Comments on: RIP, Library Journal

By: K.G. Schneider

K.G. Schneider — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:54:39 +0000

As noted throughout this discussion, there are no absolutes. What Linda says distills at least part of my conclusions. Not all anonymous participation on the Web is cowardly or opportunistic (note how I expanded this beyond blogging). But LJ hiring an anonymous natterer to chunk rocks at other folks is a poor course for their ship to tack. Our profession is not overburdened by accountability.

By: CH

CH — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:28:37 +0000

Sorry, but I have to wave the same bullshit flag when I read your posting. It's not cowardly to blog anonymously, and it has nothing to do with the quality of one's work. Do you think Banksy's work is worthless because he tried to stay anonymous?

By: The Liminal Librarian » Blog Archive » The mildly perturbed librarian

The Liminal Librarian » Blog Archive » The mildly perturbed librarian — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:31:53 +0000

[...] folks that I respect a lot now respect Library Journal a lot less, due to LJ’s decision to pick up The Annoyed [...]

By: Linda Koss

Linda Koss — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:39:21 +0000

I have nothing against anonymity in general, but librarians have an occupational need for guts, and you don’t get or show guts with an anonymous posting. I always sign my name–in the couple of LJ pieces I have written, in my union newsletter. When you write something of controversy, or are speaking truth to power, you gain no power by refusing to sign your name. And librarians need all the power we can muster.

By: K.G. Schneider

K.G. Schneider — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:57:20 +0000

Thanks, Joshua.

I should add, I am not categorically against anonymity. I understand the role of whistleblowers, for example. I can also understand that some sources need to be anonymous. But I have a real issue with LJ pumping up its hits with someone who chunks rocks at others’ fannies but doesn’t have the cajones (regardless of gender) to be real about who he/she is.

Overall, what really bothers me about AL is how he/she revels in wallowing in the shadowy vortexes of negativity. I’ll call it for what it is: creepy.

By: joshua m. neff

joshua m. neff — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:18:20 +0000

You’re not the only person who feels that way.

By: K.G. Schneider

K.G. Schneider — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:48:00 +0000

I don’t like magazines hiring anonymous writers, and since I’ve never “subscribed” to LJ myself, I’m really not missing anything. Most places I’ve worked I’ve been too low on the totem pole to get LJ for the news, so I’ve always got THAT elsewhere.

In any event we all have our limits. Me, I don’t find AL funny… and if I’m the only person in the world who feels that way, well, that’s o.k.

By: rcn

rcn — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:35:22 +0000

I completely agree with Joan above. I’m surprised by your take on AL, Karen. AL has made me laugh several times – she expresses what many people in library land want to express but don’t, or do in a much less humorous manner. Yes, I find her funny, entertaining, and intriguing. I’m amazed by how many readers have taken her too seriously. Of course I understand that people might not like her what she writes, how she writes it, and/or her anonymity, but I also agree with the first commenter here: you’re giving her far too much power by unsubscribing from a journal that you otherwise enjoy. Fine, don’t read AL, but don’t let her stop you from enjoying LJ.

RCN in San Francisco Bay Area

By: Charles Charleston

Charles Charleston — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 04:08:01 +0000

I don’t see what the big deal is. I think everyone pretty much knows that Meredith Farkas is the Annoyed Librarian.

By: joshua m. neff

joshua m. neff — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:29:36 +0000

Bill Drew FTW!