Video game authorship for Libraries

 Smith, Eric

Cho, H., Hubbles, C. and Moulaison-Sandy, H. (2022), "Individuals responsible for video games: an exploration of cataloging practice, user need and authorship theory", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 1420-1436. http://search.proquest.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/scholarly-journals/individuals-responsible-video-games-exploration/docview/2720241279/se-2?accountid=10361

    For my 5th assignment, I chose to look at research articles regarding video games in the library. I began to explore both how they are used in programs and how they are used in the collection. However, since this is a class about collection development, I wanted to focus on that topic first and foremost. Through my research on the subject I came across an interesting article about video games and collections that I wanted to share with the class. The topic of the article is about authorship theory in regards to video games. As an avid video game play, I can attest to the normal ways we categorize video games. Titles are the most common way to organize video games, but we also use the date of release as well as the genre. In most cases, the company that published the game is one of the most well know aspects of how to categorize a video game. Sonic is made by Sega, Street fighter is made by Capcom, Mario by Nintendo, etc. This is a very unique aspect of video games that has just been accepted for the past several decades of video games' existence. This article begins by questioning this practice and seeks to define what a creator would be for video games. This is particularly challenging due to the fact that most video games area created by a large collection of people. 

    In the context of libraries, the metadata involving the authorship of an item is very important for classification. Currently, most libraries use the established method of authorship, crediting companies. Even Worldcat uses this standard. While it make sense from the perspective of the company commissioning a work, it is still important to note the actual humans that worked on the piece of media. One argument has been to classify video games just as one would classify a movie. However, this issue with this stems from the lack of uniformity of jobs in the video game space. For a game like Devil May Cry, you might include in the metadata the "combat lead" because that person was important to the game. But if you play a puzzle game without any combat, whose name do you put in the "combat lead" category. This is why I find this article to be so interesting, to deals with this conundrum, how it's been tackled in the past and suggestions for the future. 

    To begin, the article defines authors and auteurs. Authors are those directly responsible for a work. With books, and even some specific indie games, this is very clear and obvious. Auteurship starts to come into play when more people work on a piece of media. An auteur is defined as a single person who's decisions shaped the work. With a lot of movies, the director is credited as being the auteur behind a film. This phenomenon is already present in the video games industry. Auteurs such as Shigero Miyamoto (Mario) and Hideo Kojima (Metal Gear) as examples of this. As useful as this method of authorship is, it also does still discount all of the other creatives that worked on the same games. 

    Ultimately, a user should be able to find, identify, select, obtain, and explore the video games they are looking for at the library. The authors of the article gave some suggestions to ensure that they are able to do this, regardless of the complexities of cataloging a video game. For one, further research should be developed to understand the commonalities between video production studios and what jobs commonly appear. Developing a controlled vocabulary for this would be helpful. Additionally, there should be a focus on looking at user generated data for video games and seeing how they do it. Wikipedia currently has a system that identifies programmers, artists, directors, composers, etc.  The website, Mobygames.com acts as a sort of IMDB for video games and has an abundance of standard parameters that they use.

I find this to be a very interesting conundrum. I'm a massive fan of the medium and I love to see further acceptance of it. From day 1 I've been an advocate for adding them to the collection and I'm happy to see more research and discussion surrounding it. 

A SWOT Analysis Approach to AI in Libraries

 

Petro, Corinne

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. (n.d.). Developing a Library Strategic Response to Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.ifla.org/g/ai/developing-a-library-strategic-response-to-artificial-intelligence/

Summary:

This is a working document created by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions to create a strategic response to artificial intelligence (AI). First, the authors provide multiple definitions of AI, and discuss some of the ethical concerns that have arisen with the introduction of AI into the workforce. Then, the authors move to discussing how AI has impacted libraries in ways that are both “wide and deep.” There are various ways in which AI is currently used in libraries such as improving accessibility to library collections, aiding in metadata creation, supporting data scientist communities, translation, and text generation. Looking towards the future, AI’s predictive capabilities may be able to help libraries better understand user behavior and inform decision-making processes.To meet these changes, the authors stress that AI literacy is integral for both staff and patrons. In addition, libraries must think and act strategically within the context of AI’s impact on libraries by positioning themselves within institutional, sectoral, and national priorities and/or policies. The authors identify three categories of AI policies that are popular in different areas of the world: development, control, and promotion. Where a library is located will impact how it can develop and use AI. Then, the authors create a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) for AI in libraries. One of the strengths they found is that libraries are trusted sources that have values like access to knowledge and privacy protection. These values could counteract some of the challenges that come with AI. One of the weaknesses is that commercial AI products can be costly and many libraries have limited budgets and limited technical capacities. One of the opportunities is that AI automates routine tasks and aids in professional tasks. Lastly, one of the threats is that there is a lot of fear surrounding AI, both in the public and in libraries. The authors move on to name ten institutional approaches to AI in libraries. These approaches involve hiring new staff that are already familiar with AI, upskilling current staff to be competent in AI, engaging with the library’s user base to see how they are using AI, studying best practices, etc. The authors state that some of these institutional approaches may be combined. They also list the pros and cons for each institutional response. Lastly, the authors outline what they believe to be the three most important strategies for libraries today. The first is using library AI capabilities to model responsible and explainable applications of descriptive AI. This includes using descriptive AI to improve the description and retrieval of library collections, ensuring usability and explainability of AI tools used in a library, documenting AI related projects thoroughly and openly. Some challenges with this include prioritizing collections, solving conceptual issues, and establishing sustainable services. The second strategy is using librarians’ data competencies to enhance organizational AI capability. This strategy includes using librarians’ data expertise to support data scientists and future AI applications. Activities include finding data sources, promoting data sharing and standards, and ensuring data quality and compliance. The third strategy is promoting AI literacy to enhance organizational and societal AI capabilities. This strategy includes libraries taking the lead in promoting AI literacy, especially in educational and public settings. Challenges with this strategy include librarians needing to understand the complexity of AI, including algorithmic literacy. Librarians will also have to grapple with the opacity of AI in infrastructure, especially Big Tech.

Opinion:

I found this article to be helpful in understanding what librarians can do now to facilitate the integration of AI into libraries. There are many articles on this topic that theorize a lot and do not offer much in the way of solutions beyond general advice. Although AI integration into libraries is still very new, the authors of this piece provide multiple strategies that librarians can use depending on their area’s relationship with AI. I liked that the authors used a SWOT analysis to break down this issue. Overall, I like how this article offered multiple approaches to a complex problem. Each approach was unique which allows for librarians to assess their current position in the AI landscape, and adopt whichever approach works best for them.