Knowledge Thread Discussion

Here is the main post to discuss the Atlas’ Knowledge Thread. Follow the links under the video to join the discussions.

Respond to Sharon and Morgan to discuss conversation theory!

- Knowledge is created through conversation, and language is an
influential part of that.
— L0 is basic and allows the “negotiation” of the conversation.
It is mostly directional.
— L1 is more specialized and “furthers” the conversation.
— In most libraries, there is a requirement for a translator
(librarian) because users are not part of the
language/system/conversation. What do you think about this situation?

- A major flaw with most knowledge systems is that there is just input
and output. As a result, there is no room for feedback and
improvement. What are some methods of inviting feedback/improvement?

Some questions to discuss:
– Do you think that a system should be made for all users without
training, or should users be required to learn the system’s
specialized language in order to use it?

- If our goal as librarians is to facilitate knowledge creation, we -
YOU are a conversant. Who are you conversing with?

Respond to Daina and Meridith to discuss knowledge creation!

I’m Daina and I’m Meredith! In this thread we want you to create your
own knowledge tool to help your understand what it means to understand
knowledge creation! Use this video as your starting point! So what we
want you to do is build off each others sentences for the next 2 days
to create a story and on Wednesday and Thursday we will discuss what
we’ve created!

Here’s an example “a cat walks into a store” next person “the cat
bought some beer”!

Have fun!

Respond to Jocelyn and Lisa to discuss the app challenge!

Come up with an idea for an app that you think would be useful for
your school or public library. It could be an app for a phone or
something that could be added to a personalized library homepage.
Go wild!

Respond to Ben to Discuss scapes!

What do you think of scopes? Would they work? Why or why not?

How do scopes differ from the traditional reference process? Do they?
In the example given in the Atlas, John’s question was ultimately
answered in almost exactly the same way it would be in a traditional
reference interview.
“John then asks the librarian, “Hi…do you know if this song is a
remake?’ to which the librarian replies, “Actually, it is a remake of
a song from Fiddler on the Roof.’”
Is the extra (or is it extraneous?) information useful? Why or why not?

How credible would a scape be? Who should be able to edit one, and to
what degree (should “landscaping” be included in a scape on “Scapes”?
If you immediately thought no, try coming up with an argument for yes,
and vice versa.)?

Think of other examples of member generated and edited content (Wikis
might be a jumping off point). How are they similar to scopes? How are
they different? What problems exist in these examples and how could
they be addressed in a scape?

What features other than those described in the text would you like to
see in a scape?

Resources on scopes:
The Atlas of New Librarianship: p53 – 60, p353 – 365 (Note: if you’re
feeling frisky, there’s lots of great supplementary information on
scopes on p353 – 365. There’s a lot of technical elaboration, but also
3 additional examples of how scopes might be used on p353 – 357, with

Additional resources mentioned in the Atlas (some redundant
information, but some new formats and elaboration, as well):
Dave’s talk on scopes at the OCLC Symposium on Reference and Social
Networking (text, audio, and video)
Another book by Dave which mentions scopes:;jsessionid=EF21EDF752365F9E3B890BA397683FDA?lang=eng&suite=def

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.