Spied on Michael Golrick’s blog: “I do see that blogging represents a use of library technology sufficient to warrant a LITA Interest Group, if anyone wanted to start one.”
Thought I’d point out that LITA does have a blogging IG: BIGWIG. (Full disclosure: I co-chair it. Second disclosure: we’re hosting a fab program at Annual. Third disclosure: the “B’ stands for blogging… after that I get a little muddled.)
But we don’t have an association-wide blogging RT. Should there be one? I think critical mass will tell. Would it conflict with a division-level group? Nope. Is it necessary? Well, I seem to recall a certain LITA interest group that despite its official-sounding name, existed (exists? I can’t recall) solely to put on skits… There are worse reasons to form an association-wide unit than “Hey, dude, we like, blog.” (Or even, “Yo, dude, I want to pick up one of those bloggers, heh heh heh heh heh!”) There are even people who meet for hours at every ALA conference just to discuss MARC records! (Ducking very quickly…)
Posted on this day, other years:
- Crowdvine versus SWIFT - 2008
- Gloryoski, Metadata! (Thoughts from IA Summit 2008) - 2008
- Adam Gopnik on Sentences - 2007
- ALA's "Citation" For Laura Bush - 2005
- Name That Rose! - 2004
- RFID in Libraries - 2004
- ALA Election Update: Better than I Thought - 2004
- More on that Mystery Rose - 2004
Karen, I have a feeling there’s a joke in there somewhere about MARC (or were you ducking due to an earthquake/mudslide? Oh dear!), but I can’t figure it out. Doesn’t everyone move from meetings about MARC to meetings about subject headings or AACR2 and back again? Other than a few hours off to watch the book truck drill teams, what else would one possibly go to ALA for? 🙂
To stand in line at the exhibits to pick up a tote bag?
(Hey, I wrote “stand in line” instead of “stand on line”–that’s a change for me, since I unconsciously changed to “stand on line” soon after moving to New York in 1979!)