do you believe me more if you paid for my advice?

Everyone needs to make personal decisions about how much weight to give a particular piece of information, particularly if that information conflicts with something you think you already know to be true. I often put it this way “You love your boyfriend and hate the Yankees. Your boyfriend loves the Yankees. Do you re-evaluate your boyfriend, or re-evaluate the Yankees. Or both? Or neither?” Put another way, if the New York Times prints something that goes counter to your beliefs, do you believe them because they’re an authority? What if it were Wikipedia? What if it were an Indymedia site? What if it were your neighbor, or me? In any case, articles on this topic fascinate me. The Harvard Business School has published one recently called The Hidden Cost of Buying Information where Francesca Gino’s research strongly suggests that people overweigh the value of information that they have paid for.

Gino’s results are based upon an experiment where subjects were asked to answer different sets of questions about American history and were provided the opportunity to receive free advice as well as costly advice—the same advice, as it turned out. Gino’s conclusion: When the advice is costly, subjects are more inclined to take it into consideration and use it. And that conclusion can have profound consequences for consumers, managers, and organizations in their decision making, she says. [lisnews]

political, personal, professional

I’m still working on it but my talk in Australia is going to have something to do with the overlapping of the personal, the political and the professional arenas in a librarian’s life. We’ve all seen this issue popping up all over the place. Marylaine has written a very thoughtful piece about librarians taking sides in partisan politicking this week. It’s a sticky wicket issue. As you all know, I am a fairly politically active person. However, I also try to be scrupulously fair at my job within the boundaries of the standards we set in my library, boundaries that were in place well before I got there. Those boundaries include protecting patron privacy, sometimes to the inconvenience of law enforcement, and supporting free access to information (i.e. unfiltered internet in most places in the library), sometimes to the inconvenience of our more sensitive patrons. I’m not talking about law-breaking, I’m talking about someone who is uncomfortable seeing a teenager looking at pictures of women in bikinis, or someone who doesn’t think the library computers should be used for games or chat.

What to do? We respect and honor all of our patrons, but at the end of the day many of our professional rules are going to be seen as somehow politicized, and people are going to take that personally. I only speak for myself here, but I think that one of the things our new net-savvy networked society has shown us is that there’s no such thing as a public institution that exists in the absence of politics. People vote to fund us, how can we pretend to not have an opinion about how they vote?

how we know what we know… collaboratively

The Wikipedia media attention lately has really gotten people thinking about the idea of truth, and truth in news particularly. The NYT this weekend had an article entitled When No Good Fact Goes Unchecked discussing how collaborative systems of evaluation and assessment can actually result in more accurate facts. My argument, when I discussed this in relation to blogs at an ALA Preconference is that this can be helpful for effective reference work as well. I’m sure it’s no suprise that The Fact Checker’s Bible is creeping up there in Amazon sales rank. The more we get over the Tyranny of the Expert and accept that there’s more than one way of looking at many issues — even with the same set of “facts” — the more easy it is to actually utilize collaborative information systems to help us with many library oriented jobs like selecting vendors, providing news and reference services, making good referrals and connecting with our patrons.

extreme makover: librarian

Extreme makeover, librarian version. No, I am not kidding.

Amanda is a 24-year old librarian from Pueblo, Colorado. Her chubby cheeks are the reason why her friends and family have called her “Bubbs” her whole life. She is not happy with her looks and wants this opportunity to be on Extreme Makeover ™ the television series so that she can be the sexy librarian that causes others to come back to the library. Amanda got her wish when she found out she had been chosen for the makeover. [lj]