Apologies for cross-listing :)
As academic librarians, we help build our students into digital citizens.
They need the tools and resources to be savvy tech users and to become
information literate. We need to make sure that our students understand the
permanence of their digital actions. This
Hi Tom,
Thank you for responding with your clarifications. Much appreciated.
Natasha
---
Natasha Allen (she/her)
System and Fulfillment Coordinator, University Library
San José State University
1 Washington Square
San José , CA 95192
natasha.al...@sjsu.edu
408-808-2655
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019
Thank you for the clarifications, Tom. That is what we need now. To speak to
specifics and not what-ifs or general cases that might happen.
Katherine Deibel | PhD
Inclusion & Accessibility Librarian
Syracuse University Libraries
T 315.443.7178
kndei...@syr.edu
222 Waverly Ave., Syracuse, NY
On Jul 15, 2019, at 10:22 AM, Tom Johnson
wrote:
> as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely we can
> understand that people use and attach their ideas to many names in both
> private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the argument that
> restricting naming here would
> As both a woman and librarian, i think i'm qualified to point out that if
someone is asking for me to give them private, potentially damaging
information, I have a right to know who they are and their motivations for
asking, because lord knows there are plenty of bad actors who would use
[cid:image001.jpg@01D538B2.0B24E880]
Healthy habits matter. Unfortunately, navigating accurate health information to
develop and practice suitable healthy habits is often difficult. Both as
information professionals and centers of the community, libraries are in a
unique position to inform
I've got a uber busy schedule with precious little off desk time to watch
videos or read QUE- like books re" MS Publisher.
I really need a good Publisher online forum where I could pose questions
and read discussions re: specific tasks.
The Yahoo and Google Publisher groups seem very quiet.
Thanks, Kate. Based upon the posts earlier, I received the distinct
impression that the anonymity discussion is meant to put unecessary
boundaries around the second issue.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:35 PM Kate Deibel <
001fd0f2bb98-dmarc-requ...@lists.clir.org> wrote:
> While Risa was spot
While Risa was spot on with my criticisms about the survey approach, I want to
be clear that there are two issues here.
One is having a policy for when it does come to research collection related to
the community and setting standards for what we expect to see. This is
especially true when it
Other notes:
-With any person I interviewed, I communicated every step of the way and gave
each person multiple times to opt out. I told them who I was and listed my
credentials.
-I understand that getting on a Listserv and asking for stories, if there are
any, is out of the norm but if
I agree with Kate here. This seems too much like those cases where one
patron leaves an empty bag of chips on a table, so the whole library
plasters obnoxious "NO FOOD ON THE TABLES" signs all over and creates a
12-person ad hoc committee to discuss food policies. I don't think we need
to create a
In at least one initial post early on, I did identify myself. I think this is
a considerate group of professionals and I would like for you to consider some
things:
-The survey was anonymous. Anyone could have emailed me at any time with
questions on more specifics about the survey and some
I am also strongly against restricting anonymous or pseudonymous users. It
is true that sometimes anonymity brings trolls, but it is also true that
anonymity allows for people to bring issues to the table without worrying
about who is lurking and who in their organization might retaliate.
>finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants to identify
themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with legitimate
concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the information being
solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to intimidate than
I humbly ask people here to put down the nuclear fly swatters. This
particularly refers to people insisting on a name/signature policy for all
posters. I get that a fault has happened in this community. However, we do not
need to respond like we do in technical situations when we face a
i'll put in another word strongly against a name/signature policy.
as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely we can
understand that people use and attach their ideas to many names in both
private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the argument that
restricting naming
I read the LSOFT page describing the DMARC aliases, and it seems like there is
a good technical reason for doing so. To disallow the LISTSERV-supplied DMARC
aliases would prevent some participant's mail from being delivered (or would
have it downgraded to "junk" status by the receiving mail
Hello, everyone -
Just a quick note to say that VuFind 6.0 has been released today. Here's the
full press release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
VuFind 6.0 Released
Villanova, Pennsylvania - July 15, 2019 - Version 6.0 of the VuFind Open Source
discovery software has just been released. This major
Dear All,
I have winced quite a bit reading this thread. I'm certain I am not alone
in this sludgy feeling. I trust in Ye Olde Internet Meme that you all possess
delete keys and know how to use them. For use example [1].
I can no longer remain politely silent on this issue. Doing
19 matches
Mail list logo
