The 2015 Zine Librarians’ (un)Conference will be held in Austin, Texas on June 5th & 6th at the Perry-Casteñeda Library at 21st & Speedway on the University of Texas‘s main campus. It is free to attend.

Registration is open!  It closes June 1st. Help us plan*, and get your brag on by adding your name and affiliation to the list below if you are planning on attending. (Contact Jenna Freedman at jfreedma at barnard dot edu or Violet Fox at violetfox at gmail dot com if you need a new wiki account and they’ll set you up.) That’s all there is to it!

*The sooner you register, the easier it is on the organizers,
but we understand how life works and won’t hold it against late-comers.

1. Jennifer Hecker, University of Texas Libraries & Austin Fanzine Project
2. Kelly Wooten, Sallie Bingham Center for Women’s History and Culture, Duke University– sorry, friends, but I can’t make it this year.
3. SMiles Lewis, Anomaly Archives, Austin, Texas
4. Milo Miller, QZAP
5. Honor Moody, Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University
6. Jenna Freedman, Barnard Zine Library
7. Jeremy Brett, Cushing Memorial Library, Texas A&M University
   I wish I could come, but other things have gotten in the way, sadly.
8. Rhonda Kauffman, Cambridge, MA
9. Spencer Keralis, University of North Texas Libraries & Laughing Mouse Press
10. Kelly McElroy, Oregon State University
11. Laura Schwartz, University of Texas at Austin, Fine Arts Library
12. Noemi Martinez, Curando RGV / The RGV Zine Library collective, Rio Grande Valley, TX
13. Jude Vachon, Pittsburgh PA
14. Lizzie Seiple, UT Austin School of Information
15. Heidy Berthoud, Vassar College Library
16. Christine Rosa, Northeastern Illinois University Libraries, Chicago, IL
17. Lisa Roebuck, Sherwood Forest Zine Library, Austin, TX

It’s official!

The 2015 Zine Librarians’ (un)Conference will be held in Austin, Texas on June 5th & 6th at the Perry-Casteñeda Library at 21st & Speedway on the University of Texas‘s main campus.

Go ahead and register here on the wiki — it’s free to attend! Then make your travel plans and start getting excited 🙂

Also, make sure you’re on the email list, so you don’t miss any pre-conference conversations.

Photo from the unconference (more photos, including Jude singing the squirrel song)
Back row: Honor, Jude, Heidi, Kelly, SMiles, Lisa, Milo, Dianne, Christine, T-Kay, daughter of Laura, Laura
Front row: Jenna, Rhonda, Jennifer

Intro:

Subject analysis is one of the most value-added things a cataloger can do when describing a resource. It entails the conceptual analysis of the resource in order to apply subject terms to the description of the zine: special topics, geographic areas, time periods, or population groups that the resource is about. So when a user wants to find a zine about a given subject, application of subject headings by a cataloger helps them out. The power here is in collocation, bringing like things together for users to see all the zines about food, or bicycling, or bicycles made out of food, or food made out of bicycles.

As librarians, we make every effort to create access and use the most relevant and specific subject headings, summaries, and other notes. We acknowledge that we will sometimes make mistakes and use headings that offend / don’t resonate with zine authors. It’s important that we find ways to invite feedback and create avenues for authors and users to request revisions to a record.

Those with the time and/or institutional privilege to do so might also consider getting involved in efforts to revise established thesauri (i.e. if you swim in the Library of Congress Subject Headings pond, becoming a prolific, hard-assed SACO proposer).

Proceeding with subject analysis:

Subject terms can be controlled or uncontrolled. Controlled terms come from controlled vocabularies or subject thesauri like:

• Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH)
• Library of Congress Genre/Form Thesaurus (LCGFT)
• Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT)
• Anchor Archive Thesaurus

Uncontrolled terms might be terms used on the fly by the cataloger, or terms pulled from the resource itself.

See more thorough discussion of subject analysis for zines in Freedman, et al (2013)[1].

[1] Freedman, Jenna, Rhonda Kauffman, and Melissa Morrone. 2013. “Cutter and Paste: A DIY Guide for Catalogers Who Don’t Know About Zines and Zine Librarians Who Don’t Know About Cataloging.” In Informed Agitation: Library and Information Skills in Social Justice Movements and Beyond. Library Juice Press. http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/item/ac:171812.

In assigning subject headings to zines, we acknowledge that there will be imperfect fits and that catalogers must balance collocation and discoverability of materials with using the language and terminology of zine authors. Sometimes this will be an “and, both” situation, but when more established headings are politically odious, it may be best to include only alternative thesauri.

Some considerations:

1. If your zines sits within a larger collection, using some headings from the “standard” thesaurus adopted by your library or collection (e.g. Library of Congress Subject Headings, Sears) will make  your zines more discoverable. When zines turn up alongside books, movies, and other kinds of information in a catalog search, users will have greater access to alternative perspectives.
2. When using a thesaurus, adhering to its documented rules for use creates better collocation, so try to use it “correctly.”
3. Supplement more formal or established thesauri with others that provide more accurate language or greater granularity. Some examples of thesauri to look at include:
   1. Anchor Archive Thesaurus
   2. Art and Architecture Thesaurus
   3. ???
4. Local headings that collocate common genres of zines can be very helpful for users looking to browse a catalog. Barnard Zine Library is a good example of genre headings in action. Some examples of headings they use include: Personal zines, Compilation zines, Political zines, Minicomics, DIY zines.

Enhancing Discoverability beyond Subjects

When no thesauri have the right terms to address a particular issue or community represented in a zine, uncontrolled terms will at least make a record more keyword searchable. Getting more significant keywords or phrases in a summary note will also achieve this and give users a better sense of the zine to boot.

Established thesauri will always lag far (or forever) behind in adopting the vernacular used by communities – a major drawback of relying only on controlled vocabulary. However, a controlled term has the benefit of linking a user to larger swaths of related resources than a keyword search, which is really just a search for a simple string of characters.

Methods of acquiring zines

Because the creators of zines often lose money (or barely break even) on their creations, financially supporting zinesters by purchasing directly from them can help sustain their ability to keep making zines. In addition, purchasing zines demonstrates respect for the value of the zinester’s work. However, a library’s zine-purchasing budget may be very small (or non-existent), so donations may be a large portion of acquisitions. In general, it’s better to have donated zines in your collection than none at all!

The following methods of acquisitions are rated in order of preference:

1. Purchasing directly from the author or publisher. Solo authors/artists are usually not set up to accept money orders or credit cards.

2. Purchasing from a zine distro. Zine distros are small distributors who buy zines from publishers at a discount then resell them. Distros are often easier to purchase from, with online catalogs and the ability to accept checks or credit cards. However, zine authors/publishers get a smaller cut when zines are purchased through a distro.

3. Receiving donations from the author or publisher.

4. Receiving donations from third parties. It can be difficult to determine where the donor acquired their zines, so this can be a mixed bag (see discussion below).

5. Creating unauthorized copies. While some zinesters see no problem with this, especially for out of print materials, many others find it unacceptable and see it as a breach of trust.

6. Purchasing from an unauthorized third party. This might include purchasing items from other collectors or sellers online, for example eBay. Opinion is split on this: some zinesters find it very objectionable when others sell their work for profit, others are more laissez-faire.

Potential problems with having zines in libraries/archives

Because of the often highly personal content of zines, creators may object to having their material being publicly accessible. Zinesters (especially those who created zines before the Internet era) typically create their work without thought to their work ending up in institutions or being read by large numbers of people. To some, exposure to a wider audience is exciting, but others may find it unwelcome. For example, a zinester who wrote about questioning their sexuality as a young person in a zine distributed to their friends may object to having that material available in a public library. In addition, zine creators, as counterculture creators, may be particularly likely to be distrustful of traditional institutions (such as government or academia).

For this reason, third party donations can be particularly tricky. While it might be an admirable goal to ask permission of zinesters to include their work in our library/archive, or at least inform them that their work is in our collection, this is usually prohibitively time- and effort-intensive.

[Not sure if deaccessioning zines is part of “acquisition” or if someone else will have addressed this? When would we deaccession zines? When would we not do this? What’s okay to do with deaccessioned zines: recycle, donate to other libraries, selling to benefit library?] What if a zinester wants a zine taken out of the library? Either donated to another library, returned to them, or flat-out destroyed? What to do in the case of duplicates?]

Collection development

 

Having a publicly-accessible collection development policy specifically for your zine collection is highly recommended. The definition of what a zine is is nebulous, so having parameters spelled out can help prevent unrelated materials from creeping into your collection (for example, political newsletters, literary journals, or brochures) when they are unwanted. A written policy allows your institution to seek out certain zines that fall within scope while being able to confidently reject material that doesn’t. [stole this sentence from the Collection Policy Primer, it’s a good one!]

 

Because of the unlimited subjects that zines can be about, you may want your collection development policy statement to include specific areas of interest that you want to develop (for example, zines of local interest). You might consider describing your core collection as well as special interests and exclusions.

 

Zine librarians/archivists should strive to promote a variety of viewpoints in the zines in their collection. The very heart of zines is their ability to give voice to those who are not traditionally represented in libraries/archives, so it is vital to include zines from underrepresented populations, with consideration to zines created by people of different races/ethnicities, genders, classes, ages, abilities, sexual orientations, and so on.

[should we append this section with the collection policy primer? Or make an adaptation of it for the code of ethics?]

Zines are much more than the zines themselves. Zinesters who send or trade zines through the mail often add things in the envelope to their readers (like stickers, personal letters, candy, toys) and ornately decorate the envelopes. These additional items may offer additional research or interest to patrons. Zine librarians should consider which items, if any, should be collected (and how to make note of these in the catalog record).

By Violet and Rhonda

 

Zine Librarians Code of Ethics: Use [Draft by Lisa and Kelly W]

Whereas “access” is getting to read and look at online archives, or in places like zine libraries, zine fairs, or special collections reading rooms, “use” means reproducing or quoting from zines. Reproduction can include copying zines in their original formats and redistributing them; printing portions in books; or any kind of online sharing, from comprehensive archive projects, to publishing images online newspapers, blogs, or any form of social media.

Copyright and Ethical Use

The copyright code has a special section for libraries, allowing librarians to make copies for researchers to use for their own research. This assumes you won’t be sharing it or reproducing it in anyway. If you do want to reproduce something, copyright law requires that you ask permission from authors (there are time restrictions on these, but we’re assuming that you’re mostly going to be working with late 20th century and contemporary authors, so these won’t apply). If you are reproducing for educational purposes or significantly transforming the original, your use may fall under Fair Use (discussed further below).

However, in our experience, reproducing or sharing zines is not just about copyright. It’s also about zinesters’ right to decide how their work is distributed and how widely, and how it is contextualized. It’s also about community, respect, and just being a nice person.

Zines are not like mass-distributed books. They are often self-published and self-distributed, and sometimes printed in very small runs, intended for a small audience. In addition, perzines are by definition “personal”, and zinesters may feel different about having their zines distributed in print than they would about having them openly available on the internet or print. This can be especially true in the case of “historical” zines in library collections — for example, a teen girl writing a zine for her close friends in 1994 may not want her zine distributed online or in print 20 years later.

Some zinesters also feel that context is important. This can mean the format – that it was meant to be on paper, and held in the hands – or it can mean that the zine works best when it’s read as a whole, rather than having one or a few pages excerpted or reprinted.

Asking for permission

There are many different uses of zines you should seek permission for. For students and researchers who want to use excerpts or even images in an academic paper that isn’t going to be published in print or online, a citation is usually enough. [See “Cite this Zine” zine?]  If you want to publish an image from a zine in print or online, we recommend obtaining permission from authors. There are some gray areas or casual uses that zinesters may not usually request permission for, like posting a picture from a zine or the cover on Twitter or Instagram or in a blog, usually with a short credit including the title of the zine and/or the author.

Whenever you reproduce or describe a zine online, in social media, in a library catalog or website, or other venue, if the zine creator(s) contact you and request that you remove the content or edit it, we recommend respecting their wishes. You may be able to argue fair use based on these principles: (1) the purpose of the use; (2) the nature of the work used; (3) the amount and substantiality of the work used; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the work used. However, in our community, it’s not just about what’s legal, it’s about what’s respectful. We advise getting explicit permission whenever possible.

What does asking for permission mean? If you are publishing a book or academic article, the editor or publisher may provide you with their official form to get a signature. You can create your own form if you are working independently. If you use a formal letter, we recommend writing a more conversational email explaining who you are and what you are seeking.

What to include (from the Perdue Library website):

1. Your name, address, telephone number, and email address.
2. Your title/position and name of any institution you might be affiliated with.
3. The date of your request.
4. A complete and accurate citation.
5. A precise description of the proposed use of the copyrighted material as well as when and for how long the material will be used.
6. A signature line for the copyright holder including their title if they are representing a company and the date.

Tracking down the creator of a zine can be difficult, particularly for those published in the 1990s (pre-internet/email times) or under a pseudonym. If you can find contact info on the zine, try using that, or using google to search for an email address, blog, facebook account, etc., to make your request. The zine librarians email list or other online forums may be helpful in tracking down people. Document your efforts to contact the person. If you are doing a project with multiple zines that require permission, use a spreadsheet to keep track of when/how you attempted contact. This will not completely protect you legally, but it is important to do your due diligence in this process. If a zine has more than one author, you may need to contact the editor (if there is one clear person) as well as the creator of the content you wish to use. Locating one of those people will most likely lead you to the others. Sometimes if a zine was created collectively, one person may feel authorized to speak for the group, and in other cases, they may wish to all give permission for the usage.

Guide to copyright permissions:

https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/Resources/permissions.html

Fair Use for Libraries:

http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/copyright-ip/fair-use/code-of-best-practices#.VG9HuYvF_To

Zine Statement of Ethics: Organizing: Privacy

Introduction

This section aims to help librarians and archivists think through some of the privacy implications of making zines accessible via cataloging, organizing or describing.

To echo our preamble, zines are “often weird, ephemeral, magical, dangerous, and emotional.” Dangerous to whom? It probably depends on who you ask, but in the age of the Internet, at least one prospectively endangered population are zinesters themselves. Zines are a vulnerable, emotionally raw medium, rife with personal details of their creators that they may not have intended to share outside of the safety and exclusivity of their small print readership. Zines are not necessarily created with the presumption of widespread discoverability on the Web. Obviously, zines created before the advent of the Web had no such presumption – and yet many of these creators are still living. Librarians and archivists should consider that making zines discoverable on the Web or in local catalogs and databases could have impacts on creators – anything from mild embarrassment to the divulging of dangerous personal information.

That said, the takeaway here shouldn’t be that making detailed information about zines and zinesters more widely available is inherently bad. What zines contain, represent and do are all super important for today’s readers, historians, etc. So, yes, we want zines to be as discoverable as possible, but in a way that also respects the safety and privacy of their creators.

Short version (maybe this is all we need?)

1. Levels of Description: The more detailed your descriptions of your zines are, the more discoverable they will be. Within the conventions of your institution, describe your zines as fully as possible, but with sensitivity to the amount of private info of living persons that might also be revealed.
2. Identifying Zinesters: In general, use the form of name that’s on the piece being cataloged. If reconciling forms of names to an authority file, use care to identify sensitive cases where the author may not want their full name associated with the zine. Be prepared to receive and respond to requests to change or remove name information in catalog records for zines. We encourage you to defer to zine creators wishes in this regard.
3. Authority Data For Zinesters: When creating authority records for zinesters, refrain from recording more personal information than is necessary or required to identify the person under the rules or conventions of the authority file.

Long version (if we want to spell it all out):

Levels of Description

The level or granularity of description of zines can have an impact on the amount of potentially private information exposed in a catalog. Zines described at the item level, with thoroughly transcribed tables of contents, summary notes and access points for each author or contributor make zines much more discoverable for users, but also make it that much easier for information about a zinester to be exposed without anyone even having to examine the physical zine. On the other hand, zines described at the collection level afford much less exposure of information about the zinester, but also much less discoverability for users. Collection level descriptions can be simply a list of titles, or even more generically, a catalog record or database entry for a certain number of zines from a certain time period, with no further description.

Each institution has to decide what level of description is right for them. In traditional contexts, this decision is usually based on the amount of labor involved in describing a collection, but for zines, the level of exposure of private information about the zinester should also be considered.

Identifying Zinesters

In cataloging and describing conventional library materials, like commercially available or academic press books, it’s usually taken for granted that the author should be attributed as the creator of their work. This assumption is embedded in cataloging rules like RDA, which mandates the recording of a work’s creator, if it is determinable, and doing so with a unique identifier at that.

However, zines excel at defying convention, and this is no exception. One should not blindly assume that a zinester always wishes to be connected with their zines or attributed as their creator. In fact, such attribution might be undesirable. Within the community creating this document, requests for deleting creator attributions in catalog records for zines have been received (and honored).

Whether or not one should identify creators in descriptions of zines will depend on a few factors:

• The nature of the zine and when it was produced: Any zinesters putting out zines before 2001 (and maybe as late as 2003) probably couldn’t have foreseen the implications Google and widespread discoverability of information on the Internet would have on them and their zines. Without having done any analysis, it stands to reason that zines of the 80s and 90s were probably less guarded than those of the post-Google era when (supposedly) anyone can figure out (supposedly) anything – including a description of the tell-all zine you mailed out to friends and strangers in 1994 when you were just 14.

• Use of pseudonyms, partial names or initials: If a zinester uses identity-obscuring devices such as these, it’s possibly because they don’t want to be identified. This is a clue to the cataloger or arranger not to go above and beyond in sleuthing out a full name for the author to include as an access point. Same goes even if you happen to know the full name of the zinester in question, like if you bought the zine directly from them at a zinefest. However, if you have a direct connection to the zinester or contact info, you could ask if recording their full name in an access point is okay.

• Unique access points (e.g. using birthdates, etc.) to identify zinesters: This foreshadows the section on authority data below. Cataloging rules are set up to prefer the unique identification of authors in access points by designating a unique text string for each individual. This may include birth or death dates, full names, qualifiers listing an occupation or field of activity, and so on. Though this is done to disambiguate between creators in a database, it has the upshot of revealing more information about an individual more readily than they may desire. Consider the context and potential consequences of doing so. Or, like in #2 above, if you have contact information, consider asking the individual’s permission.

Authority Data For Zinesters

In cataloging, the move from AACR2 to RDA has entailed an increase in the amount and granularity of data that can be recorded about people (among other entities) in MARC authority records. Under AACR2, the most important function of authority data was to establish and document a unique text string (or “heading”) to be used in bibliographic records for a particular author.

For example, works by Henry Rollins, the singer for Black Flag, are entered under the heading:

Rollins, Henry, 1961-

Works by Henry Rollins, the engineer, are entered under the heading:

Rollins, Henry, M.

The authority data would sometimes include human-readable notes with biographical data on the person, in order to help catalogers discern between authority records and determine which real-life person they corresponded to.

RDA has expanded the scope of what is recorded in authority records. Though the required data elements in an authority record are still geared toward creating and documenting a unique text string for each person, catalogers contributing to the Library of Congress National Authority File (LCNAF) are encouraged to supply additional biographical data when it is available on resources being cataloged or in reference sources consulted in the course of cataloging. This additional data is encoded in newly designated MARC fields and subfields, in order to make it more machine actionable, rather than just human readable. These efforts are intended to support the use of authority data as linked data, discoverable and re-usable on the open Web. Newly recordable elements include:

• Place of birth
• Place of residence
• Address (including home or email addresses)
• Associated group (such as one’s university, affiliated political party, collective, employing institution)
• Gender

Ethical concerns around authority data for zinesters may seem to be more or less pressing depending on the context being operated in. For example, authority data for a catalog or database local to an institution might only serve local inventory purposes and have limited risk of exposure of private, personal information of the zinester. Authority data recorded in the LCNAF, on the other hand, is intended for broad exposure and reuse in libraries and on the open Web (e.g. via the Virtual International Authority File, or VIAF). Even with different levels of risk, anyone recording authority data for zinesters in any context should be mindful of potential downstream uses. Even local authority files could later be sources of information for LCNAF or other public datasets.

Hi, all! Below is my rough, rough draft of the Code of Ethics section on access. Obviously it would benefit from massive input from all of you. :)  I kept it short and simple on purpose.

Zine Librarians Code of Ethics Draft: ACCESS

This Code recognizes that:

• As librarians and archivists, we have a responsibility to respect the professional and ethical traditions of reasonable and equitable access to materials.
• As cultural advocates who strive to positively and respectfully engage with the creative communities we document, we also have a responsibility to consider the personal and privacy considerations of zine creators.

Given the potential for tension between these two responsibilities, zine librarians and archivists should consider these guiding principles with respect to access to materials in their care.

1. SENSITIVITY AND PRIVACY.

Zines are often the creations of people documenting their deepest, most heartfelt personal, political, sexual and/or social convictions. Zine creators so often pour so much of themselves into their work, work that is often intended only for specific or limited audiences. These expressions of pure identity merit appropriate respect. Zine librarians and archivists are therefore sensitive and aware of the specific environments under which zines are created and distributed. They consult with zine creators and communities on the motives behind the zines they produce, and respect the personal desires for autonomy and privacy of those creators and communities. They do not expose the legal identities of zine creators in cases where those identities are not explicitly noted in the zines themselves.

2. IMPARTIALITY.

Zine librarians and archivists do not recognize a mythical “neutrality”. However, they are impartial insomuch as they do NOT deny access to materials in their care based on their own personal, political or other beliefs. To do so is to exercise an act of censorship that violates a reader’s rights to determine her own reading choices. The ethic of impartiality also applies to any access restrictions that may be placed on particular items – such restrictions should not be selectively levied but should be implemented in an impartial and uniform manner.

3. OPENESS AND EASE OF ACCESS.

 

Zine librarians and archivists recognize that, fundamentally, materials unused are useless materials. They therefore strive towards the highest practical degree of open and equitable access to the zines in their care within the context of their institutional missions and their user groups.  They interact with zine creators and donors to provide an appropriate balance between this level of access and the desires of zine creators for privacy or anonymity.

[Paragraph 1]

This document is emerging from years of challenging and joyous conversations about the work we do with zines. As caretakers of these materials, in our roles as independent, public, and academic librarians and archivists, a set of core values has surfaced. We’re writing them down in order to communicate openly and build trust.

[Paragraph 2]

Because…

• …zines are often produced by members of marginalized communities

• …we want to respectfully engage with and represent those communities

• …librarians/archivists are often part of the communities that make/read zines

• …of the material itself, which is often weird, ephemeral, magical, dangerous, and emotional

• …we don’t uphold the myth of librar*/archiv* neutrality

• …we want to be accountable to our users, our institutions, our authors, donors, and communities

[Paragraph 3]

This document aims to support you in asking questions, rather than to provide you with answers. Guidelines may not apply uniformly to every situation, but include discussion of disputed points.  This gives zine librarians (and librarians who are new to zines) ideas of what has been challenging in the past and how other zine librarians have dealt with those issues.These points can guide your conversations with your users, institutions, authors, donors, and communities — including other zine librarians and archivists.

[Paragraph 4]

This document includes sections covering four aspects of zine librarianship in greater detail. Within these sections, you’ll find best practices and factors for consideration related to the acquisition, organization, access, and use of zines in libraries and collections.

This draft: Jennifer, Jude, Kelly, Milo — August 2014

Zine Metadata Review

Sample Zine Record Batches – Received by Christina

ZineCore <-> DublinCore Mapping in Progress

Tentative ZineCore <-> Record Samples Various Schema/Format

Zine Records Data Samples (links out to Google Spreadsheet until Christina has time to upload files)

• files to be uploaded (Christina 9/29/2014)

To be added: XSLT, merged sample record batches transformed to ZC/XML, list of possible tools, etc. etc.

 List of resources

redmine: http://zines.dev3.webenabled.net
xZINECOREx Update document: https://calc.mayfirst.org/9zyw82rz1x
Metadata schema comparison chart: https://calc.mayfirst.org/xzinecorex_mapping

Friday July 18th (notes submitted by Violet)

For background information, download the xZINECOREx zine at http://zinelibraries.info/2013/04/12/zinecore-zine/

Milo and the folks at QZAP have been beta testing ZINECORE with their catalog using an open-source software called Collective Access. (See the QZAP catalog in action at http://archive.qzap.org/index.php) QZAP has left a subject field empty with the idea that there will be an agreed-upon ZINECORE taxonomy in the future. Milo walked us through an example record, explaining that, for example, they’re using the sizes that were listed in Larry-bob’s “Queer Zine Explosion” for the “format” field. The catalog also uses the field “relation”, with the displayed term “related collection”, to show the “is part of” relator.

Jenna reported on Christina Harlow’s efforts to help out with the project. She used data sets from Denver Zine Library, QZAP, Barnard [and others? IPRC?] to create a data snapshot, which shows the variety of schemas that we’re working with. The good news is that since ZINECORE maps very closely to Dublin Core, Christina will be able to reuse existing mapping tools with some tweaking. Some challenges to deal with: our content is “poly”; there’s no authority records and differences in our libraries’ definitions of fields could be problematic (for example, for zines published by one person, some libraries have referred to the creator as “publisher” while others haven’t).  

Jan took a moment to remind us to be reflexive and clearly explain why we’re creating xZINECOREx and the union catalog (and, in general, with any of our projects). The temptation is to just get the work done, but the more we can be clear and document the decisions made along the way and why those decisions were made, the better we can strive to remain true to our principles.

We discussed the possibility of institutional support: OCLC sometimes offers funding for linked data projects. In the archival world, there are consortium of collected national authority resources. The SNAC (Social Networks and Archival Context) Project is designed to provide access to a variety of contexts, building socio-historical contexts by harvesting names from collections of archival records. There was some discussion as to how xZINECOREx could be implemented in archives, and how finding aids could provide context for the information in xZINECOREx records.

Standardizing data is a big concern, but we agreed that we don’t want to set a high bar for libraries to contribute their data to xZINECOREx. We want to minimize worries that individual libraries’ data isn’t “good enough” for inclusion.

We discussed standardized vocabularies [both in this session and Saturday’s “Taxonomies” session], and generally came to a consensus that using already existing vocabularies such as LCSH and Anchor Archive’s thesaurus would be preferable to the efforts of creating our own. As long as the vocabularies are available as linked data, we could use pointers that would indicate, “this vocab term comes from this controlled vocabulary set”. We also discussed the fact that subject and genre are combined in one field in xZINECOREx (which was done consciously since there was debate at the Milwaukee ZLuC re: aboutness/itness). It would be ideal if we could have separate genre and subject fields as an option for advanced searching.

There are continuing questions we’ll have to deal with as we move forward: for example, if there are multiple records for an individual zine, which would be the “primary” record? Where will we host the union catalog?

Notes continued here: http://zinelibraries.info/wiki/zluc2014/schedule/zine-union-catalog-part-ii/

Code of Ethics

Notes by Jennifer and Violet

Notes from the session:

  

Notes from the breakout sessions:

Preamble:

Acquiring:

Organizing:

Access and Use:

Link to expanded draft

Topic: Acquisitions / “In Scope Enemy”

Explanation: The importance of having an acquisition policy. Indie/barefoot libraries often coming around to acquisition policy need post-library/collection start—how to decide and put one in a visible place? Additionally, what do you do when you get the kind of in scope material that you never thought you’d receive?

Facilitator: Lisa

Note taker: Celina

Discussion Notes:

-          QZAP’s policy addresses what is zines in addition to what’s a queer zine based on content, creator’s self-identification/expression gender/identity. They also have some queer flyers. (Milo)

-          IPRC … would like info on “hierarchical acquisition policies as contrary to the nature the community that may be” – Lillian

-          Acquisition policies are a great tool for saying no politely

-          Collection decisions typically motivated by community building and preservation. Questions: What are the expectations? Is there a possible theoretical issue here? (Jan)

-          The line between acquisition policies and library/project missions are often murky

-          Personal value judgments related to not only the mission behind the collection but also the needs/wants/priorities of the space. “I want local zines that are not off the charts obscene or hateful.” – Jude

-          IPRC, for example, makes sure to place no value judgments even in record creation on “obscene” materials (Lillian)

-          Papercut rarely gets hate materials but they do have a category called “bullshit,” stored in a box in the basement for people doing anti-fascist work (Kimberly)

-          Usefulness in documenting and preserving the historical trajectory of a movement or a publication (this can often mean embarrassingly bad writings, art, etc.)

-          Important to consider the value of resources, “effort into access” (Kelly M.) and often limited shelf space; Sometimes it’s just enough to know that it exists/available if you ask the right person

-          Work that is a “pain in the ass” to catalog or make accessible but then prove to be worthwhile because of one thing (radical newspapers from Germany / Berlin wall). “I wake up thinking about our backlog” – Lillian, IPRC

-          Possibility of prioritizing acquisitions based on user stats, if available. (Jennifer)

-          In the decision to give away collections, “these things need to be kept but do they need to be kept here.” (Katie)

-          Flipside of accession policies = the deaccession policy, and it’s just as important. Priorities shift when there’s a clear availability elsewhere (Jeremy)

-          “That’s why we need the union catalog!” – Lillian

-          The listserv is helpful in the meantime (Jennifer)

-          IPRC has very specific stats that show when and what people are reading. “One-handed cataloging.” 😉

-          Helpful for polices to address why we say no, but explaining why things take long. Your resources have a place in your collection development policy. Managing expecations. (Lisa)

-          Zine “scope”—the difficulty of explaining (continuously) to authorities who don’t get it, or think they do and then don’t anymore (Celina)

-          Tying the scope into existing areas of a larger archive/collection

-          Writing an FAQ

-          Comparing zines as another format, e.g. letters, to administrators (Kelly W.)

-          “Hit by a bus” scenario is another reason why policy creation is vital (Milo)

-          IPRC maker space / donation station. “If you make a zine, catalog it” and gaming approach to backlog management. (Lillian)

-          Are there creative ways to use numbers without sounding like an asshole? Make it visible? “zine purgatory” pictures (Lillian)

-          Note the mistake of seeing “DIY” as “do it BY yourself” (Lisa)

-          Ask for lists prior to donation. You can say ‘no’ before it comes in the mail, but some people may still ignore the website language and drop off things.

-          Keep a listing of removed zines and reasons why they were not kept–duplicate, out-of scope, etc. (Kimberly)

-          Indie/barefoot libraries have the added benefit of using out-of-scope/deaccessioned materials for funding, grab bags, etc. (Cue the bidding war for smutty UK comics.)

-          Useful document: SAA Guidelines for Reappraisal + Deaccessioning

Action Items:

1)      Everyone: If you have an accession and deaccession policy, please share it for a future page on zf.info about how to and why create an acquisition policy.

2)      Milo and Lisa will be working together on the above mentioned page.

3)      Lillian WILL remove the give-us-all-the-things language from the IPRC website.

Cataloging in RDA, led by Honor

RDA is based on FRBR, which is based on the WEMI model.

• Work is largely conceptual,

• Expression (language or format),

• Manifestation (traditionally edition),

• Item.

• Challenge with cataloging in MARC is that you’re often collapsing the Work and Expression, and with a zine, sometimes collapsing Manifestation and the item.

Toolkit:

• Constantly being updated

• Costs money (challenge to access)

• You can expand or contract the table of contents, updates to history in the RDA update history, or note the date of update posted by an individual section

• LC-PCC PS stands for Library of Congress PCC Policy Statement. Some equivalent and some different from LCRIs

• LC-PCC PS general guidelines on transcription is a useful section to read, an overview of these policies

• Symbols section might be an area of interest for zine catalogers.

• Relationship designators in Appendix I-L, but most likely to use I.

• Lot of repetition and reference between / across chapters – you will be referred around the rules to get where you’re going.

Cataloging a Zine:

• Fixed field: often repeat elements reflected in the bibliographic record, following the same rule.

  • Encoding standard: 040, add the $e rda; Desc. : i for isbd

  • Fixed fields Illustrative content (RDA 7.15) – not core for LC-PCC PS, not required except for children’s materials, we mostly capture it anyway, most librarians do. Ill in fixed field “a”

  • Bibliography in the content section, fixed field (a “b”) (RDA 7.16) supplementary content (Cont.) area.

  • Lang: an expression level element. eng if in English

  • Ctry: when we’re reading the place named in a zine, often the place of production rather than publication, but we may use it or infer.

• Chapter 2 in RDA: where much of the standard cataloging information lives: Title, statement of responsibility, production statement, publication statement, dates, etc. These are all very closely related to MARC fields.

• 264 is the new field we use for statement of place (production, publication, distribution)

• if translation of multi-language zine, would have an 041 with original and translated language codes.

• 100 field: the creator

• 245 field: title — Title area of chapter 2, allows more flexibility with regard to title source than AACR2 did, but does want you to cite your source for the title. If resource Consists of multiple sheets (yes, a zine) will give you the order by which you should pursue sources for the title. So with a zine, look for a title, page, if not, use a cover title and add a 500 note, ‘Title from cover’. No GMD subfield “h” in RDA. You will capitalize as in AACR2, not transcribe exactly as you see (that’s more for machine read cataloging)

• Putting in a symbol: may interpolate a symbol that cannot be reproduced so, if an anarchy symbol appears: 245 Bibilotech [anarchy symbol] but add as well a 246 Bibliotecha  for searchable access.

• RDA 2.4: statement of responsibility, again you have expandable menus.

• 250 field: edition statement. if an edition, in this case happens to have one – “draft”; spell it out.

• Place of publication: a rare case when you can’t get to some statement here, you do need one. LC-PCC PS for publication is in RDA 2.8.1.1.

  • Privately printed works – the rule is to treat a privately printed work as published.. treat zines as published works.

  • 264 _ 1 (publisher) not 264 _ 0 (production)

• Punctuation question – is it significant to the title to use capitalization on the piece – what about the lower case i? Honor sticks with standard capitalization, but accepts records with transcription as seen on the piece.

• 33x fields:

  • 336 content type (relates to the work)

  • 337 media and 338 carrier type refer to the manifestation/item.

  • There is controlled vocabulary for these fields within the RDA rules.

  • Zines in paper format are considered 336 unmediated (don’t require technologies to view them, like a book.

  • Carrier type is the format itself (sheet and volume are the ones you see more with a zine – if stapled, it’s a volume, if folded sheet it’s a sheet – which applies to a one-page folding zine).

  • 337 and 338 are repeatable so if you have additional media and carrier types, you can code for multiple forms. for example a comic might be considered “text” and “still image”.

  • Content type is a work level element, and relates to the extent. You can have more than one 336 as well.

• 300 field: (RDA 3.4.5): extent of the text.

  • cm is a symbol, not an abbreviation, so it does not get a period at the end.

  • If a zine has page numbers, record according to what’s printed. If not paginated, you can count them and say 48 unnumbered pages, or, you can say 1 volume (unpaged).

  • If you have multiple sequences, separate sequences by commas.

• RDA 6.27: constructing access points to relationships in works and expression..

• Split zines treated slightly differently in terms of access points

  • LC has an extended refresher or compilations and collaborations: http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/Refresher_training_dec_2011.html .

  • Both authors are listed in the 700 with a title reference (subfield t). One title of the two is entered as a 130 as the authorized access point.

• In RDA, both creators and titles when acting as authorized access points, have to be disambiguated. So choosing the more unique title is the better way to go if you have to choose a title as the authorized access point.

• Relationship designators: in Appendices, primarily using the Appendix I (between persons and works they’re creating). You might use author, illustrator.. Take a look at the LC special topics for compilations to get more information on the distinction between contributor and author. If there is no relationship that’s specific relationship to what you’re looking for, you can use “contributor” – the higher level of the relationship, at the expression level.

Final Questions

Concerns about getting to quick cataloging guidelines for folks without access to the toolkit. Jenna mentioned using Bib formats and standards as a reference: http://oclc.org/bibformats/en.html

For folks with the toolkit who are used to cataloging in MARC, the “mappings” area can be useful.

Things that went well

• organized ++++++

• cared for +++

• not confused ++

• discussions +++ (electrifying)

• idea sharing

• reading

• publicity

• scheduling

• positive spirit +

• had the best time

• friendly, welcoming, loving, caring people ++

• amazing experience, instantiation of DIY

• process of decision making

• appreciate appreciation

• being with a group of people taking on leadership roles

• only interruptions about being excited, not corrective

• engaged, supportive people

• nice to be in a productive meeting

• action plans, outcomes +

• went smoothly

• felt relaxed +

• collected, collaborative learning

• Kelly’s introduction and framing

• theracane, self-care +

• food & coffee +

• can use library words and not have to explain why zines are important

• be with people who share problems

• not scheduled a whole long day +

• length of the conference: two whole days

• evening activities

• collegiality, among people with diverse activities and tactics

• schedule, in general

• awesome

• show & tell, hear how different people teach

• stronger archives/MSS presence

• did not cry in front of Honor

• serenaded in the dorm

Things that could have gone better

• checked out this afternoon

• description along with titles of sessions, names were vague, identify proposer +

• morning session on 2nd day +

• travel grant fiasco

• needed people taking stack

• acronyms, cataloging terms

• more people to take on facilitation and note-taking roles

• some hack time, not enough hours in the day

• forgot computer

• timeline action plans

• jumping jacks or chair yoga

• could have used scheduled breaks

• could have been better prepared for session they led

• marker all over hands

• blank google docs started for notes

• remote participation

Notes continued from part I: http://zinelibraries.info/wiki/zluc2014/schedule/zine-union-catalog-part-i/

• POSSE ethos, individual collections syndicated into union catalog Post to Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere

  • Git projects, like P3K

• Code for America, remote hackathon?

  • bid, institutional residence

  • connect with chapter heads

  • CSV conference

• hackathon at library dev conference

  • next code4lib at PDX

• funding

  • hosting at IPRC (via Amazon Web Services)

  • pro-rate contributions and volunteer hours from different libraries

  • LSTA – Lillian doing one right now, will report back

  • Knight – Jenna

  • Awesome grants (local) – Milo

  • IMLS – Jeremy

  • Lily happy to help write grants

  • IPRC umbrella

• survey zine libraries, including international

  • LIS grad student: Jennifer will do outreach to UT students

  • alternative spring breaker

  • Jenna and Madeline work on survey if no student (ask Lisa Darms to look it over)

• survey zine library users, too

  • Radical Librarians Guild at Simmons in Boston

  • who keeps usage stats?

  • zine fests

• letters of support needed (from scholars)

• IPRC: zine stork – zines for starting a new collection, including records

• international

  • help from alex zamora for outreach

  • web analytics

• standards?

  • preferred standards: encouraged, but not required

  • look through xZINECOREx to identify fields that need standardization

  • what is the minimum info needed in a record to include in union catalog?

  • standards going forward: you don’t have to clean up your legacy data

  • data can be harmonized after the fact

  • records are more similar than different right now, says Milo

• Lillian has an IPRC comic about zine cataloging

• action item: people who volunteered for things, create a survey