Print

Print


Tim:

If you don’t provide the same form of data for every person (say you leave out mentioning someone is “transgender”, perhaps because that person requested it), then a search for all transgender people will be corrupted. It’s like saying elections represent “the will of the people” when all of the people don’t vote (and some are prevented from voting). If you don’t have a complete (“perfect”) database, no analysis of  the data by “researchers” can be accurate.

There’s plenty of literature out there about how to lie with statistics. Here’s an example: One candidate gets 47% of “the vote.” Is that significant? Well, if only 50% of the eligible electorate voted and 47% of 50% = only 24% of all possible votes, and that candidate’s loyal base likely to vote comprises 20% of the electorate, is that candidate getting only 4% of the votes of people outside his/her base? If you don’t poll the other 50% (often discouraged or prevented from voting), you can’t draw any valid conclusions.

I like “catalogers’ prerogative.” I use it all the time. Lots of people do—to decide if something is “valuable” and worth the time (“Ah, there’s the rub!”) doing it. No problem, except that it makes for across-the-board inconsistency. I’d prefer “standardization” (but too close to “perfection”, maybe?).

My last sentence says, simply: neither do it perfectly nor never do it.

I don’t have a big issue with recording essential data in the 670; I just think that expecting 375 data to be practical for researchers may be a stretch, and gender information may be less important that other “attribute” data to literature analysis.

Maybe we should go the route of astronomers, if we want our work to be relevant to “researchers”: collect absolutely all data that is collectable and let it decide what the relevant questions to ask of it are.

John G. Marr
DACS
Zimmerman Library
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87010
[log in to unmask]

         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
                                             Martha Watson

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.




From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carlton, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More Caitlyn Jenner and 375s

I think your last sentence points up a misunderstanding I think a lot of people have:
Nobody is arguing to code this – or any other attribute, or even RDA bibliographical element – for ‘everyone’, or ‘every time.’  Nobody is prescribing ‘perfect’ cataloging – even if that were definable, much less achievable.

Why is cataloger judgment so difficult to get a handle on?  Do something when you think it is valuable – provided you deem the time it takes worth the doing.  Believe it or not, I still am asked for advice about what “generally” means in this or that Policy Statement.

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Gordon Marr
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More Caitlyn Jenner and 375s


 I will not record gender in the 375 without evidence recorded in the 670. For male or female, the evidence can be “he” or “she” did something. Even if one could post a photo in a 670, it would not be adequate evidence.

I will not dig for a gender to put in the 670 and 375 unless absolutely necessary (which seems to be a central issue in this thread). How much time (which costs money) do we have to be perfect?

So: let’s have some rules: What makes it necessary? Should a controlled vocabulary be used in the 375 for non-standard genders, or should a person’s gender-of-choice term be applied? Should we always dig for gender data for the 670 to justify always putting data in the 375 to satisfy “research projects”, or is that beyond our scope?

Why not have coded fields for religion, race, ethnicity, attitude and political party affiliation as well? Lots more “research” potential there, with definite relevance to literary intent and practice!

When you answer that question, consider whether the answer applies to the 375 as well.

Or should we back off from being “biographers” for “researchers” and just post data that is essential to identifying people and/or disambiguating AAPs?

We can’t pretend that researchers can use prejudiced (incomplete) data bases, and we can’t afford to create perfect data bases that researchers could use, so 375 (or any other coded field that states personal characteristics) as a data base for finding folks by gender (or any other) grouping won’t work.

We can’t really justify noting everyone’s gender [preference], nor can we justify never noting it (it can be significant to identification), but that can be done in the 670 and does not require coding in the 375.

Cheers!

John G. Marr
DACS
Zimmerman Library
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87010
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

         **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
                                             Martha Watson

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.





From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carlton, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 11:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More Caitlyn Jenner and 375s

Without discussing one way or the other the ‘sensitive’ issues, which have been well noted by others, I am somewhat alarmed at the tenor of some of these messages, which seem to me to imply ( I hope I am misreading or misinterpreting them) that the sole reason (or, to put it a bit more broadly, a major reason) to code gender – or any other attribute we might include in authority records – is to ‘make [the] name unique’.

Really?  Is that the only reason?  Weren’t we told, some years ago, that it would be advantageous to enter into authority records data which might enable researchers to query, for example, ‘what were Swedish women writing about botany in the 19th century?’  As others have noted, and I heartily agree, one must be careful in attributing gender.  But do we really want to discard the ability to use it?  It is correct that most (all?) systems are not currently capable of constructing such queries, and that in any case such a search would be incomplete because decades’ worth of NARs do not include the data.  However, if the data isn’t in the record it can’t possibly be manipulated, even if systems are developed to do so.  But OK, say we take gender out of my suggested query, and the researcher simply wanted to know “What were Swedish persons writing about botany in the 19th century?”  Of course, the researcher wouldn’t get all the pre-RDA authorities of Swedish writers.  Does that mean we should discontinue recording the language attribute because it isn’t present in every NAR?  I really don’t mean to reduce this to absurdity, but it seems that’s where some of this is headed.

I think of it this way:
If you’re not sure, or think it might be unreliable, or transitory, or an invasion of privacy, or drawing a false conclusion -- or don’t want to record it for any reason -- then don’t record it.  But to not record it in cases that are clear seems overly reactionary.

Some of the comments on this topic strike me as a classic example of ‘cataloging for catalogers.’

Timothy J. Carlton
Senior Instructor
Cooperative and Instructional Programs (COIN)
Library of Congress
202-707-5323
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

The views expressed here are my own and I do not speak officially for the Library of Congress.

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More Caitlyn Jenner and 375s

I think the Big Freedia case shows the difficulty of coding gender. His “perceived gender” may be female, but the question is: Perceived for how long? Someone interviewed him and found he considered himself male. Since coding his gender really does nothing to make his name unique, it creates problems not worth dealing with.

As someone said, we could create a Dame Edna authority with a 500 for Barry Humphries. That would make sense since some works are published under the Dame Edna name. There would be no need to indicate gender on either authority.

Ted
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Young,Naomi Kietzke
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 10:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More Caitlyn Jenner and 375s

Pete,

But it’s only necessary if there is another “Dame Edna” who is MALE already IN the AF.

You keep begging the question; trying to make coding gender more “handy,” when what Kevin (and Shana, and others) are saying is that we should not code gender at all unless it breaks a conflict or is necessary because of the language (as with Chinese).

Naomi
Breaking her promise to herself to let this lie

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 6:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More Caitlyn Jenner and 375s

No, no.  What I was saying would “come in handy” was the UNDERSTANDING or definition of the 375 as being used for “perceived sex,” not a guess at the person’s “real” sex or gender.  That makes a decision of how to code a 375 for Dame Edna pretty obvious, I think.  Thus, the definition is handy.

Pete

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 5:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More Caitlyn Jenner and 375s

So you mean using the field will come in handy for determining whether the use of the field is correct?  Sounds sort of circular to me.

Kevin

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 4:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More Caitlyn Jenner and 375s

For making clearer that the 375 should be “female” rather than “male,” no matter what sex/gender Barry Humphries may consider himself to have.

Pete

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 4:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More Caitlyn Jenner and 375s

"Handy" for what purpose?  I'm totally lost here.

Kevin

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 4:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More Caitlyn Jenner and 375s

Ted,

Actually I forgot that we don’t actually have an authority record for Dame Edna.  I don’t care whether we do or not, really.  But if we decide she merits an authority of her own for having been the ostensible author of books, the “perceived gender” concept might come in handy.

Pete