We all have our pet peeves, so here are some of mine, many of which were sparked by ideas from the Twitterverse (attributions below), so . These are words that in our opinion long ago outlived their usefulness, especially in a digital library realm, but that we still can’t seem to shake:
- OPAC — Some days I think I will die a happy man if I never, ever hear this again. The shelf life of this pronounceable acronym should have been somewhere on the order of 3 years — instead, we’ve been saddled with it for 30. Why? I have no idea. It was ridiculous to begin with. Let me break it down for you. OPAC stands for Online Public Access Catalog. Why, pray tell, the “public access” bit? Because in the very earliest days, most automation systems in libraries were back room affairs. They simply automated the check out process, but they weren’t initially designed for the public to see or use. So when we decided to expose it to the public, the words “public access” were added. Brilliant. So now, some 30 years later, librarians still say “OPAC” as if that has any rational meaning to anyone presently living. So STOP already.
- Webmaster — There are so many synonyms for managing a web site I hardly know where to begin, but this one seems to me to be the most prevalent. The only good part of this to me is that it prevents me from seeing such atrocities as Webwizard. It’s Web Manager, people, or something similar. You aren’t what most definitions of “master” mean, nor do you wield magic, you have a set of technical skills that are well between your average reference desk librarian and your hard-core coder. Get over yourself.
- E-Reading — Yes, this monstrosity is out there. It’s reading, people. Who cares what device, printed volume, street sign, codex, or disk you are performing this act upon. You are reading — making sense of symbols, whether they are chiseled into a tablet or lit up by the latest e-paper technology.
- Bibliographic Instruction — I mean really. Who on this planet would rush to take part in bibliographic instruction. “Oh, wait, me! Pick me!” And this is from someone who did his fair share of this at one point in his career. I guess I know how deadly it can be. Don’t ever let this leave your lips around real humans, or prepare to be a pariah. By the way, three different people nominated this on Twitter. I think it’s time to put it away for good.
- Library 2.0 — At the risk of sparking a religious war, I (and at least two of my Twitter followers) nominate this term for the dustbin of history, never to be seen again. Believe me, I get the motivation. I subscribed to Business 2.0 before it met an untimely demise in the wake of the dotcom crash. I understand it is meant to signal a different way of doing things. From that aspect, it speaks to me, since I’ve been advocating a different way of doing things since oh, let me see, the last 35 years. But “Library 2.0″ never really spoke to me, and I found myself bristling at the idea that libraries were unchanging institutions before the Library 2.0 crowd came along. Well, let me take you back to the early 1980s — before the Internet, even before personal computers. Libraries have been changing a lot. I know, since I’ve lived it. But then I guess the Young Turks always need to revolt against the status quo. You won’t find me manning the parapets of the status quo, but you might find me arguing with the terminology of those attacking said parapets.
- Copy cataloging — I know that this has stood us in good stead for many years, but they were pre-Internet years. Of course we needed to put a copy of a record in our local systems. But with the Internet, libraries are increasingly questioning the need to have a local system. Why have the headaches? Just identify what you have in some catalog in the sky and get on with it. At least that’s what I would do.
- Cybrarian — I’m shocked to have this here, but since at least two people nominated it, it must still have some kind of life. What a ridiculous term. I remember from the early days of the Internet, where someone at UC Berkeley took on the moniker of “CyberBear”. I mean, puhleeeze. Shoot me now.
So say it with me, “We solemnly swear to never let these words or phrases escape our lips or typing fingers for as long as we shall live.” There. Now it wasn’t all that difficult, was it?
My thanks to @jennsta, @vonburkhardt, @wdenton, @constanceM, @ruebot, @jenlrile, @cynicalgrrl, @ThatAndromeda, and @andyashton, for their (often overlapping) ideas. Deep apologies if I missed anyone in putting this together.
No related posts.
Drat – I tweeted too late to get mine in: synergy and incent (as a verb). Then again, they’re not library-specific and should be banished altogether from everyone’s vocabulary.
Hi, Roy. I need to respectfully disagree regarding the ereading “monstrosity.” I often distinguish between many “flavors” of reading: auditory reading (better in my book than “listening to an audio book” because I think auditory reading is a valid form of reading — some do not), tactile reading (e.g., braille), and visual reading (which includes reading print on paper, papyrus, vellum, and on some sort of screen). Yes, it’s all reading, but ereading on a computer device is a sufficiently different experience from other types of reading that it still conveys some unique meaning for me that I wish to convey when I speak and write about ereading.
When you do 7 Words 2.0, I’ll bet “twitterverse” is in there. You forgot blogosphere on this one.
Tom, fair enough. But I still think you can make distinctions about how reading is different in different venues without making up a new word to describe it. But if you prefer to say “e-reading” I’m sure you realize that I’m not the final judge over whether that is appropriate or not. Frankly, I don’t think anyone is.
And then there are those librarians who still insist on referring to the “card catalog,” even though it doesn’t even exist anymore and most anyone under 30 doesn’t even know what you’re talking about. If plain “catalog” won’t do, how about “library catalog?” But please, please, stop saying the wholly inaccurate “card catalog” term (unless you actually do still have one)!
I’d like to nominate ditching “card catalog” especially when refering to the online catalog! Please people, can we all just say library catalog? And even that may be passe soon!
I’d add another one that is not specific to librarianship, but I think we have held on to it a few years past the rest of the world — webinar. Why can’t we say “online meeting” or “online presentation?
Not feeling the hate for “OPAC”. I agree, it’s nonsensical if you expand the acronym, and simply saying “catalog” would serve the purpose better nowdays, but … only two syllables! Not three! And the distinction between the OPAC and the staff view is still needed as a term of art in the library automation biz.
Which is not to say that one should be using it in front of one’s patrons.
Not to nitpick–no, strike that, just to nitpick– e-paper does not light up. It just is. That’s why I need a book light to read it. If you’re thinking about the new nook color or iPad, those technologies use back-lit L.E.D. displays.
Let’s also eliminate FRBR, FRBRization, and FRBRizing from the library lexicon. It will be as enduring to cataloging as keypunching was to computing.
I actually do refer to OCLC as the great library in the sky.
This year, my library dropped “bibliographic instruction” in favor of “library instruction” (though we’d like to drop classroom instruction altogether, another topic completely…) and we have tried to change “Reference Desk” to “Research Desk”, but we can’t quite master that shift, yet.
Can we please stop using Digital Native. We don’t have to talk about it, let’s just do it.
Bonus points for using them all in a sentence.
Guess it’s time to change the name SOPAC to “Scatalog” .. oh wait…
@Jeff: Oh, you’re on.
“After serving up the enthusiastic, grateful undergrads a session of bibliographic instruction, the cybrarian went all webmaster on the OPAC, architecting some Library 2.0 features while wondering how on earth to copy catalog records for their shiny new e-reading devices.”
Jeff, In an email to me Lisa Carlucci Thomas did exactly that and it was brilliant! She even got “blinky GIFs” in there as well.
John, since dumping “OPAC” puts you in a naming bind, I hereby withdraw my nomination to kill it.
I am deeply ashamed to say this, but my library’s catalog is not, actually, an OPAC. It’s a digital catalog, and that’s it. It exists on one computer – mine – and is about ten years old, if not more. So OPAC is actually a necessary word over here, as in, “pleaaaaase give me ooooneeeee.”
Yes, I cry myself to sleep every night, why do you ask?
This one makes my skin crawl, use of the term “roll out” when you begin something. We’re not making dough, and we are not starting a new retail concept or test driving a car. We are definately not completing a sports move, and not running a drag race. Please, please stop using marketing jargon in the library!
Roy – glad you’re willing to compromise. I’m with Galen – I don’t feel the hate for OPAC either & I wouldn’t touch a Scatalog with a 10ft. pole
Acronyms do just morph into words over time, I think this has happened to OPAC. I would be appalled to hear someone in MPOW say, “Let’s check our online public access catalogue” …But OPAC works for me, or if that confused look appears, catalogue.
[...] Tennant, on his Library Journal blog, posted a list of words librarians shouldn’t say or use. The one that caught my eye was OPAC. [...]
I would add information literacy to the list – we need a better term
If OPAC is now withdrawn, I’m with Matt. I will not allow the word “webinar” to pass through my lips. I’ll call it a “web seminar” if I must. But webinar? ::::shudder::::
So sad that you felt you had to link out to a definition of “pariah.” So. Sad. In any case, I dont think we can do any of this until every single library does away with their animated gifs and blink tags on their pages. Start small
This could be a silly thing to say, but I thought copy cataloging was the act of copying an existing record into your catalog instead of doing original cataloging? Have I been wrong about that?
I would really, really like to see the term “database” stricken from our lexicon. Can’t we just call them specialized search engines? Our users get that.
If you go for Golden Oldies like these, all you’re doing is clearing the way for next-gen buzzwords such as:
* Digital Native (h/t Brian K.)
* Discovery Tools
* Library as Conversation
* Emerging Technologies
* Whatever ‘cataloging’ is called this year
[...] [...]
Information literacy is just a subset of Critical thinking. Using the term Critical thinking will make us sound really important. And, unlike K-12, we don’t really have to prove we were successful!
“Discovery tools” — please end the pain! No user on the face of the planet will be able to tell you what this is. It’s jargon on steroids.
“Copy cataloging — I know that this has stood us in good stead for many years, but they were pre-Internet years. Of course we needed to put a copy of a record in our local systems. But with the Internet, libraries are increasingly questioning the need to have a local system. Why have the headaches? Just identify what you have in some catalog in the sky and get on with it. At least that’s what I would do.”
Sounds like a great plan for any library with no archival or unique items (local history, etc.), no specialized collections for particular user groups (academics/experts, foreign language, subcultures, etc.), and no rare books or maps. If that describes your library, why stop at canning the local catalog — why even bother to have a collection?
Besides, we all know that our internet connections, and the cloud servers, will aways be up and running. How silly to keep local records of what we own or who has them checked out.
I echo what Chris Z says: I thought copy-cataloging was “copying an existing record into your catalog instead of doing original cataloging.” It seems that this is a useful term to use among colleagues, to differentiated the levels of cataloging done. I cannot imagine using it with a client; they don’t care, nor should they, how items get into a catalog/OPAC/card catalog.
By the way, I find the only people who use the term “card catalog” are users themselves, coming in to say they found such-and-such in the “card catalog.”
Information literacy is the worst, it is so incredibly insulting. I have worked with adults learning to read, and literacy and illiteracy are words to avoid in that context, so why is it okay to use with “information”; but synergy? really? A word that has been around over a hundred years? The name of the coolest school in San Fracisco? What is wrong with synergy? A classic word with unique meaning, useful and pleasing to the ear.
Incent I agree is just awful.
FUN! How about “dialing” the phone? for you old timers out there?
I agree OPAC has gone the way of the CRT!
Many of the others strike chord as well.
Whew! I’m glad Audio/Visual didn’t make the list. I’d have to change all of my signs and update my Winnebago records!
[...] discussion is timely as I just read an interesting post yesterday from Roy Tennant’s column in Library Journal. “Library 2.0″ was one of the seven words that should be banned from [...]
Glad to see others want to give “information literacy” the boot as well. We call it what it is: learning library skills or research skills, depending on the context.
So true!!!
I think “rollicking” is a word that should be banned from the library world, at least until the economy improves and libraries get back on their feet.
[...] [...]
I nominate “serial,” “periodical,” “catalog,” “index,” “reference,” “circulation,” “bibliographic instruction,” “patron, “user,” and even “database.” Our patrons, er, users, er, customers haven’t got a clue what these terms mean. They never have and never will, which is backed by mountains of research data. Let them go quietly into the night and move on.
I agree with Jan. “information literacy” should be replaced with research skills. Or, if you want to sound smart, research methodology.
According to the young’uns-
OPAC = Catalog (This is our catalog – we had no other)
Webmaster = eww
E-Reading = huh?
Bibliographic Instruction = Research Methodology (I like to sound smart)
Library 2.0 = I hated this term when I got to library school and I hated it even more when I was done.
Copy cataloging = I don’t have a problem calling catalogers this that don’t do original cataloging.
They’re pulling records from elsewhere.
Cybrarian = I have never even heard this one before.
It’s been over two months since your post, Roy. But I feel a great need to submit my favorite word to hate – “Available.” Library workers use it to a fault. The impression I get is passivity. We’re sitting here next to all this great stuff and it’s all…available. We’re not going to reach out to anybody, why should we, the library is…available. A few months ago, I complained to Polaris, whose ILS (?) we use. Using their catalog, people find a title they want, but they don’t know where it is in the library, because the word to click on is…Availability. Untutored, NOBODY knows that’s the secret word. It means nothing at all to them. We have to tell them. Polaris should have used Location, or better yet, Where Is It?, which is what people are thinking. But why concern ourselves with what people are thinking. We are the librarians, we do the thinking for you, and we are…available.
I disagree with OPAC as being outdated. My library is now migrating to Koha, and there are two distinct online interfaces: one for the public and one for staff. For us, an Online Public Access Catalog is still quite relevant.