OCLC WorldCat: Redundancy and Collaboration

I wrote this post almost 2 weeks ago on the back of the LC working group report, but it got lost in the shuffle. Anyway, this theme (or meme) is in the air right now, so here goes. As I read the report, I keep thinking that a significant part of our redundancy problems lie with OCLC's model. It's not conducive to collaboration.

I work with OCLC WorldCat everyday, and there seem to be a lowering of standards with regard to the quality of the records that are dumped into the database. If OCLC is lowering its standards, then why can't we modify data in OCLC? They need to open up the editing capabilities and let us (the members) add to and enrich all the records in WorldCat.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be guidelines about what we should and shouldn't modify. But OCLC needs to start trusting the library community. Let quality control and added value be a collaborative effort. With the current model, we aren't taking full advantage the skills of the library community. Currently, we are very limited as to what we can correct or enhance. It feels like a straitjacket.

The OCLC leadership talks the talk. Vice President, Karen Calhoun, has frequently argued that we need to have a different understanding of "quality." And Roy Tennant writes:

So here's the thing: you may or may not have noticed it, but we just went from a world where we were the gatekeepers to information to one in which we are hanging on for dear life. We can either wise up or get out of the game. I prefer to wise up. For me this means forgetting about "control" and getting good about "enrichment". [emphasis mine]

So, my message to OCLC is--throw caution to the wind and let us cataloger-types get in on some of this collaborative Web 2.0 lifestyle! Let us correct data. Let us enrich data. WorldCat will be a better resource for it.

Related: Open WorldCataloging?

Comments

[Mark]

Hear, hear!

Amen, Sister!

I second this motion!

Wake up OCLC. Please.

I had begun to resign myself to sending in error reports until this morning when the error report I was trying to send kept repeatedly failing. It never did go through. I fixed my record and moved on. So much for cooperative cataloging. Sigh.

Thanks for a more positive post than mine Christine. Maybe they'll be more likely to listen to you. I sure hope so.

[Nathan]

Plus, to add to this...OCLC wants to start a pilot project to see how they can had publisher data to the records...http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/200688.htm

I may be completely wrong on this, but how often does one see a quality vendor record? Why should we trust additional information from these vendors? And most importantly, if OCLC is looking to find additional sources of information from vendors, why can't they open up their systems and let trained professionals correct records that need correcting?

I completely agree with your statement, Christine, and OCLC needs to move to Web 2.0. It's time to have a wikipedia-like OCLC...maybe not everyone has access (although that's an interesting thought), but definitely everyone who pays them to add/use records to "their" collection.

[arkham]

I think that if the mapping and crosswalking from ONIX records is done properly, and the ONIX records are decent to begin with, this change OCLC is proposing isn't necessarily a bad thing. Considering how much call there has been to start getting some level of metadata earlier in the production cycle, it is a step in that direction.

It remains to be seen how much work it will be for catalogers who upgrade these ONIX-based records. If they're anything like those Baker & Taylor Level 3 records, then, no, it isn't worth it. But it has potential.

[Chris Schwartz]

Thanks for these comments--sorry for my late reply. Over the weekend I read OCLC's response to the LC working group report. Found it over on Lorcan Dempsey's blog: http://staff.oclc.org/~levan/LC%20WG%20Report%20Comments%20OCLC%2020071214.pdf. It does address the redundancy issue, but not sufficiently (in my opinion). It makes the assumption that most libraries are cataloging in their local ILS and batch loading their holdings to OCLC (and so would have to double key edits and changes to modify the master record). I think there are plenty of catalogers that are working directly in OCLC WorldCat and could make the records better as they go. I know Mark and I feel this way.

Nathan, you have it right--"it's time to have a wikipedia-like OCLC."

[K.G. Schneider]

Here, here!

[Bryan Campbell]

You might want to check out a recent .ppt presentation on how OCLC is using data from the publishers to enrich or create catalog records. One such presentation, "New Directions in Cataloging at OCLC," is available at http://www.oclc.org/news/events/presentations/2008/ala2008annual/ALANext_Gen.ppt