QuestionPoint Members
1,924 Active SUPs (service unit profiles)
1,261 SUPs in the 24/7 Reference Cooperative
29 Languages can be handled by QuestionPoint libraries
6,743,387 Transactions have been received by QP libraries since 2002 (as of May 31)
3,078,266 Patrons have asked questions via libraries with QP since 2002*
32,610 New patrons have asked for help via QP libraries' websites in May*
24,481 Active records in the Global Knowledge Base
524 Libraries have contributed active, searchable records to the GKB
*These numbers are lower than actual, as they do not include texting patrons or chat patrons who have not provided email addresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QuestionPoint libraries are now in 33 countries (listed below by region). Costa Rica is the newest country with a QuestionPoint institution.
Australia
New Zealand
---------------
China
French Polynesia
Japan
India
Thailand
--------------
United Arab Emirates
----------------
Botswana
South Africa
--------------
France
Greece
Germany
Italy
The Netherlands
Spain
--------------
Republic of Ireland
|
United Kingdom
England
Scotland
Wales
---------------------
Croatia
Serbia
Slovenia
---------------
Russia
-------------
Canada
Mexico
United States
-----------------
Costa Rica
Jamaica
Martinique
Puerto Rico
Trinidad & Tabago
--------------------
Chile
Colombia
Peru
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QuestionPoint Statistics for May 2011
41,585 Questions received via E-mail and Text Messages
43,918 Chat sessions requested
10,666 Chat sessions requested via Qwidget
42,404 Chat sessions accepted
6,585 Chat sessions requested at non-24/7 Reference Cooperative libraries
710 Sessions requested after hours at non-24/7 Reference Cooperative libraries
65 Most concurrent chat sessions (down from 70 last month)
27 Average concurrent chat sessions (up slightly from last month)
24/7 Reference Cooperative Statistics
64.1% Overall “Answering Percentage.” Cooperative libraries picked up 64.6% of all chat sessions, and Back Up staff picked up 33.7%, for a total of 98.3% pick-up. See Sessions Abandoned, below.
12,241 Academic sessions requested; Academic members answered 8,565 (69.97%)
23,578 Public sessions requested; Public members answered 14,396 (61.06%)
604 Sessions Abandoned (Patron disconnected before librarian picked up, may include some practice sessions)
May Questions of Note
In May,the Global Knowledge Base grew by 364 records. This is 364 more questions and answers that QuestionPoint members can search to help with research when answering questions, and 364 more answers that Internet users can potentially search. (Remember that the knowledge bases can be offered to your patrons if you choose to implement the simple set-up. See http://www.questionpoint.org/crs/html/help/en/ask/ask_publish_makepublic.html)
The New York Public Library's Ask NYPL took this question:
Q: Would I be infringing on copyright if I blog about my experiences with recipes that have been published?
A: While we don't have the expertise to offer a definitive answer to your question (and for that we recommend that you contact a legal professional), we can tell you that the United States Copyright Office offers a Web page describing the limits of copyright as regards recipes:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
"... Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.
Only original works of authorship are protected by copyright. 'Original' means that an author produced a work by his or her own intellectual effort instead of copying it from an existing work. ..."
So, based on this, it would appear that depending on the recipes you're using, and how much of the recipe you use, you may or may not be infringing on a copyright holder's property.
One copyright-related concept that should be of interest for your project is that of "fair use". An overview of this comes from the Stanford University Libraries and Academic Information Resources:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
"Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist’s work without asking permission. Absent this freedom, copyright owners could stifle any negative comments about their work.
Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use interpretation, the dispute may have to be resolved by a lawsuit or arbitration. If it’s not a fair use, then you are infringing upon the rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for damages.
The only guidance for fair use is provided by a set of factors outlined in copyright law. ..."
For further help researching this question in NYPL, be sure to contact staff at our Science, Industry and Business Library ( http://www.nypl.org/locations/sibl ):
188 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
e-mail: http://www.questionpoint.org/crs/servlet/org.oclc.admin.BuildForm?&institution=13307&type=1&language=1
Staff there should also be able to help you find contact information for legal professionals.
Online, writer Pamela White offers this May 22, 2007 article titled, "On Writing - Recipes and Copyright Law":
http://www.growyourwritingbusiness.com/?p=226
"... To recap: your list of ingredients cannot be copyrighted. The directions and other information can. Practically speaking, this allows every food writer in the world to publish traditional recipes, home cooking favorites and simple recipes.
Ideas cannot be copyrighted but works that are in a publishable format (written, recorded) are protected by copyright laws as soon as they are put in that format.
I have also had writers take issue with my writing on copyrights and recipes, stating that they are compiling recipes, clipped from magazines, for publishing in cookbooks. I know that a traditional publisher would never allow that, unless all permissions are in order. However, the ease of self-publishing today allows writers to often mistakenly take the step of violating a magazine’s or author’s rights. The unpleasant result could include being sued for damages, a thing most writers cannot handle professionally or financially.
When in doubt, do some more research on rights, and visit: http://www.copyright.gov."
By the way, you may find this brief article by Santa Clara University student Travis Wingo of interest:
http://webpages.scu.edu/ftp/twingo/response-essay/
"... Be careful what you blog about, though, as some companies or people with copyrights may become upset with you for talking about their products, or actually becoming more popular because of their products. As in Julie & Julia, Julia Child (the author of the cookbook) actually was upset that Julie was becoming so popular through something which Julia Child spent countless hours creating. Now, this is a perfect example of a tension between a 'media' ownership and our hopes for a more democratic society. This is because, although Julia Child was the one who created the book, Julie was becoming famous off of it as well, which was upsetting to Julia. However, Julie was not republising this book under her name, so there wasn't any fraud or any kind of illegal activities going on with this. Which brings up the question, 'where do we draw the line?' We pull constantly for a democracy, a society where everyone has a say in everything, but when it comes to some things, we simply cannot allow people to participate. Julia has the rights to her cookbook, but she cannot stop Julie from using it, which is the sole purpose of the cookbook. ..." [See GKB record # 206813]
The American Memory staff at the Library of Congress fielded this question:
Q: Do we know what dictionary was used by the Founders in creating our Constitution? Entick's, Dr. Samuel Johnson's?
A: It is unlikely, but possible, that the men who drafted the U.S. Constitution had recourse to a dictionary—unlikely because in creating the foundational document of a country where dictionaries were relatively rare, they probably would not have wished to choose language dependent on a dictionary for understanding. To find out more, you may wish to consult the following sources:
1. Max Farrand's The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (1911), available at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html
2. A well regarded new study of the Constitutional Convention, Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution, by Richard Beeman (New York: Random House, 2009; Library of Congress record with links, http://lccn.loc.gov/2008028841).
3. Any of the several recent biographies of Gouverneur Morris, who headed the Committee of Style that produced the Constitution’s final language. To find them, go to our online catalog (http://catalog.loc.gov/), select Basic Search, and enter the following subject heading into the search box:
Morris, Gouverneur, 1752-1816
--then choose the Subject Browse option. Click on the first hit to see a list of titles with the subject heading; and click on any of the titles to get the book's bibliographic record. [See GKB record #195350]
The University of Montemorales provided a nice bibliography for this question:
Q: Estoy buscando artículos científicos sobre el tema de la esperanza desde la perspectiva psicológica.
A: Relación médico paciente. (Spanish)Preview / Doctor-patient relationship. (English) By: Saa, Diego. Colombia Médica, jul-sep2008, Vol. 39 Issue 3, p287-290, 4p; Language: Spanish; (AN 35343921)
PDF Full Text (31KB)
LIDERAZGO: LA CREACIÓN DE ESPERANZA ACTIVA. (Spanish)Preview / Leadership: crafting hope. (English) By: Ángel, Alfredo C.. Debates IESA, abr-jun2007, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p12-12, 3/4p; Language: Spanish; (AN 25164895)
PDF Full Text (83KB)
Loterías: LA ESPERANZA NO DISTINGUE ENTRE RICOS Y POBRES. (Spanish)Preview / Lotteries: no difference between rich and poor. (English) By: Isabel Díaz, María; López, Sabina; Puente, Raquel. Debates IESA, oct-dic2007, Vol. 12 Issue 4, p72-78, 7p, 2 charts, 2 diagrams; Language: Spanish; (AN 28452276)
PDF Full Text (1MB)
El estudio científico de las fortalezas trascendentales desde la Psicología Positiva. (Spanish)Preview / The scientific study of the transcendental strengths from the Positive Psychology perspective. (English) By: Martí, María Luisa Martínez. Clinica y Salud, 2006, Vol. 17 Issue 3, p245-258, 14p; Language: Spanish; (AN 24737241)
PDF Full Text (842KB)
¿Hasta dónde va la confianza? (Spanish)Preview / Where is trust heading? (English) Revista CIDOB d'Afers Internacionals, may/jun2003 Issue 61/62, p31-35, 5p; Language: Spanish; (AN 25504209)
PDF Full Text (498KB)
FACTORES DEL TEST PURPOSE IN LIFE Y RELIGIOSIDAD. (Spanish)Preview / FACTORS OF THE "PURPOSE IN LIFE" AND "RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES QUESTIONNAIRE" TESTS. (English) By: Gallego-Pérez, José Francisco; García-Alandete, Joaquín; Pérez-Delgado, Esteban. Universitas Psychologica, may-ago2007, Vol. 6 Issue 2, p213-229, 17p; Language: Spanish; (AN 31217486)
PDF Full Text (1.2MB)
ESPIRITUALIDAD Y RELIGIOSIDAD EN ADULTOS MAYORES MEXICANOS. (Spanish)Preview By: Rivera-Ledesma, Armando; Montero, María. Salud Mental, dic2005, Vol. 28 Issue 6, p51-58, 8p; Language: Spanish; (AN 19688170)
PDF Full Text (120KB)
Espiritualidad hoy: una mirada histórica, antropológica y bíblica. (Spanish)Preview / SPIRITUALITY TODAY: A HISTORICAL, ANTHROPOLOGICAL AND BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE. (English) / A ESPIRITUALIDADE HOJE: UNA OLHADA HISTÓRICA, ANTROPOLÓGICA E BÍBLICA. (Portuguese) By: CÁCERES, A. ALIRIO; HOYOS, C. ADRIANA; NAVARRO, S. ROSANA; SIERRA, G. ÁNGELA MARÍA. Theologica Xaveriana, 2008, Vol. 58 Issue 166, p381-382, 2p; Language: Spanish; (AN 35888735)
El vínculo conyugal como relación familiar. (Spanish)
Revista de Derecho, 1996 Issue 6, p38-47, 10p; Language: Spanish; (AN 26305681)
PDF Full Text (557KB). [See GKB record # 202927]
Here's a librarian's question if ever there was one! From L'Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Sciences de l'Information et des Bibliothèques
Q: Temps moyen consacrè pour rèpondre è une question en bibliothèque [What's the average time it takes to answer a question in a library?]
A: De manière générale, le temps passé varie selon la nature de la demande et le contexte.
1. Délai moyen de réponse des services de renseignement virtuel
Il n'existe à notre connaissance pas de statistiques sur le temps moyen de réponse de ces services, bien que ce facteur soit régulièrement évoqué comme un des principaux critères de qualité de ces services.
En France, les bibliothécaires répondent généralement dans un délai de 3 jours ouvrables (cf. Charte du Si@de : http://www.bnf.fr/fr/collections_et_services/poser_une_ques
tion_a_bibliothecaire/s.charte_siade.html). Les délais peuvent être plus courts pour des services spécialisés. Certains services proposent un délai plus long si la question demande un travail approfondi.
En ce qui concerne le temps passé pour répondre à des questions reçues dans le cadre de services de références virtuels, nous pouvons vous donner la moyenne pour notre service : elle est actuellement d'une heure trente (certaines questions demandent plus de temps, mais de nombreuses questions sont traitées en moins d'une heure). Le temps passé a diminué depuis l'ouverture du service (formation des répondeurs, mise en place de méthodes, thésaurisation des précédentes réponse dans notre base de connaissance). Les services fixent parfois un délai à ne pas dépasser, d'une ou deux heures, et peuvent proposer une facturation pour les recherches qui demanderaient plus de temps, sur le modèle de ce que pratiquent certains services de documentation.
Pour aller plus loin, nous vous renvoyons aux ouvrages sur les services de référence virtuels, que vous pourrez identifier dans notre catalogue via le mot sujet "Services de référence virtuels".
En français, les ouvrages de référence sur le sujet sont les suivants :
- Mettre en oeuvre un service de questions-réponses en ligne / sous la direction de Claire NGUYEN. Villeurbanne : ENSSIB, 2010.
Le chapitre sur l'évaluation des services de questions-réponses en ligne indique que la durée moyenne de traitement d'une question est un élément important à prendre en compte et parle de rapidité lorsque 100 % des réponses parviennent dans un laps de temps de 1 ou 2 jours ouvrés.
- Les services de référence du présentiel au virtuel / ACCART, Jean-Philippe. Paris : Ed. du Cercle de la Librairie, 2008
La littérature anglo-saxonne sur le sujet est plus importante :
- la RUSA (Reference & User Services Association) propose de nombreuses ressources en anglais sur les services de référence (présentiels comme virtuels), que nous vous laissons le soin d'explorer : http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/rusa/resources/index.cfm
- le SIGIR (Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval) propose également des ressource intéressantes : http://www.sigir.org/
- il existe de nombreux articles sur le sujet dans les revues spécialisées (Reference & User Services Quarterly, Reference Librarian, Library & Information Science;, etc. ). Si vous y avez accès, vous pourrez les explorer via la base de dépouillement de revues spécialisées Lista (Library and Information Science Abstracts). Exemple d'article identifié via Lista :
Is This Urgent ? Exploring Time-Sensitive Information Needs in Collaborative Question Answering. Liu, Yandong. Narasimhan, Nitya Vasudevan, Agichtein. SIGIR Forum; 2009 Proceedings, p.712-713, 2p, 4 Charts [For the complete answer, search for the keywords temps moyen consacrè in the GKB search box on this blog page.]
Recent Comments