Slashdot Mirror

It's a good thing because it ensures that the people actually have the knowledge required. How else are you going to prove you have the knowledge to determine how best to catalogue a particular item, are capable of conducting a reference interview, can justify a collection decision (e.g. to buy a particular package), or be a manager (planning and supervision only the beginning).

Yes, all those things can be learnt not as part of a degree. And forward thinking organisations (including the State Library of NSW, a number of Australian universities, and many local councils) will say "qualification or experience and knowledge equal to the qualification". But, in the second case, it's much harder to prove.

Look at the ALIA "The Library and Information Sector: Core Knowledge, Skills and Attributes". That isn't just a few things you can pick up on your own. It's something that requires systematic and concentrated study. And the easiest way to do that is via one of the university degrees recognised by ALIA.

Librarians are on the forefront of the information "revolution", and do realise that universities and libraries aren't the only places to get an education in this day and age. Libraries are sacred places, and librarians aren't gatekeepers, protecting them.

But, the fact remains, the easiest way to prove you've got what is required, is if you can just show that piece of paper.

The actual statement can be found here: http://www.alia.org.au/internetfiltering/Core.principles.for.effective.action.for.a.safer.internet.pdf

I've heard of exercise. It's that thing I do, every day I work and three nights a week. Excepting when my wrist hurts and/or I feel exhausted, and so go to sleep, which is something I do every night for 8-9 hours. I did mention I was monitoring that.

Also, you seem to mis-understand my sentiment. I do not wish animals to be killed for science, and I wasn't aware that any rats had been killed for this study for that matter. I was simply grateful the study had been done as I see great potential benefits from it. Since the rats had been discomforted for that benefit, I wished to thank them for their part in it, however indirectly.

Please understand my position. I'm a library assistant and RSI is endemic to my profession, notable by the volume of relevant literature: http://lib.ucr.edu/ergolib/printreading.html

A lot of my colleages suffer from/have suffered from RSI injuries, and so this study has been of interest to them. We are all aware of the dangers of aquiring a life-long disability associated with this profession. We all wish to avoid those dangers, and understanding how RSI can induce definite and measurable symptoms -before- sustaining a lasting injury is a great boon.

I'm sending the article to my Workplace Health and Safety Officer, as a potential new factor for calculating the production down-time of a repetitive strain injury, and as a potential future way to detect RSI.

I'm also sending it to my lecturers at university where I study librarianship. From past experience they'll be interested in sharing this article with my fellow students, since they try very hard to prepare us for the reality of life as information professionals. (I'm getting ALIA*1 certified. All computer geeks know the importance of certification when trying to getting employed :D)

If I were geographically proximious I'd volunteer to be part of the human trials. It really is not an inane study from my point of view.
---
*1 http://www.alia.org.au/

PS: You implied that Dr Ann Barr and Dr Mary Barbe were pseudo-scientists. That wasn't very nice.

the glorification of information, indeed.

:)

I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but it's the ARRL: Amateur Radio Relay League.

</pedantic_mode>

When this was first mentioned, I spent some time reading up on the topic: I might as well share some links here.

The only organisation that I could find actively lobbying against the dilution of Public Domain rights in Australia was Australian Library and Information Association, a professional organisation for librarians. They are following this issue, and may appreciate your input and support; their online journal also contains an insightful article by an Australian National University professor of law on copyrights and public domain.

As other have pointed out, the retrospective extension of copyrights from Life+50 to Life+70, which even those advocating a longer copyright term admitted had no justification, is of particular concern to Project Gutenberg of Australia (site seems to be down at present--anyone know why?), which had published a number of until now Public Domain works on their site (for instance, the works of George Orwell). There's already some discussion of this on Distributed Proofreaders (registration may be required)--if you're a DP'er, you might like to contribute, and if you're not a DP'er, you should be.

HTH

When this was first mentioned, I spent some time reading up on the topic: I might as well share some links here.

The only organisation that I could find actively lobbying against the dilution of Public Domain rights in Australia was Australian Library and Information Association, a professional organisation for librarians. They are following this issue, and may appreciate your input and support; their online journal also contains an insightful article by an Australian National University professor of law on copyrights and public domain.

As other have pointed out, the retrospective extension of copyrights from Life+50 to Life+70, which even those advocating a longer copyright term admitted had no justification, is of particular concern to Project Gutenberg of Australia (site seems to be down at present--anyone know why?), which had published a number of until now Public Domain works on their site (for instance, the works of George Orwell). There's already some discussion of this on Distributed Proofreaders (registration may be required)--if you're a DP'er, you might like to contribute, and if you're not a DP'er, you should be.

HTH

When this was first mentioned, I spent some time reading up on the topic: I might as well share some links here.

The only organisation that I could find actively lobbying against the dilution of Public Domain rights in Australia was Australian Library and Information Association, a professional organisation for librarians. They are following this issue, and may appreciate your input and support; their online journal also contains an insightful article by an Australian National University professor of law on copyrights and public domain.

As other have pointed out, the retrospective extension of copyrights from Life+50 to Life+70, which even those advocating a longer copyright term admitted had no justification, is of particular concern to Project Gutenberg of Australia (site seems to be down at present--anyone know why?), which had published a number of until now Public Domain works on their site (for instance, the works of George Orwell). There's already some discussion of this on Distributed Proofreaders (registration may be required)--if you're a DP'er, you might like to contribute, and if you're not a DP'er, you should be.

HTH

Just wait until you have to learn the Bionicle alphabet just to play Legos with your kid ...

The Australian Library Association has a policy they call Freedom To Read. In summary, this policy states that censorship of material on the grounds that it's objectionable is incorrect. Does the American equivalent have a similar policy?