject of authorship. As a cataloger, not an academician or cataloging theorist, as he likes to point out, he has spent his life working in academic institutions. He offers in this article, merely his opinion on authorship. Though Panizzi found no need to define “author”, Wajenberg does. He recommends the following definition:

An author of a work is a person identified as an author in items containing the work, and/or in secondary literature that mentions the work.

This definition of authorship is a point of contention in the field of cataloging. Lubetzky, in his Principles of Cataloging: defines authorship with a sensed irritation as “…the person who produces a work, whatever the character of the work, whether or not it has any ‘intellectual or artistic content,’ and whoever may actually be ‘chiefly responsible for the creation’ of that content.” This was found wanting one term “produce.” To illustrate this point, Wajenberg offers the example of a stenographer who transcribes dictation from a recording. A stenographer produces a document, but is he or she is not the author of the document produced.

                Likewise, translations also test the definition of authorship. For instance, how can Sophocles be considered to have produced a modern English translation of Antigone? The English language didn’t even exist during his time. What about music? Is the librettist or composer regarded as the author of an opera? Can Racter, a computer program that has written a book of poetry, be considered an author? Wajenberg, upon offering his definition, clarifies that the identification of an author may occur anywhere within the item (preface, introduction, formal statements on the chief source, or other prominent sources). For example, Shakespeare’s authorship of Hamlet may be indicated by use of the genitive (Shakespeare’s Hamlet) or by the use of the preposition “by” (Hamlet by Shakespeare), or by the placement of Shakespeare’s name on the title page.

                Wajenberg emphasizes that the cataloger must remain objective throughout the cataloging experience. He uses the example of Homer, whose existence is questioned by some scholars, is still listed as Author of the Iliad and the Odyssey. He states that catalogers are not researchers, and based on cataloging definition he is the author – this being the case, would mean Racter would also clearly be an author. The cataloger “has no right to permit his or her personal beliefs to intrude upon cataloging decisions.” Wajenberg also knows that neither his nor any other definition of authorship will entirely solve cataloging problems, and that only bibliographic scholarship is required to complete a cataloger’s work, which is expected of catalogers.

                Ultimately, Wajenberg’s article does a great job deconstructing the issues with authorship in the cataloging field. The examples really helped me see how big of an issue this can be. I went into this article, and a user and information organizer in training, thinking – “What could possibly be the argument about the author? An author is an author!” boy was I wrong! This article is a quick read, and the benefits of reading it are numerous.  I now look at cataloging as an even more involved process, and understand why small details and seemingly insignificant definitions are so important.

_________________________________________________________________________________
If you want to read the full article see citation below!

Wajenberg, A. S. (1989). A Cataloger's View of Authorship. In E. Svevonius (Ed.), The Conceptual Foundations of Descriptive Cataloging (pp. 21-27). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.