Blog Reflection #3

This week's blog reflection is primarily about reference resources and how to use them effectively - not just one resource, but all tools and resources in conjunction with one another.

As our instructor has pointed out, today's generation is more apt to go straight to the internet - straight to Wikipedia, for all of their information needs. Wikipedia is a great information tool, right? So what's the problem? I'm going to quote a favorite political comedian of mine, Stephen Colbert, who coined a new word - "Wikiality." The concept of "wikiality" is that "any user can change an entry, and if enough users agree with them, it becomes true." (quote found at wikipedia.org - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wikiality#wikipedia-references. Sept 18, 2008). This is just one problem with using the internet as a sole resource for information. Too many cooks can spoil the soup with their own versions of the facts.

Don't get me wrong. I think Wikipedia (and the internet in general) is a fantastic research tool. But Colbert's experiment with the idea of wikiality is an example where the information available might not be as reliable as we think.

Physical libraries, on the other hand pose different sets of barriers to accessing information - we might call it a language barrier of sorts. That language barrier involves knowing the right terminology (subject headings, call numbers, broad topics as opposed to narrow topics, etc.) to convey your research needs to the librarians - and to the computers that access the information.

I think that the research interview is essential to learn for both the librarian and the researcher/patron. The example I used in my project posted below - the search for information on chain letters - is perfect to point out here. As a patron, I couldn't find the specific information I was looking for - The chain letter in a historical context. The key words and subject headings I chose weren't pointing me in the direction I was looking for, and the librarian - who accessed worldcat.org did find some books on the material, but under a subject heading that didn't help me - mail fraud.

Here is an example where the tools available to me the researcher, failed individually, but succeeded when used together. My own search on worldcat.org supplied me with a narrower list of book choices, where I could find a title that I could look up at Amazon.com. But I couldn't access the book online. I could, however view relevant subject headings - occultism (not religion, but related), and I could see that the book itself could be accessed at the library whose catalog didn't recognize it from a key word. Now I don't have to buy the book. I can go back to the library and read the sections I wanted.

This is also an example of where a librarian's research interview initially failed. Not from a lack of trying. She did ask questions, and I supplied her with answers, but she didn't register specific information I had told her - that I was looking for chain letters in a historical or religious context. She pointed out the subject heading of the first entry found on her worldcat search - mail fraud. Then she handed me the printout for that particular book.

I guess, in conclusion, we need to recognize that language barriers come in many forms when it comes to the research process, and that patience and the access of ALL the tools and resources at are fingertips is the best way to navigate toward our answers.