Well, see, there you've said that the technology skills for open source are
all on the install/maintenance side. Duh. Install and maintenance needs
to be done by someone. Writing a check to outsource install and
maintenance is one way to get those skills. Writing a check to Springshare
solves technology issues, because Springshare provides the same product
across libraries. An open source community, where a variety of companies
provide services, will have some companies that provide a better deal than
others and even vendors who provide different service to different clients
based on how savvy the client is.
The answer to proprietary hosted is not files with tar.gz extension or
coding. The functionality most libraries get from a LibGuides is to get
away from some IT bottleneck, avoid hassles of running a server and
backups, or even have political clout by using a CMS that is only used by
libraries (ie. if IT has heard of the CMS before, that's a much more uphill
battle to use it). My guess is about nobody cares about similar
functionality in terms of boxes here, boxes there, widgets.
A way to promote an open source alternative would be to identify reputable
hosts who already provide services. Then be informed about those so that
libraries know what they can outsource where, and to give an impression of
library community around specific sets of outsourcing arrangements, so that
libraries have political clout to present a chosen vendor as a "library
issue" that can't be implemented in a one-size-fits all CMS provided by a
parent institution.
Making some tar.gz files is futile and misses the point. Does anyone
really not get that?
-Wilhelmina Randtke
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Andrew Darby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I don't get this argument at all. Why is it "counter productive to try to
> look at open source alternatives" if the vendor's option is relatively
> cheap? Why wouldn't you investigate all options? Maybe the vendor option
> makes sense, maybe the open source option does.
>
> The "technology skills" for open source software are on the
> install/maintenance side. It's not like the content creator has to do some
> crazy programming if they want to create a guide in the open source option,
> while in LibGuides a team of angels guides their every click and drag.
>
> And if technology skills are missing, how does writing a check to
> Springshare remedy the situation? How does sending that check to
> Springshare benefit the "small poorly resourced" libraries?
>
> I assume I'm preaching to choir when I say that we should all be open to
> supporting our peers' open source efforts, rather than dismissing them out
> of hand.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Wilhelmina Randtke <[log in to unmask]
> >wrote:
>
> > Technology tools are a non issue here. Straightforward documented open
> > source technology is readily available. What is missing is technology
> > skills. Someone can't buy those if they don't already have technology
> > skills, or else they are a sitting duck for scammers.
> >
> > With a basic pricing of about $1000 a year, it's counter productive to
> try
> > look at open source alternatives. $1000 a year with more handholding is
> > good. Even companies, like lishost, which do open source for libraries
> > price in this same range, because they have to take on more handholding.
> I
> > also don't see vendor lock in issues in LibGuides, since the research
> > guides concept includes routine change and replacing content.
> >
> > If you want libraries to operate better, what you should be doing is
> having
> > conversations with people from a variety of libraries, including small
> > poorly resourced ones, recognizing that there is a spectrum of needs, and
> > being available to provide realistic advice. (That advice would be
> > different for different libraries.)
> >
> > Lack of access to technology skill creates the situations in which
> > LibGuides is useful and beneficial. Lack of access to technology
> > skill causes most situations in which LibGuides are a counter productive
> > waste of time, whether that's a misguided administrator or poor
> > interdepartmental communication (yes, even competent IT housed in a
> library
> > is sometimes not proactive and helpful at being in touch with IT-hostile
> > reference departments). If you have technology skill, then by having
> broad
> > connections and being available to give advice or pointers, you can
> assist
> > libraries / departments that don't have the luxury of having access to
> > technology skill. If all you do is drum on open source diy, when there
> is
> > a low cost alternative that works, then you harm things.
> >
> > -Wilhelmina Randtke
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Andrew Darby <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There are open source solutions created by librarians: SubjectsPlus
> and
> > > Library a la Carte.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Cornel Darden Jr. <
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello?
> > > >
> > > > Soringshre's link-rot tool has gotten much better. Even at alerting
> > > admins
> > > > about broken links. I think $999 a year for the basic package is
> worth
> > it
> > > > since most librarians aren't coders like we 'ALL' should be! Maybe an
> > > open
> > > > source solution created by librarians is needed. However database
> > > > management will still require librarians to pick up those skills like
> > SQL
> > > > that we too often think isn't or shouldn't be a skill that a
> librarian
> > > must
> > > > have. It's the 21st century!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Cornel Darden Jr.
> > > > MSLIS
> > > > Librarian
> > > > Kennedy-King College
> > > > City Colleges of Chicago
> > > > Work 773-602-5449
> > > > Cell 708-705-2945
> > > >
> > > > > On Aug 11, 2013, at 11:21 AM, Robert Sebek <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Heather Rayl <[log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I have to say that I loathe LibGuides. My library makes extensive
> > use
> > > of
> > > > >> them, too. Need a web solution? The first thing out of someone's
> > mouth
> > > > is
> > > > >> "Let's put it in a LibGuide!"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Shudder
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This fall, I'll be moving our main site over to Drupal, and I'm
> > hoping
> > > > that
> > > > >> eventually I can convince people to re-invent their LibGuides
> > there. I
> > > > can
> > > > >> use the "saving money" card, and the "content silos are bad" card
> > and
> > > > >> *maybe* I will be successful.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Anyone fought this particular battle before?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ~heather
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm fighting that battle right now. We have an excellent CMS into
> > > which
> > > > I
> > > > > have set up all our database URLs, descriptions, etc.Anytime we
> need
> > to
> > > > > refer to a database on a page, we use one of those entries. That
> > > database
> > > > > just changed platforms? No problem. I change the URL in one place
> and
> > > > > everything automatically updates (hooray CMSs!).
> > > > >
> > > > > All of our subject guides (http://www.lib.vt.edu/subject-guides/)
> > are
> > > in
> > > > > the CMS using the exact same database entries. I converted from our
> > > > > failing, home-grown system into the CMS and then gave training on
> how
> > > to
> > > > > maintain from there (remove an entry, add an entry, create a
> parallel
> > > > > course guide)--using the same skills as maintaining any other web
> > page
> > > > that
> > > > > librarian is responsible for. But apparently that's too hard.
> > > > >
> > > > > So we have a trial of LibGuides. NO ONE here has created a guide
> from
> > > > > scratch yet, but they all say this is going to be easy. No one
> will
> > > > admit
> > > > > that someone will have to recreate all those database entries
> > > (literally
> > > > > hundreds) and then maintain those entries. When presented with
> this,
> > > > > several librarians said--oh that won't be necessary, we'll just
> > create
> > > > > individual entries as needed on individual guides. WHAT?!
> > > > >
> > > > > If implemented, we'll have hundreds and hundreds of entries, any of
> > > which
> > > > > could be out of date and nonfunctional, with no easy way to find
> and
> > > fix,
> > > > > other than waiting for patrons to complain that the link doesn't
> > work.
> > > > Ugh.
> > > > > All for several thousand dollar a year (as opposed for free in the
> > > CMS).
> > > > >
> > > > > And yes, those librarians' favorite example libguides have a dozen
> > tabs
> > > > > with hundreds of links on each tab. Overwhelm the patron with
> > > links--who
> > > > > cares! Just let me recreate the Yahoo Directory I so miss with
> every
> > > > > possible resource I can find online. Half those links don't work
> next
> > > > > semester? Doesn't matter, as no one will ever maintain that page
> > again
> > > > (and
> > > > > no patron will use it, since they will just Google these resources
> > > > anyway).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Robert Sebek
> > > > > Webmaster, Virginia Tech Libraries
> > > > > (http://www.lib.vt.edu/)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew Darby
> > > Head, Web & Emerging Technologies
> > > University of Miami Libraries
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Darby
> Head, Web & Emerging Technologies
> University of Miami Libraries
>
|
