The intro is so great!
It’s great how the arguments are presented in the levels of description section. Still, I wonder if it would be beneficial to zine librarians advocating for thorough, item-level cataloging to have some language coming down in favor of greater discoverability and the value of this work for future historians. (Future historians–heh.) Our description should be sensitive and responsive, but I’d still like to see this section bolster arguments for prioritizing cataloging.
Should we get into establishing a best practice of attempting to consult with the zine maker about how they’re identified in particularly sensitive cases (e.g., we know they’ve transitioned to a different gender and don’t want to be associated with their earlier name or their zine is about an experience that might impact their employability), but that in general, we’ll go with what name is in the zine unless we are contacted by the zine maker to change it, in which case we will?
Confession: the authority data section went a little over my head. The salient point seems to be “Even with different levels of risk, anyone recording authority data for zinesters in any context should be mindful of potential downstream uses.” Is there a way to bring that out a little bit more?
This is very meaty and full of good, useful stuff. However, I wonder if the level of detail is a little TOO great. To my mind, the best codes of ethics (or similar types of documents) are ones that are simple and short, with broadly drawn statements of intent and philosophy. I think what’s being written here is something more suitable for a set of applied best practices, a document that gets more into the nitty-gritty of actually working with zines.
Well said, Jeremy!
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *