LJ Editorial of Feb 1/reply (fwd)

[Publib Poster]

Sender: mary jane anderson <mjanderson at htls.lib.il.us>
Subject: Re: LJ Editorial of Feb 1/reply

Dear John:  

	I've given some thought to your editorial response to what's 
happening in cyberspace these days, in the corner where those of us on 
some of the library listservs perch.  I have to agree with my fellow 
listmates, and with the other listmembers that have replied to us, both 
on the list and off.  I think you have not yet grasped what is happening 
to communication in libraryland. 

For all the years you and I have been in the profession, the only way we 
could "talk" to each other was if we worked together, if we wrote to 
each other, if we went to ALA conferences.  Or if we wrote an article or 
a letter an editor would publish. *After* it was edited, of course.  
What we knew about what was happening in other libraries, about what 
others were thinking, was filtered through the library press.  And there 
was always a time lag.  And a space crunch.  

Editors of the library press were the gatekeepers of the conversation, 
and of the ideas in the form of articles put before us.  The editorial 
was always the last word.  One could respond to it (react), but even a 
letter of response would be edited by the person who wrote the 
editorial, and perhaps have another "last word" appended as another 
response.
 
The role of gatekeeper is not in jeopardy; it's gone.  Cyberspace has
blown it away.  The power to edit the words and ideas that go out is
gone; cyberspace has erased it.  How we learn what's happening is 
continuing to change, so rapidly that even LJ's new site has not quite 
figured out how to get ahead of the breaking news.  Even HOTLINE is 
cooling down. And LJ's news columns are far behind what we know within 
hours of its happening.

What we are engaging in, John, is professional conversation, news 
sharing, and mutual assistance, sans editor.  Each of us uses our delete 
key at will.  None of those of us you named feel threatened by your 
taunting, bullying tone.  But it seems perfectly possible that some who 
don't write often will be more hesitant now that you've skewered those 
of us who do, in a forum where we cannot skewer back.  

Have some people, us and others, responded to a series of posts with 
viewpoints, repeatedly posted with humor, boredom, tiredness, questions? 
 Yes.  Have we ignored a lot of them?  Yes.  Have a few suggested that 
the points might be better made if made less often, and with less venom? 
 Yes.  That's a far cry from hauling them up, by name in an editorial as 
you chose to do with us.  

Now that your job responsibilities at LJ are changing, perhaps you will 
have more time to join us on the web.  We'd welcome your emergence from 
lurker status.

Mary Jane Anderson