The Good Library Blog

Perhaps you'd like to add that their response to your interview addressed several areas concerning public libraries which you seemed to misunderstand or misrepresent.

I'm not sure why the fact that "you have never met" them is relevant, they were discussing the argument you put forward, not making a personal attack.

The paragraph you quote actually reads

"Public libraries and politicians can undoubtedly learn from a rigorous approach to business planning and efficiency, but until Tim Coates tempers his comments with a genuine understanding of the ethos of public service and community which has driven the library service since it's inception, any dialogue is likely to be conducted through opposing megaphones rather than around the same table."

Would you actually like to address the points they raise?

Miriam

I don't see why what I say displays a lack of "understanding of the ethos of public service and community". I really don't! I think libraries are paid to do a job and the very notion of public service implies they should do it as efficiently and effectively as possible. Does public service not mean that?

I live in a community which is about as multi cultural as it is possible to be. I see the service my local libraries offer and I think there is room for them to do more. What is it that you believe I can't understand?

I think that public service- as good as it can be- is all I talk about - with respect to libraries.

Their article suggests that I believe that rural libraries shouldn't have computers. I have never in my life said that, I don't believe it and it certainly wasn't said in the article to which they were responding. That was why I said I have never met them- because they might have that impression from some previous encounter

I made a point about allocating part of budgets specifically for special needs-- and they disagreed with that idea. In fact the origin of it was the recent plan announced for the development of the library service in Northern Ireland. I thought their idea was particularly good - and it rang bells because of very word "community" has such strong meaning in their case.

Rob Froude and Robert Gent weren't responding to my article at all- they were restating their manifesto about the excellent condition of the public library service and what a good job it does-- which is fine except most of the rest of the world -from the Audit Commission to the general public to the Minister responsible- don't think it is that good. I was suggesting we should try to have a dialogue to improve things, as I believe we should.

It seems to me that what they were suggesting is that public service is far more than that.

Actually, I think they were replying to this:

"For example, he's not opposed to computers in libraries. Especially in big cities, where people are perhaps living in bedsits and pursuing courses at night, libraries are the place to work and computers facilitate that."

If you read their article in parallel with the interview then you will see that it is in fact a reply. They are not saying "how good public libraries are", they are explaining how they work and how they have a very broad spectrum of users with diverse needs rather than "mainstream users" and "special needs" cases.

You say you want a dialogue with librarians but your reaction to this article suggests otherwise. You don't address the points they make, you simply make an ad hominem argument dismissing what they have to say because they are library professionals.

You have repeatedly told me that I ought to believe you because you have experience in certain fields. Perhaps you should make take your own advice and listen to these senior librarians before simply dismissing them.

If you disagree with what the article says then that's fair enough, point out the flaws and argue against them.

Enough of this one! I can't see how the statement Miriam quotes about libraries in cities (which is a point I make endlessly on here) implies that I don't think rural libraries shouldn't have computers-- so enough of this

As far as I can see the Library and Information Gazette isn't available in electronic form. If someone were to let me have electronic copies of both these articles (and any others in the same journal)- then I will be happy to post them. Otherwise this particular dialogue is going nowhere.

Hmm..read the articles last night.

The format of the pieces were completely wrong. Both pieces were quite well written but it just had too many shortcomings. The major one being that it gave the two well respected Librarians an opportunity to then say all the wonderful services and activities that Libraries have to offer and that Tim Coates did not recognise any of that. I think that examples of good and bad libraries are showcased on this blog. The senior Librarians replies were more along the lines of 'you haven't said this about Libraries therefore you don't believe in it' is naive and misleading the readers. They clearly do not want an audience with him as is evident with the quote 'tempers his comments'.

With a restricted amount of space offered by the magazine I think both sides of the fence had a limited framework in which to barely establish salient points. Good on Tim Buckley-Owen though for putting it together.

Miriam - since when did Tim have an aversion to computers in rural areas? I have seen your postings on CILIP forum my dear lady - when you quote me as a 'rabid groupie' at least I don't want to raise up an anti-Tim Coates movement as you have suggested on there.

Katie, perhaps you should read the articles again. The point they make is not "you haven't said X,Y,Z and therefore don't believe in it" it is that there is more to public libraries than the things Tim has mentioned in the other article.

They are, as I said, simply replying to the argument, that is how debate works.

I didn't say that Tim has an aversion to computers in rural areas, I quoted the part of the article which I think that the other side was replying to.

Yes, I post about things in the CILIP forums, (like you) I am a member and therefore making the most of the fees that I pay. I actually suggested that people and up for what they believe in and actually make a public response to unfair or incorrect criticisms rather than just ignoring them and hoping they go away. If you read the whole thread you would see that it refers to negative attitudes toward public libraries in general.

If you want to attack my argument then feel free. If you are going to dismiss anything say because I disagree with Tim's views amongst other librarians then I don't see the point reasoning with you.

Are we allowed to see this discussion on the CILIP forum? How can we make it available for everyone?

I doubt that you can link directly to the forums as they require a login (I can't access them without loging in anyway so I presume it is a requirement).

It is a while since I set up my account and username but I think I was asked for my CILIP membership details. I am not sure if this is still a requirement.

I think you can login as a 'guest' (at least thats what I have seen anyway). It's a really well set-up forum - its just a shame that people only sporadically use them.

If you feel Miriam that you are being dismissed then thats sad because like you have said the whole point is to stand up for yourself in what you believe in. In a proper debate the proposition establishes their statements or beliefs whilst the opposition then gets to challenge those beliefs. In this case the opposition have not challenged his points but have assumed that he does not believe in what he has chosen not to talk about. That is why I have a problem with the narrow format in which both sides have showcased in - therefore I don't believe it was a reasonable debate. Public library policy is a huge subject - there should be a more national and open debate about this.

What is the url of this discussion-- or more easily, please could someone copy and paste the relevant bits onto here?

Hello Tim!

Remember me? Wrote The Gordian Knot last year and still trying to commit professional suicide! Namely a stripped-down version of said article actually published on p. 15 of the Gazette 1-14th June.

Let them knock it all they like! I like books, I'm sick of computers (particularly taken with your comment in Reader's Digest recently about staffers stuck in the front line while librarians sit in their protected towers jargoning on about "multimedia digital libraries of the future"), and I'm damned if I'll ever call readers "users" again! Anyone want to march on London, string up some MLA committee members and moon in front of CILIP at Ridgmount Street?

Let's have a revolt! I'm revolting! What am I revolting against? Whaddya got?

This all reminds me of the music hall joke about the Aberdonian ladies from two different tenements who could never agree as they were arguing from different premises.

I commented on these articles when they came out, and have just read the responses.

My feeling is that what is missing here is middle gears. I love books; but I don't see that necessarily precludes the use of computers and digital assets. I don't have great IT skills, but I don't see I should be protected from needing to develop them. On the other hand, I don't see that we need to move full pelt into a fully digital '2.0' world with those who won't join it 'strung up' whilst the leaders moon at the Leeds Library ;)

There has to be a place where we can meet and discuss things. Right now there isn't. Too many people from both sides want drama, the excitement of 'saving' libraries, be it from the evils of IT or the evils of '1.0' thinking. As Eddie Izzard has it, we need a liberal revolution- kick the doors in then pay for the damage- but that's not so fun is it?