Or maybe it's a gadgetocracy or an webocracy, but I don't care what you call it because I'm against it.
As a result of another study that confirms that a tiny minority controls the majority of output, following ones done in the last few years on Digg and Wikipedia contributors, the.effing.librarian has decided to stick to his guns when making decisions regarding patron privacy, social networking, and life, the universe and everything.
Just as the richest ten percent of us possess ninety percent of the world's wealth, ten percent of the users of every social networking site can claim ninety percent of the content. The most recent study on Twitter adds to this theory.
So this is why I oppose giving patrons more control over their library records or borrowing history and privacy, or incorporating more social networking tools into our online library presence. We would make ten percent of the people happy at the expense of the rest.
I know that it's not ninety percent who would unhappy with the changes, but I'm pretty damn sure it would be over half. I'm sure over half our patrons are years away from understanding any of the consequences of online privacy. And I don't like to make decisions that piss off over half of the people; I can usually only kick one person's ass at a time, at work, when I'm drunk, and I don't need a second patron hitting me on the head with a flower pot from behind. However comical that may appear.