Full disclosure: I’m a friend of Jackie Griffin (don’t hold that against her…). I say that because I’ve been reluctant to post about the RFID kerfuffle at Berkeley Public Library, where Jackie is director, not because I was holding back on anything, but because I felt that even with full transparency, our friendship could compromise my argument.
However, I was pleased to see Jackie address a recent post on the RFID in Libraries blog that repeated “facts” about RFID and workers’ compensation reported in the Berkeley Daily Planet. Jackie presents her take on the data associated with workers’ compensation claims analyzed by Peter Warfield and EFF lawyer Lee Tien.
Presenting more than one point of view is what the Daily Planet should have done in the first place, but the problem was compounded by Laura Smart repeating the Daily Planet “article,” as they call it, not only as if it were gospel, but as if, to use one of her words, this article “debunked” information provided by Berkeley Public Library.
I don’t have a position on Berkeley Public Library’s RFID activities. I have written about RFID in the past, and noted that it is a complicated issue; Jackie and I even debated RFID in a friendly manner in an interview in American Libraries. But I do have a position about responsible citizen journalism. We as librarians have to be particularly careful with information as we report it, and always assiduously apply the analytical skills that are part of our heritage. We of all professionals know all too well the importance of “considering the source.” Who are the authors, what is the real data, and how is this information presented? What intellectual metadata do we wrap around this item?
The article in the Daily Planet is really just an editorial, written by EFF lawyer Lee Tien and citizen-activist Peter Warfield, who has been untiring in his zeal to expose the ills of librarianship as he sees them. Last year Warfield called me on my personal phone number (a number which has since changed) to try to enlist me in this latest campaign. I have seen Warfield at many library board meetings in the Bay Area; he is a regular. I also know Lee Tien from other, far more illustrious campaigns on behalf of free speech, and I continue to be surprised and concerned that he has latched on to Warfield.
The facts could be debated endlessly, but it boils down to this: if you decide to use your blog to report “facts,” take as much care with this information as if you were handing it to a patron whose very life depended on it. When you write on a blog (or in the Los Angeles Times), you reflect all of librarianship, whether you mean to or not. It’s good for Laura Smart to issue a mea culpa, but I would ask her as well to think carefully about her postings in the future. I know Laura, she’s a good person; I suspect the urge to “break a story” overwhelmed the instinct to think about the quality of what she was reading.
With that, I have to get on a plane.
Posted on this day, other years:
- Change is a hurricane or a door - 2016
- Channeling Winston - 2016
- Mellen, Sky River: what a mighty big waste... - 2013
- Free books, as in free beer, and more - 2009
- Grandmother, tell me again about the year you fooled your editor, your publisher, and the New York Times - 2008
- Jean from Weber - 2007
- How To Lose Your Tech People - 2006
Hi Karen –
It wasn’t an “urge to break a story” per se, but more like making a quick link and being a tad ignorant with my choice of words — I honestly thought debunk could be used synonomously with dispute. I was using it in that sense since I’ve heard it used colloquially in that manner.
Imagine my horror when my failings were brought to my attention! My intent was to show that Tien and Warfield were disputing — I even used that word in the headline. My graver error was calling it an article rather than a commentary.
The only story I was attempted to portray in the blog was the back & forthing between the library and its detractors in the press.
I believe my treatment of the Berkeley Public Library has been balanced on the whole if you consider every piece I’ve ever written about it. I have directed readers to the commentary by Laura Anderson, president of the Berkeley Public Library Board of Trustees, published in the Daily Planet. I’ve provided links to the full information on RSI that the consultants provided during the SFPL board meetings. I’ve taken aim at the inflamatory language of Berkeleyans Organized for Library Defense (B.O.L.D.) I’ve lauded Jackie Griffiths fine reputation for upholding intellectual freedom. And in that last “debunked” post I even intimated that I suspected Warfield and Tien’s numbers were interpretations and that I was expecting a rebuttal to come from the library to the Berkeley Daily Planet.
This blog goes out in my spare moments during the day. My intent for the blog is to pass along information I encounter regarding libraries and RFID and give my thoughts/opinions about it. I don’t think a blog is ever neutral.
I don’t think I’ve ever made a claim to objectivity. I have been meaning to fully disclose my stance toward library RFID and my criteria for what I decide to post in the “about” section of he blog.
It’s also been a long term goal of mine to get multiple authors contributing to the blog. That way many perspectives can level out the subjective bias inherent and any one individuals’ writing. Life and my learning curve with the server and the blog software made that slower to happen then I would have liked.
That said, I really do make an effort to present all views. My undergraduate degree is in journalism and I’m fully aware of the responsibilities I take on when writing in the public sphere.
In this case, it’s an honest mistake. It even happens to the big boys. You see corrections, retractions,etc in the newspapers all the time. Pobody’s nerfect, including me 🙂
I’ve offered to buy Jackie a pint next time I’m in the Bay Area. Perhaps you could join us and we can discuss subjectivity in discourse and the failures of language .
Thanks so much for your commentary.
Actually, I think Laura is doing a good job, not just on this story but in continuing to try to provide a balanced view of RFID. I appreciate the efforts she made to balance out that last piece.
That’s what’s frustrating about this, in my opinion. Here are people of good will, mostly trying to provide excellent library service. We have a disagreement or a concern about RFID and its role.
Somehow, to support using RFID in a reasonable and responsible manner is to be in John Ashcroft’s pocket, while to not support it is to be a Luddite who doesn’t understand the realities of the economic world that librarians have to exist in.
Surely, somewhere there is middle ground to be explored. And, ground that we should explore now because more technology is coming and more concerns with them. And, as a profession, we aren’t dealing with the realities that are coming with them.
We have a suggestion box and on the one hand, people are saying “why did you buy RFID”, why are you helping the FBI and on the other hand they are saying “why don’t you have wireless access available”.
Anyway, Laura seems to be a lone voice among us trying to figure out the middle ground. Well, and of course, Karen, who I suspect of not really speaking of her concerns about RFID because of our friendship. So, whenever I speak about RFID, I say ‘and Karen Schneider says that it doesn’t matter if its just a barcode, it adds to that pool of information that can be collected about each of us and so, we shouldn’t participate”.
Let’s all go have that pint sometime soon.
Jackie
When I talk about RFID–as I do not very frequently these days–it is with the background of someone who has been managing library systems for some time now. My thoughts can’t be boiled down so simply as Jackie suggests (though I think her comments are well-intended). I will let Jackie’s comment stand, but note for the record that she does not represent my beliefs on RFID.
As for Laura, I appreciate her comments on my post, and all I can say is continue to strive for accuracy and transparency. Also trust your instincts. If you think someone is a tinfoilhead, you are probably right, and follow those instincts to their source. Writing is a little like sex–you are the sum of your sources. As for your post about the Tien/Warfield article, I don’t buy that it was a simple word error, but I have said my piece, I have let you say your piece, and I will let both statements stand.
I hope we can all get together at some point and have a beer–or three!
phentermine ingredients
Free shipping cheap phentermine phentermine quick, phentermine overseas phentermine 30 mg. Phentermine online order phentermine online, cheap phentermine phentermine no consultation. Information phentermine lowest phentermine prices, lowest phente…