Yes, it matters that the patron understands what we do. In fact, we should be consulting the patrons as to what to do and how. The information we provide is for their benefit, so if we don’t appreciate what is of benefit to them, we can’t
do the job.
We have no right to “create identities” for people. If you want to be respectful of individuals, then you have to defer the creative process to them by using respectful phrases like “[person]
chooses to be known as [XXXX]”, rather than “[person] is [XXXX]”. In fact, quote from people who assign themselves identities would be even more respectful that simple data. You also have to be
certain that people do chose to be known as [“XXXX”] rather than just deriving information from impersonal sources.
Not to mention the problem that arises with using imprecise (“What’s a [XXXX]?”) or, especially, emotionally “loaded” terminology.
Filling out a data field with information about a person is not inherently an act that indicates “respect of an individual’s identity.”
There’s a point beyond which describing every “personal” detail about individuals can actually destroy them. [Although, maybe that’s not such a bad idea in some cases—e.g., wouldn’t it be just as useful in understanding the motivations
behind authors’ creations to know if they had been bullies or predatory, or had been bullied, at times in their life?]
If all patrons want of us is finding aids, then let’s cut back on being “biographical.” We could “create identities” for
all authors to give patrons greater appreciation of their motivations (such as Ann Coulter [prefers to be known as] as “a “polemicist” who likes to "stir up the pot" and doesn't "pretend to be impartial or balanced”). Wouldn’t
that be fun and informative?
Cheers!
John G. Marr
DACS
Zimmerman Library
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87010
**"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: Shana McDanold [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 7:10 AM
To: John Gordon Marr
Cc: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Inevitable Caitlyn Jenner NAR question
Does it really matter if the patron understands? It's about respecting the individual and how they identify. We are creating an identity for them, that gets used and re-used in many different forms (dbpedia, VIAF, etc.). I think respecting
the individual's identity trumps if the user understands the "nuance" of the field definition.
Besides, patrons don't necessarily understand why we choose one name presentation over another (again, respecting the individual's choice), or sometimes even why a book has the title we indicated.
Frankly, what users are ultimately worried about is if they can find what they're looking for. As long as there are references (see, see also, also known as, etc.) then we do meet the needs of the user.
Thanks,
Shana
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:28 PM, John Gordon Marr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Original message: 375 $a is defined as: The gender with which a person identifies.
Can we be any more certain that the library patron will understand this nuance than we can be of the ”gender” itself?
John G. Marr
DACS
Zimmerman Library
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87010
**"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.