Organize, Organize, Organize!

     Messiness as a Virtue was one of the most relatable sections I have had within this course.  As future information professionals, it is one of our duties to learn and practice the use of classification systems.  I am very meticulous when it comes to organization, both at home, school, and professionally.  Two messes I have at home that I try organizing on a regular basis are my clothing and my photographs.  I am a shutterbug and have been for several years, so the amount of photographs I have accumulated over the years is a bit ridiculous.  I have tried several methods of storing my printed photographs including as Weinberger mentioned the miscellaneous photos in shoeboxes.  I initially began trying to clump them by certain events such as birthdays, homecoming dances, football games, and anniversaries.  Each box had a clearly marked label containing one of those particular subjects; however, I learned right away that this would not be particularly useful because looking for one person’s birthday photos is in the midst of a chaotic shoebox entitled “birthdays”.  While the label helped me narrow down the boxes, it did not help me sift through hundreds of photos to select the one where my dog sneaks a piece of my mom’s cake.  Currently, I consider my photographs to be in a state of “chaotic order” whereas one person may find it easy to navigate; the next might be utterly disturbed by the lack of labeling within a shoebox.  As for the photographs on my hard drive, I have tried over and over again to figure out a technique in which locating a photograph would be easiest.  Right now, I am devoting most of my time to making folders with dates and then subfolders with subjects.  Due to my passion of photography, organizing these photos is both tedious and overwhelming but at the same time it moves me to organize which has helped me down the road.  I have always looked up fellow photographs ways of organizing and have found some great websites and blogs containing their idea of how one should organize.  Some websites I have checked into include and are not limited to: http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/home/how-to-organize-photos.htm, http://www.pinterest.com/fotobridge/photo-organizing-and-tips/, https://www.clickinmoms.com/blog/tips-for-organizing-and-printing-your-personal-photos-by-beira-brown/, and one of my personal favorites http://blog.delightfulorder.com/2013/02/february-challenge-organizing-photos_19.html.
McCallum’s diagram popped out at me as being very useful even in a non-business related environment.      
     When it comes to my closet I think that I can apply the first four of the five items.  In my opinion, my closet is simple, uniform, has a place, and a system—I cannot necessarily say explicit because what I may see as a clear, obvious choice another person might think it is in the wrong place.  I have to say, I am a bit OCD when it comes to organizing my clothes.  When I was younger, I tried organizing by color so black clothes on the far left, white clothes to the far right with everything else in between.  Now, I am a bit more practical and have my closet organized by jackets, sweatshirts, blouses, etc. and within those categories I have still managed to organize a bit with the colors such as black jackets, blue jackets, and many more.  There is always room for improvement in organization, whether it is in my closet, in shoeboxes, or in the library.  Classification and organization is changing daily, and I think that my yearning to be organized is a major attribute as to why I am in this field of study.  I am always willing to learn new methods and techniques to better organize because as Weinberger’s book is so perfectly titled, Everything is Miscellaneous.

The Implicit versus the Explicit

     Weinberger discusses context as both explicit and implicit but I find a lot of gray area between the two.  I understand implicit as being implied and not expressed in a plain matter while explicit is the complete opposite and is stated clearly and understandably.  The examples he provided made a lot of sense especially when he was referring to traffic signs; however, the example regarding the Planet of the Apes DVD set was not only a realization of how implicit something may be but it also shed light on what someone may find wholeheartedly explicit may be considered implicit to another.  One example of an implicit contextual message found in libraries to the stereotypical nationwide assumption to “Shhh! Be quiet.”  While it might not be expressed physically on a sign, it is assumed that patrons know to be quiet and courteous to fellow patrons within the library.  This example is implicit because while it may not be in plain sight, it is implied that when you walk into a library one should keep their volume to a bare minimum.  Another example of an implicit contextual message found in libraries is the “Drop Box” where it is implied that you place your returned books.  Although it states it is a “Drop Box” some people are not sure what a drop box is for because it does not say “Drop Box for Returned Books and Materials”.  Sadly yet still comical, I had a friend working at our local Cleveland Public Library who was in charge of shelving returned books and was completely caught off guard that someone had put their stamped mail within the library’s drop box.  I have to laugh because most patrons understand that the “Drop Box” is for books and not for sending mail; however, this is the perfect example as to why it is considered implied because it does not express in full detail that it is for checked out materials from the library.
     An example of explicit contextual message found in libraries is the sign directly over the front desk clearly stating “Check Out Books”.  I think that this is different than the drop box because going to a library you know that you must check out your books.  The sign is usually in bold, easily seen, and directs the patron exactly to where they must go to check out their books.  One other example I have personally came across regarding an explicit message is on the ninth floor on Kent’s Main Library.  There is a library cart with a sign on it that tells patrons to place their books on the cart so that the library staff may shelve it themselves opposed to the students.  Usually, there are books already on the cart which may make the student look at the cart more carefully where they will see the sign indicating what it is there for.  There is a blog written by Bonnie Swoger where she actually discusses how to make the implicit more explicit in science education and information literacy.  Her blog can be found at: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/2012/11/29/making-implicit-knowledge-and-skills-more-explicit-in-science-education/.  I have now found myself debating what is implicit versus what is explicit.  Weinberger’s examples of both the implicit and explicit could possibly be argued on both sides as can the examples I have provided.

Is Neutrality a Possibility?

Weinberger’s analysis of Wikipedia’s definition of neutrality seems at first to be very black and white.  When Weinberger spoke to Wales, as I can imagine after watching his TedTalk a few weeks ago, he most likely gave a somewhat snarky response by saying “I’m not all that interested in French Philosophy”.  He then makes a very basic yet thought-provoking statement about neutrality by saying, “An article is neutral when people have stopped changing it”.  The truth is, as humans it is in our nature to challenge things we disagree with and as we have probably all witnessed through Wikipedia and other like sites, there always seems to be room for improvement or changes.  The example that Weinberger provides us about John Kerry’s Vietnam war record made me recall how much of a media hype that was due to the buzz surrounding what types of medals he actually earned.  Wikipedia provides an opportunity to discuss what changes they believe should be made, and until there are no more changes the article according to Wales will not be considered neutral.  After reading about this example, I chose to look up President Barack Obama and read through his extensive Wiki page.  I shortly realized that there was not a general forum to have any type of discussion regarding this page and the changes people would like to have edited.  Whether or not his wiki page’s discussion board was taken down because of the backlash of the government shutdown or just because as a President there is already a lot of “vandalizing” of such pages, this halts any user’s ability to make changes to what they may consider a very bias page.  Weinberger states that “neutrality is a tough term” and I have to agree in terms of not being able to adjust a wiki article until it is no longer changed around; however, it is my belief that there will always be changes, always evolving, always deepening of opinions, and much more.  

The definition of neutrality and how tough it is goes hand in hand with the library profession particularly in the banning of books.  While neutrality is difficult to obtain, as information professionals we must cater to the needs and desires of our patrons.  Unfortunately for us, while we may disagree with a person’s desire to have a book banned, we must try to adhere to their wants but without violating another patron’s rights to that book.  This is a very hot button issue in the field of librarianship which is why the American Library Association produces a publication every three years containing ways to help librarians and other information professionals to recognize and support the First Amendment.  This is the link that gives a brief synopsis about what this publication does for librarians when it comes to banning books and the overall theme of censorship and the difficult nature of neutrality--http://www.alastore.ala.org/detail.aspx?ID=2931.  The fact is, Wales gave the most honest answer by saying we cannot be neutral until we stop changing things.   In my opinion, it is nearly impossible that in the sense of banning books it is difficult to remain neutral and unbiased with this subject especially when I feel so strongly about it.  Although I understand Weinberger’s analysis of Wales’ definition, it still leaves me wondering if there truly and honestly is such a thing as being neutral in such an information obsessed world.

(Below is a screenshot showing the President's closed general forum page)

Limitless Possibilities

David Remsen’s uBio Project enables users to contribute various classifications to species and does not neglect or refuse any “oddball” descriptions.  I can see why some scientists may not fully appreciate this project because instead of having a method of devising concrete subjects, uBio goes against this and lets people list what to seems to be limitless possibilities.  Scientists similar to mathematicians are about having a stable, black or white, concrete answer; however, Remsen’s project dismembers this theory and continues to build on layer after layer resulting in the ever daunting gray area.  While investigating uBio’s website, I typed in the search bar “shark” and came up with four scientific matches and 733 other matches which allows you to understand the immeasurable amount of results coming from such a basic search.  I think that between uBio and ZooBank, which Weinberger illustrated as a complete opposite project, shows how information is tailored in two different ways.  ZooBank, which is sponsored by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, instead of allowing numerous types of descriptions, devises a method in which they meticulously select and choose.  When I typed the word “shark” into this information resource it gave me six authors, 488 publications, and 81 nomenclature acts that were relevant to my search.  Although I still find these results to be large and impressive, as a biologist this may limit my research on this particular project whereas uBio may have more information to look up such as a different word used for a shark.  

There are several other information resources that use this type of model including Wikipedia.  Wikipedia does not limit the amount of information by specifically picking and choosing what they like.  Remsen similar to the creator of Wikipedia understands and recognizes that it is nearly impossible for people to agree on one particular subject.  Both of these information resources use collaboration as a strategy to tackle the tough issue of the miscellaneous.  Another great information resource, which I use frequently, is www.imdb.com, similar to Wikipedia and uBio it allows users as Weinberger noted about Remsen’s idea to, “not deliver the single right answer but to provide the maximum potential knowledge”.  Imdb.com has a list of editing policies, provided below that discuss even though they accept contributors, there are always guidelines to follow so that the information may be credible.  There is always going to be an argument about how a subject is classified such as the genre “comedy” which may include a movie or television show that someone may find to be considered in the genre “family”.   I think that these three information resources provide options and the ability to provide our own topics, ideas or further descriptions.  

Personally, I think that information resources similar to the ones I have discussed might help us see many different connections in the digital age by providing opportunity.  Our knowledge is limitless and the potential is growing so our need to see connections is an important issue especially in the field of librarianship and how it is and will further be affected by the digital age.  Remsen provided us with a structure that includes the importance of sharing and collaborating.  I recently was introduced to a website http://www.lirn.net/ which in my opinion is a good building block to institutions providing information resources.  While the structure of the site seems a little outdated, I still think that libraries can use this as a way to offer access to a plethora of resourceful sites that may help patrons, fellow librarians, and researchers in the digital age.  

#Instagram

After reading Weinberger’s (2007) statement “that the bigger the mess the more accurate is Flickr’s analysis” (p. 95), I have to disagree based upon my experience with working primarily on Instagram.  Social media has begun a movement to allow people a more simplistic and easier way to search for certain items.  Although it may be considered a quicker way to search by clicking on a hashtagged item, I have rapidly learned that this is not the case. A prime example of what I am referring to is that if you were to search the hashtag “#cats” on Instagram, it would be assumed that you would find predominantly cat images or cat-related images; however, some people may hashtag the word cat which may be referring to someone, an inside joke, or a completely unrelated subject.  While on Instagram, I know of someone who takes photographs and hashtags random, unrelated items so that when a person searches for something such as “#cats” they will find an image of corn because they hashtagged it as a joke.  Unfortunately, for a person who is only interested in looking at cat photographs this will not satisfy their search.  Instagram is not 100% accurate in organizing their information based upon a hashtag.

               Weinberger (2007) strongly believes that “these physical limitations on how we have organized information have not only limited our vision, they have also given the people who control the organization of information more power than those who create the information” (p.89).  Below I have included Instagram’s way of explaining the use of hashtags, but what I noticed and was surprised by was that they admitted the trickiness behind using them.  There are limitations within using this social media outlet and like several other networks, there will always be an organizational control between the creators and the controllers of the actual information.  I cannot completely dismiss that “the bigger the mess the more accurate” because as I read in a Washington Post article (website link below), I realized that the use of hashtags is also an innovative and organized way within our generation allowing an easier way to relay important messages especially for advertising companies.  I have a difficult time deciding whether or not order hides more than it reveals because I am not familiar with all social media outlets and/or search engines.  However, from my experience I think that order does often hide more because there is so much information to go through that the results are endless and may not be in a particularly ordered fashion. 

               The Washington Post quoted Hoffman as saying, “if you want to cut through the clutter and reach young minds then you really need user generated content, you better get people giving you thousands of likes on Facebook or re-tweeting your ad”.  Clutter and disorganization are barriers in to finding the most accurate information.  Weinberger believes that a bigger mess may allow for more accuracy but how is that so between all the clutter and chaos? 

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-13/national/42041231_1_ad-council-federal-government-instagram

Two Heads are Better than One

Weinberger presents Ranganathan as an ambitious and meticulous man who was devoted to finding a classification system fit for his native country, India.  After years and years of using the Dewey Decimal System, Ranganathan came to the conclusion that Dewey was set on Christian relevancy excluding other religions and beliefs.  Similar to Dewey, Ranganathan’s eagerness to discover a new classification system left room for many improvements.  I believe that his “five laws of library science” have some substance yet I find one to be bothersome.  Ranganathan’s list is as followed:

               Books are for use.

               Every reader his/her books.

               Every book its readers.

               Save the time of the reader; save the time of the library staff.

               The library is a growing organism. (p. 79)

Personally, his fourth law, “Save the time of the reader; save the time of the library staff” takes away the idea that librarians and their staff dedicate their time day in and day out to their patrons, so the idea of saving time of the library staff remains a bit confusing to me. 

               Ranganathan’s Colon Classification, so appropriately named, seems to yet again stray away from a more detailed structure similar to Dewey.  The five components within this classification include; “personality, matter, energy, space, and time” (p. 80).  What Ranganthan does do opposed to Dewey is take it a deeper by adding values making the classifications more flexible.  I am impressed that with someone who did not wish to become a librarian dedicated his career path towards dismissing and/or adding on the Dewey Decimal System.  I am hesistant to believe that his system was any better than Dewey’s because what they both had in common was that they did not think of any type of advancements within their arena and also they focused predominantly on what affected their environment and not others. 

               After reading Weinberger’s take on Ranganathan as the equivalent of Darwin for Dewey I had to investigate more of how Dewey may have taken Ranganathan’s work.  I found an incredible audio clip of Ranganathan that may be of interest to some of you regarding Melvil Dewey.  Surprisingly, early on in Ranganathan’s research neither he nor Dewey had crossed paths until he had sent a Dewey his published work containing his “five laws of library science”.  What I gathered from Dewey’s response is that he would not be satisfied or accepting of someone trying to reformat or replace his classification system.  Ranganathan recalls Dewey saying, “It's very dangerous. I have suffered. People attribute all kinds of motives to you. Apart from that, if anything goes wrong, they will pounce upon you. It may cost your appointment. On the other hand, if you use a scheme which is established, which is used everywhere, which is not yours, if anything goes wrong, you will go scot free. Why do you think of doing another scheme of classification?"  This very idea made me ponder that there will never be a time where we are all in agreement with a system of classification.  While I understand Dewey’s concerns that there will always be negative feedback, I can also take away that there may have been a detest for someone whose classification system may overtake his somewhat outdated method.   

I highly recommend listening to the audio (the first few seconds are very noisy) while reading the transcript that our very own Weinberger transcribed in 2005.  I think that this interview with Ranganathan portrays a need for collaboration for a new system of classification.  Two heads may have been better than one in this quest for a new classification system. 

              

http://www.miskatonic.org/files/ranganathan-on-dewey.mp3

http://www.hyperorg.com/misc/ranganathan_on_dewey_transcript.html (Weinberger’s transcript)

Don't Disregard Dewey

            Weinberger’s chapter on “The Geography of Knowledge” focuses in on my opinion the more negatively related reactions to the Dewey Decimal System.  I was somewhat surprised by how several librarians are known, according to Weinberger, to roll their eyes at this somewhat outdated classification system.  Personally, I remember how organized and easy it was to understand where books were located due to the set-up of certain books.  Until now, I did not see some of these categories as being problematic such as “Philosophy and Psychology”.  Prior to reading this chapter, I would not find this to be an issue until further investigation as to why it poses so many issues to the average patron and/or librarian.  Psychology and Philosophy are considered to some, to be polar opposites thus causing a need to be separated categorically.  While I understand that this classification may be considered outdated to some, is it possible that his arrangement of categories can be used methodically and effectively in the 21^st century without over-analyzing the system to the point of disregarding it?  It seems to me, that as time goes on, it tends to be our goal to think of bigger and better ways to organize which may lead us to neglect past methods that have worked for decades.  I believe that after reading this chapter, I now have a new found respect for Melvil Dewey’s classification which has been the building blocks to the Library of Congress Classification.  While I appreciate Dewey’s classification based off the world, which at the time created was a popular idea, I do realize now it is outdated which has led to a more modern classification system that is easier to understand.  I am stuck in the middle of appreciating the early beginning of the Dewey Decimal System and its relationship to the foundations of studies at the time; however future foundations were not anticipated thus were categorized based solely on the present. 

            As for the TEDtalk video we watched in class on Wednesday, it changed my opinion on the website significantly.  I was one of the students who had been sworn off of Wikipedia by nearly 95% of my teachers since I was in grade school.  What I did not realize was the amount of effort and security placed within this online encyclopedia.  It is obvious that there are flaws in nearly every online source, but it seems apparent that Jimmy Wales understood these negative connotations associated with the Internet, and made it a mission to securely submit information.  I was astonished by his truthfulness behind an individual’s ability to submit false information but then the fast turnaround rate which was impressive.  His example regarding the Kerry and Bush campaign and how he had locked out people from submitting either untruthful text or “vandalizing” the page shows the importance of validity behind Wikipedia.  I have found that because of his security measures of preventing vandalism on pages, that Wikipedia is more accurate than I had assumed in the first place.  Prior to listening to Wales speak about this universal encyclopedia, I had found it to be a website based upon inaccurate information in which no one analyzed for truthfulness and facts.  I believe that by watching this video and looking up random pages after class, I was fascinated by the reliability after fact checking through other sources.   

Alphabetical Versus Topical

     Prior to reading Weinberger’s chapter on “Alphabetization and its Discontents”, I had found myself looking at the alphabet as the building blocks to our childhood.  As children, it is one of the most basic concepts we learn growing up and typically no one looks up at their parent and asks why it is organized in this fashion.  Personally, I believe that the use of the alphabet is still relevant in our daily lives whether it is how a class roster is listed or the example they gave about loading a bus alphabetically opposed to using a person’s race.  On the other hand Charles Luthy and Mortimer Adler’s approach that the alphabet is considered arbitrary challenges my viewpoint on the subject.  Adler’s “alphabetiasis” and eagerness to change the organization of the Encyclopaedia Britannica was a result of his opinion that by forfeiting to the simplistic organization of the alphabet was an “evasion of intellectual responsibility” (Weinberger, 2007). Unfortunately for Adler, while his topical organization was thought-provoking and enticing, the realization that not one topically organized encyclopedia had succeeded was enough of a determining factor for the chairman of the board who decided to continue with an alphabetical organization of the Britannica.  

     Dmitrii Ivanovich Mendeleev had the task of trying to organize the elements in a way in which people would understand the relationships between one element and the next.  Once Mendeleev found a pattern based upon shared properties and relationships he organized them into the widely known periodic table of elements.  This widely used table is organized based on the close relationships and connections of surrounding elements opposed to an alphabetical table. 

     While I am an advocate for alphabetization, I understand the importance of organizing by relationships, and the periodic table is one of these great examples.  Similar to the periodic table, I thought about how our libraries and even book stores are organized.  If a student were to be purchasing an English book for class they would go to the English section which may then be organized by course.  However, imagine if the book store, similar to the library were not organized by subjects or topics but instead alphabetically.  If you were searching for “Beowulf” for your Chaucer course and then for the same class needed to purchase “The House of Fame”, you would be searching in various sections of the store opposed to the more topical route of organization. 

     Adler, Luthy, and even Mendeleev were not around to see or understand how organization may have been handled digitally.  I thoroughly believe that they would be impressed or at least intrigued by the various ways we have found ourselves organizing different items.  Google for example, may been a search engine they would find to be beneficial due to capabilities of finding the most relevant answer upon reviews and other searches opposed to alphabetically.  When Adler said “inherent in all things to be learned we should be able to find inner connections”, I believe he left us with the idea that connecting relationships allow us to better understand opposed to accepting an impulsive desire to organize in a considerably easy method such as the alphabet.  Weinberger has left me with a new appreciation for topical organization but also the understanding that our alphabet which some may consider outdated, is still as important as it was hundreds of years ago.  

There is No One Way

Kevin Kelly who was featured in TEDTalk stressed the importance of how we as humans “have to get better in believing in the impossible”.  Librarianship has come an incredibly long way from the card catalog to an overwhelming amount of online databases.  The web has increased our ability to create, locate, and search the various avenues of the everyday library; however, he does not fail to mention that there are consequences of our usage of the web.  Three consequences he focused in on included embodiment, restructure, and co-dependency.  Co-dependency seems to be one of the largest of the three issues for the simple reason that patrons and/or librarians may depend on the Web’s answers opposed to any further investigation.  Kelly mentions a funny yet serious statement about when we do not know an answer to something that the first thing we do is “Google it”.  Unfortunately, I have found myself to be among the millions of people who goes straight to Google instead of an old-fashioned encyclopedia, dictionary, or other type of physical research material.  Years ago, we relied heavily on our own knowledge and ability to research answers.  Now there are people who consider researching typing into a search engine and getting thousands of hits in a matter of seconds.

While co-dependency of the Web seems to be a major issue, this gives librarians the opportunity to share the importance of the library system because of the Webs lack of accuracy.  Learning about the continuous technological advances will enable librarians to counter these developments with their knowledge of both technology as well as any “archaic” methods of librarianship.  As current or future librarians we are taught the importance of organization which is something the Internet is lacking. 

The Web while a great asset for many of today’s libraries, still does not take away from the importance of the physicality of organization and the satisfaction from tangible research.  David Weinberger’s chapter “The New Order of Order” illustrates a thought-provoking concept that includes the idea that we have been taught to keep our physical environments in our daily lives to be organized and in order; however, maintaining order in the digital world is much more difficult.  He gives us the example of saving our digital photographs onto the computer versus having them physically.  The issue with trying to organize these photos on the computer is that if you have thousands of photos they are not clearly labeled as to which one is which.  I personally have had an issue with sifting through photographs on the computer opposed to having them physically in front of me.  While some people may use physical storage as a backup, I differ and use the computer as my backup.  A pro to physically storing these photographs is that they are easily accessible to you and that you may go through them at a quicker pace and decipher which ones you like and which you do not.  This may be more difficult on the computer because they are most likely not labeled individually and you would have to look at them one by one.  Weinberger gives this example to shine light on the physical accessibility especially for librarians.  I believe that this example demonstrates why some librarians may favor physical accessibility opposed to the lack of organization in the digital world. 

During our class discussion it became apparent that there are clashing opinions on whether or not the Web is beneficial to librarianship.  It may be the fear of the unknown that is causing this reluctance or the ever so daunting task of having to learn these new and changing technologies.  On the other hand, others are embracing these advancements because it gives us more of an opportunity to engage and further investigate for our patrons and ourselves.  Both Kevin Kelly and David Weinberger allow us to look at both the positive and negative aspects of the Web and our way of digital versus physical organization.