Embracing risk (sort of)

Thanks to Amy of Library Garden for putting her two cents into the most recent edition of Carnival of the InfoSciences by bringing our attention to the recent post by Alan Kirk Gray at Last Clear Chance, Good News. Your Place of Work is Risk-Free!

Library Garden calls it

a really nice discussion of how many libraries have arrived at making decisions based on trying avoid the worst thing happening. The result, according to this post, is that we miss out on possible successful actions because we are afraid of the possibility of some bad outcomes.

For me it comes right on the heels of the Wired news entry on the complementary need for companies to be flexible enough to embrace technological innovations over which they don't have complete control. And not-so-on-the-heels of my accumulated experience in a remarkably risk-averse corporate style, often known as "traditional". (Okay, so maybe it is called 'traditional' after all.)

There is also a pernicious corollary I was introduced to early in my library/museum education: "We tried it once and it didn't work." This was meant to prevent ones 'repeating the same mistake' but never took into account changing circumstances (technology, audience acceptance, staffing). I regret not having pressed the point a few times in the past when making changes could have had a significant impact on the present. This also dovetails nicely with the discussion last month on promoting a 'Culture of Maybe' in the workplace.

   Q.:  Newbie wants to know, At what point does one stop referring graciously to all the links in the chain of referral that let to the ultimate blog post (so-and-so mentioned here a post by whoosie, &c.), and simply cite directly? Is this ultimately a question of blogiquette?

Q: And who's got the best library management blog out there? There's pleny of chatter on the wire about the implementation of 2.0, but what about managing it? I'm fielding your recommendations.

Ostrich photo (what else) by gravitywave via flickr!

Comments

[Angel]

Intriguing blog etiquette question. For what little it may be worth, I usually don't do more than two links to the chain. So, if you, for instance, refer to so-and-so about some post of interest, and I use so-and-so as a prompt, I will give credit to so-and-so as the source, then mention you in a "hat tip" as source of the prompt. I do try to give credit when credit's due. I suppose my rationale is give credit to the one who is "the source" and the one who "helped me find it." As I said, for what it may be worth. Others may have other ideas, but that seems to be what I have observed. Best, and keep on blogging.

[Ross Day]

Thanks for your tip on the 'hat tip'. As information professionals we can often bend too far backward in laying out the 'chain of transmission', as if leaving out a step would cast doubt on the reliability of the ultimate source. Yours is an equitable solution that isn't stingy with credit where it's due. Thanks.