Improve ALA : the Agiterati
New: Task Force on Electronic Member Participation feedback
This wiki is for developing a mutually acceptable platform for a slate of candidates to run for ALA Council. Discussions abound in the biblioblogoshpere, Twitter, Meebo Rooms, anti-organizations, and more. We should discuss and develop a core set of objectives, work up a slate of people, and work to improve ALA.
NEW Make suggestions to progressively move the association socially forward:
Suggestions for Council Resolutions
If you have ideas for what needs fixed in ALA, please note this on:
The Platform for Improvements page
If you have ideas for how to accomplish the Improvements desires, please note this on:
The Strategizing for Success page
If you are interested in running for a position on the ALA Council to support and implement the ideas generated through this discussion, please note this on:
The Slate of Candidates page
If you have questions to focus the discussion or which need answered, please add 'em on:
The Questions and Answers page
If you have or see an appropriate soundbyte, please add 'em on:
The Soundbytes page
By the way, the biblioblogosphere is churning with ideas about changing/improving ALA and making The Association's policies more consistent with practice.
If you see something good which we should think about, add the link on:
The SideBar page
PB wiki boilerplate section:
Get started now. To see how easy PBwiki is:
1. Click "Edit Page" at the top of this page
2. Type something
3. Click Save!
4.casinos en ligne
Comments (3)
Anonymous said
at 5:51 pm on Jun 29, 2007
Why can't ALA be more like CLA?
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2007/06/canadian-library-association-moves-open.html
I couldn't find an agenda for ALA Council at 2007 Annual, but somehow I don't think they addressed open access.
O Canada! ... The True North strong and free!
Anonymous said
at 11:42 am on Jul 2, 2007
Wow! While I'm sure there would be agonizing over possible revenue losses - this is something that really ought to be strongly considered by ALA
Anonymous said
at 10:01 am on Jul 3, 2007
Right, the "revenue loss" fear would be just the thing that ALA focuses on. The irony is that many ALA members -- publishers, vendors, and librarians -- have already stared down the "revenue loss" misconception. Online publishing makes access more convenient, convenience and accessibility drive usage, usage drives revenue. Many publishers have realized that making their content available in as many ways as possible is actually good for business. Publishers who have Google-ized their content often see usage climb among existing subscribers (making their stuff less likely to be cancelled) and individual article sales increase as well. ALA could learn a lot by consulting the membership, in this case, why the "revenue loss" argument doesn't hold water.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.