oh, deer

Ha, ha.  I know I'm corny.  Eschenfelder and Miller's take on the positive government-citizen relationships made possible by the internet is interesting in light of Yudof's warnings about the government and technology.  Both articles did say that the internet provides a very quick and effective way to reach the masses.  Whether the purpose is for propaganda or public safety & education is in the eye of the beholder.

Again remembering Yudof's warning concerning governmental omissions of information, I can see how easy it would be for CWD sites to strategically leave out information to tailor the message to someone's agenda.  The variety in levels of disclosure among the four CWD sites was astonishing.  I appreciated the authors' attempt to provide some structure and framework for including enough information for stakeholders to make decisions.  It makes a lot of sense that agencies should follow "guidelines for 'influential' information that require agencies to provide sufficient information such that interested parties could conduct an independent reanalysis and come up with similar conclusions" (p. 82). 

Of course my brain heads to school libraries.  In the same way that government websites must present the complete picture, school libraries should endeavor to provide a well-rounded collection, complete with controversies and debates.  The omission of certain books and topics may speak as clearly as the inclusion of them and should be considered carefully.  Just as government agencies should follow clear guidelines, so should school libraries follow a plan for collection development and management.

Changing directions, I found something missing in both the other articles was citizen-to-government communication.  If the governing body believes it is true that "the role of government information is to educate citizens so they can provide input to agency decision makers", then there must be a convenient avenue for communication from citizens to those agencies (p. 82).  The citizen-publisher form of government information dispersal seems to fill that gap.  The article goes so far as to suggest an online forum for discussion or even published articles from concerned citizens.  While this model may thwart traditional forms of authority to some extent, it also allows for a public sense of ownership (and possibly more complete/diverse information than would be available from the governmental office alone).  In light of the ubiquity of "wikis" and social cataloging, it seems like user-created content and discussion would be a natural next step in government information.  As providers of information to patrons, do libraries (particularly school libraries) provide ample opportunities for the public to speak to the library about their needs?

When Olson quotes that “'[e]quality may well be defined as deliberate indifference to specific differences'”(653), the type of equality in this case hearkens back to our class discussion on Wiegand's view of neutrality as negative. After my summer “Beyond Diversity” workshop and that class discussion, the ideas of “decentering whiteness” and eradicating institutionalized racism have been in the back of my mind.
This article offered the first concrete example of how librarians could actually affect those kinds of changes. It was useful for me to consider how the issues with the Dewey Classification system would actually effect students or patrons. I can imagine an individual looking for information about people of his or her race. Under Dewey's hieracrhies, helpful and relevant materials may be stored in an area apart from other materials on race and ethnicity. This is yet another example of white privilege and how assuming patrons are a collective, homogenous group disenfranchises another group. I liked how Olson illustrated this problem using the railroad: while the Westward expansion of rail lines provided efficiency to some, it negatively affected the lives of others (whose opinions were not solicited nor heeded).
One remedy for the current restrictiveness of information organization that both Weinberger and Olson suggest is collaborative tagging or social cataloging. Authors and readers would not be restrained by traditional cataloging language and thus could label materials with accurate and usable search terms.
It's no secret that Weinberger enthusiastically supports this kind of organization, but I hesitate to turn to tagging in my own information management. It would take the same or more time and effort to tag my photos, for example, than it takes to place them under a date or event heading. I like that my bookmarks and emails are organized under categories and subcategories that I've created. However, I know that my system only works because I created it for myself and no one else. So when it comes to organizing information for the public, either digitally or physically, social cataloging may be a viable solution, like Olson's suggestion that users “leave a trail” for future users.