https://www.cilip.org.uk/general/custom.asp?page=statementGeorgeFloyd

What do you mean exactly by cataloguing ethics? I understand the earlier statement on racism and guarding against that. I have an idea I just wanted to see your definition.

Hopefully, our definition will make more sense when we show the draft document later in the presentation!

Thank you.

Working Definition of "Cataloging Ethics" agreed upon by the Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee (May 2019):Principles and values that provide an intentional decision-making framework for those who work in cataloging or metadata positions.

Could someone put the links to the CaMMS forums recordings in the chat box? They were on the second or third slide. Thank you!

Probably the slides themselves will be sent out?

Thanks, Violet!

(https://alcts.ala.org/news/2017/ac-camms-forum/)

https://alcts.ala.org/news/2017/ac-camms-forum/

(https://alcts.ala.org/news/2018/mw-camms-forum/)

https://alcts.ala.org/news/2018/mw-camms-forum/

Yep--the recording will be made available after the program.

Re: definition of cataloguing ethics. Violet posted it already. The information can be found on the Steering Committee website: https://sites.google.com/view/cataloging-ethics/home?authuser=0

Thanks.

https//bit.ly/2zUXGGK

Here's a correctly formed link: https://bit.ly/2zUXGGK

Thanks Violet!

Thanks violet.

I would prefer if someone could read it out loud please

(however much is manageable!)

Some of these have sent a separate link to the ppt or a slideshare.

I know we can't go back in time, but I wish we had gotten this draft document in advance of this session....

I agree, @Lindsey.

Are these principles hierarchical or equal in value?

ok, thank you!

The document reads very Anglo-American. Is there anywhere this point of view will be made explicit?

If this code is supposed to be representative of the cataloging and metadata community, why is the language of the principles specific to cataloging rather than encompassing broader metadata work?

Was #4 formulated in any way as a response to the RDA 3R project?

Will the steering committee considering making the reports of individual working groups available to relevant bodies, or will the working groups themselves able to share their work to stakeholder organizations they identify? For example, the report from the authority work group would be of value for NACO training development; Classification for Dewey development, etc.

Principle 3. May contain bias, rather than are biased?

I’d like to hear more about the idea behind “service over economy and outcome over process.” I understand the part after that, but I’m not sure what “outcome over process” is intended to address.

What mechanisms of change are recommended for biased tools such as LCSH? Ex. Race riots is no longer acceptable but there it is in our LCSH

Hi, I'm also interested to hear the panel's opinion about principle 4 and the development of RDA standards

is the goal that this code would be adopted by large parent organizations (like ALA)? or that individual libraries would endorse them? Or that individual catalogers would endorse them?

People, information and Technology are three pillars of information services. The ways technology intersects with users and resource management and discovery have ethical implications as well. Would the committee consider adding principles on the use of technology in cataloging and resource discovery?

In Principle 3 it says our standards are biased. It is impossible to have completely unbiased standards.

I'm interested to know more about what is meant by "value" and whether that is couched in an economic sense.

I would like to hear a discussion about how underrepresented voices will be given voice in standards. That seems like an important part of ethics in regards to representing people in the way that they see themselves and would increase discoverability.

WRT principle 1, I think we also have an ethical responsibility to content creators as people. So, a duty to allow them to self-identify and to respond to that, not just to record their endeavours.

Do you intend to show any of the case studies samples now? I know it would help me to understand the principles better.

I'd like to see the case studies too

Will there be specific acknowledgment regarding discovery platforms? Or a statement that these principles are platform agnostic?

I wondered how this code fits with previous principles, e.g. the ICP. I know they different things, but wondered whether this draft code was intended to fit together with the ICP, supersedes it, etc.

You can view the case studies in the doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DT1K2bEkbJN4-rLfC-cT20E4ThFkDsea_d4d1YTurf8/edit

Was the use of information from publishers (author bios, summaries) discussed? One the one hand, it can increase access but the purpose of this info is to sell books. I worry that the inclusion of publisher summaries etc. will make works from major publishers more accessible and "hide" works from smaller publishers.

There is pressure to reduce costs. Catalog faster. Some use shelf ready material and upload vendor records, which tend to be of questionable quality, How will this code influence management to reconsider their decisions?

So is the code of ethics aimed extremely general covering not just how we catalogue but how cataloguers are treated? A lot of library work is done without a lot of recognition. I think maybe a little brief summary of where you are coming from would be good. What started this project?

Wondering if there should be an explicit statement somewhere regarding "cataloging neutrality," given how this principle is sometimes used to support systemic biases (either through inaction, or through diluting attempts to change biased terms and processes).

Are these standards being thought of as international in nature, and are there plans to work with catalogers outside of the US, Canada and the UK to develop this document to further address bias?

In principle 10, you say "We prefer service over economy..." Please clarify-- I can see technical services administrators in production oriented departments freaking out about this statement, which would get in the way of adopting this principle. Unfortunately, production orientation is the current reality.

When I read "outcome over process," I took that as we should do something that will be helpful for access even if it means more work for us individually

Re: catalogers neutrality, intro says "We recognize that metadata creation is not a neutral act, and endorse critical cataloguing as an approach to our shared work."

To work on proposals to revise problem LCSH: http://cataloginglab.org/ (Email me at violetfox@gmail.com with questions.)

I would suggest that in principle 3 you acknowledge that our standards can be harmful in addition to biased. I would also like to see an acknowledgement of the indigenous land that US and Canadian libraries reside on.

How would you like to see the cataloging code of ethics eventually fit into education/training of those working in cataloging and metadata?

Perhaps consider addressing balancing entrenched/useful local practice with broader standards.

I would like to see language that prioritizes voices of marginalized people in subject areas that affect them.

Maybe a glossary or definitions, as well as case studies, to clarify some terms used in specific ways that also have general meanings?

to Genny's excellent point (our ethical responsibility to creators of content) -- this was definitely a thread in the work done by the authority working group, that we should not treat people the same way we treat resources

This draft code reflects a lot of hard work on the part of the committee. Thank you!

I agree with Patrick L. a very solid foundation to build on.

I agree with Patrick, too. Thank you all for your work on this!

What's the best way to provide comments on the document? Email the entire steering committee?

I was on the working conditions group and we talked a lot about how catalogers are treated. We took the position that advocacy is the best solution, and that advocacy is not optional, but necessary to change how our colleagues treat/understand us.

Thank you for this opportunity to preview the draft ethics. Having a code of ethics can be a great teaching tool for cataloguing courses. It can also be a good source for language to use when advocating for cataloguing work among other library peers, administrators, and LIS instructors who may not have much knowledge of cataloguing.

Before the hour is up, please let us know how to continue the conversation. Perhaps consider turning on the commenting feature on the Google doc? Email information to contact the steering committee is available at https://sites.google.com/view/cataloging-ethics

Thank you for all your hard work and for the opportunity to comment.

The discussion here was wonderful. I hope ALCTS will sponsor another forum like this before the comment period closes if at least one or two steering committee members are willing and available to participate.

Hi Violet - we will turn comments on the document after the presentation!

Thank you, you answered my question. Thanks for all the work. Advocacy is important and this will help.

Thank you very much for an excellent intro to this code - I look forward to keeping up with it going forward!

Thank you for the presentation. A lot of questions mean that a great number of people are interested in these issues!

This was great -- thank you!

thankyou so much!

Thank you, very interesting.

Thank you very much!

Thank you for the presentation and for your work in getting this first draft together!

This was fantastic! Thank you so much!

Thank you!

Thank you so very much! This has been very interesting.

Thanks for all your work with this!

oh no! I'm turning back into a non-cataloguing pumpkin! (also, thank you for this presentation!)

This is a great draft, and I appreciate the opportunity to see it. I'll be sure to share this with my admins so that they can potentially provide comment on it.

Thank you for this session!

Thank you for the good work!

Thank you!

Thank you very much!

Thank you -- lots of food for thought.

Thank you for all of your work on this!

Thank you to the committee and working groups for their efforts! It's great to see this work being done!

thanks to everyone who commented today (and who will comment on the draft); and many thanks to the steering committee

I read principle 10 as edging up to an anti neoliberal stance. just fyi.... be more explicit or clarify. thanks!

Thank you!

Thank you

Thank you!

Thanks!

Thank you!

Thanks all!

Thank you!!!

Thank you!

Thanks very much everyone

Thanks!

Thank you!

Excellent work! Thank you!

Thank you for your presentation.

Thank you everyone who worked on this and for the questions today!

Thank you!

Thank you

Excellent work! Thanks Beth, Karen, May, Sarah, and Jane.

Thank you!!!

Thanks so much

Thanks, it was great to see the document!