Talk:Library and information science

message: This entry needs to be entirely rewritten, for several reasons.
First, the article lacks a neutral point of view.  The bulk of the entry is really little more than the author’s own personal critique of librarianship and library and information science programs.  It is simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Second, it does not adequately describe the topic.  There is no treatment of the history of library science or librarianship, nor an adequate explanation of the evolution of the discipline and its programs into modern-day Library and Information Science.
Compare this article with that of the same topic published in the Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, and you will see a marked difference in both coverage and tone.
Third, the list of links to Library and Information Science schools and other randomly chosen web sites is not selective, useful, or well organized.  It should simply be deleted, or replaced with a select list of three or four links.
Now, I personally agree with several of the points raised by the author.  Nevertheless, these are our opinions; opinions that are not shared by all.
I'm removing the following sentence for the reasons below.
:"Information" and "documentation" means non-book materials that university libraries deal with, such as magazines, scientific journals, technical reports, and access to online databases.
Why define "documentation" which is not mentioned elsewhere in the article? The definition given is not a good definition of either "information" or "documentation". Non-book materials are dealt with by practically all types of libraries, not just academic libraries. Nurg 03:46, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is NPOV still disputed? It has been over a year since the related talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody seems to disagree that the npov should be gained, so I'm going to rewrite the article.  I hope I can find citations to back up the original poster's assertions, since I'd rather not just delete them or replace them with weasel words.  I'll be doing the rewrite tonight; kibbitzing is welcome.  Deborah-jl 01:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had a tough time finding any sources to backup the non-npov statements, but I supported what I could and rewrote as best I could without using weasel words.  There's plenty to fill in in the article structure as I've left it, and I am going to try to get some of that now. Deborah-jl 03:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: if there are no neutral sources, and the only sources are non-neutral, then it seems to me that this article should be deleted or merged. --Buridan 14:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Buridan,  no sources are free from bias. It is the job of the editor to make use of multiple sources to produce a balanced article. For this subject, there are different ways it is written about and studied, and anyone paying attention to their origin and use can describe them, and document them. Where there is no consensus is in the way it ought to be studied, and these different views need to be given. Fortunately, most of the real problems belong in an article on education for librarianship, although I do not think it exists yet. DGG 03:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: This page has a very high ratio of external links to actual information on it, it is more of a links page than an information page; particularly as some of the external links are not in the smallish external links section. Given that WikiPedia is aiming to be an information source not a proxy for the internet couldn't we do the directs for the first list to the WikiPedia page on each institution and then only do the external link from there? 
Please bear in mind that a school child who has persuaded his IT teacher to give him access to WIkiPedia isn't going to be allowed to follow external links off wikipedia.org
(talk)--BozMo 20:37, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: nobody has disagreed, so I'm going to move the external links to library science programs to a page of library science programs linking to the schools' wiki pages, ala List_of_current_and_historical_women's_universities_and_colleges. Deborah-jl 01:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I've created two stub pages with wiki links extracted from this page, one for graduate programs in LIS, and one for associations.  Both need extensive organization and fleshing out.  I removed the URLs from those lists, because external URLs should be in the Wikipedia pages, not the lists.  I left alone the somewhat odd list of external links, because there's too much other work to do. Deborah-jl 03:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: What conclusions, Karen? Deborah-jl Talk 00:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Consider merging the following categories: :Category:Style guides, :Category:Bibliography and :Category:Reference and making them a subcategory of :Category:Library and information science. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: The work I've been doing lately is very U.S.-centric, because it's what I know.  non-United States input would be greatly appreciated.
Deborah-jl 20:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  U. S. Centric 

message: First sentence refers to "the information fields". What are these?
3rd para says "LIS is distinct from librarianship" but much of the rest of the article is about "Types of librarianship". Should librarianship be moved to the librarian article, or a new article made for librarianship or should this article be expanded to include both LIS and librarianship? Nurg 04:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for clarification

message: Is there a link I missed that takes one to a discussion of the theoretical foundations of the field?  I mostly see a discussion of librarianship (which is fine on its own), but perhaps this could use a bit of discussion about the various "paradigms" (if I may use that loaded word) such as the focus on systems, the cognitive focus on the individual, and the more social constructionist and/or domain analytic views?  Would they be more appropriate for other articles?  I just feel that "Library and Information Science" could use more discussion of "Information Science" as well.  I'd write it myself given more time (and if I trusted myself to write something worthy, which I don't right now since I'm only a lowly MLIS student), but in any case, some theory is nice.  I looked on some of the linked pages that I thought might include some of that, but had no luck.  So maybe this is a good place to discuss some of the theorists and models.  If it belongs elsewhere (and I'm sure some of it already exists elsewhere), let me know.  Thanks! Disarm10 08:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of the theory/development of the field? 

message: The term "library science" was coined by Lee Pierce Butler and was first seen in the title of his 1933 book, An introduction to library science (University of Chicago Press).
However, S.R. Ranganathan's The Five Laws of Library Science, was published in 1931.  Is this not a prior use of the term? Schabot 19:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Butler joined the faculty of the GLS in '31... so I guess they were contemporaneous.  Thank you for this info.  I will edit the page accordingly. Rlitwin 20:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Library Science" 

message: I think the assertions in the "distinction" paragraph are confused, 
LIS does means "Library and Inforation science", but the two parts are 
"library science," also known as "librarianship"
and "information science," which is indeed not the same as informatics, but it's related.
There is no distinction between "library science" and "librarianship" --they are synonyms.-- " Library science"  is just a fancier name. 
It is not correct that "librarianship" is the practice, and "lib sci" the theory or the research. 
The name of the degree or the name of the school is accidental, or more correctly faddish. 
There are--alas--some librarians who know no inf sci and do not want to, and there are many inf sci peope who disdain librarians.
The trend recently has been to emphasize the inf sci part, and some LIS schools have renamed to try to make it look that they're
not teaching librarians, who they see as as relatively low class people compared to the ones who know calculus and probability and can actually read JASIST. 
Despite the satire, I think I have a NPOV in this, as I do have a degree in math, can read one-half of JASIST,  have worked in a library 20 yrs or more, and have recently been on the faculty at LIU, teaching the traditional library courses. 
The last few years, some of the LIS schools have been informally calling themselves "I-schools" indicating a research emphasis in inf sci., and sometimes a teaching emphasis., but thats another matter. Pages on LIS education too, is another matter. Pages on hist of librarianship (and hist of inf sci]) are also another matter, Once we get this p. rational, then we can work on them.   I'd put them all on sep pages, biut it doesnt matter as long as they do our professon credit. 
All the above can be doc, from internet and LIS sites, and textbooks. And I think the inf sci and the lib sci pts can be balanced. ditto on practice and research. 
I dont want to throw out the existing part  without some sort of consensusDGG 04:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more clarification

message: Reducing a paragraph to one sentence is not a minor edit. DGG 06:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: last edit

message: Are there any references that distinguish the two. I've used and taught them as synonyms, but then I do like theory.  DGG 08:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have seen no references whatsoever that make the distinction betweeen theory and practice suggested in this article, I have marked that section "fact?", and added a line saying that there may be no distinction, also marked "fact?"  I shall add a few references here as they occur, and invite those who think the terms are used with the proposed difference in meaning betweeen theory and practice to do likewise. DGG 00:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: librarianship

message: As mentioned in September, this main artice on, Library and information science talks only about library science. It even distinguishes that article from the actual articles on information science:
 "Not to be confused with Information science."
This is not logical. It's like saying "This article is about apples and pears. Apples is treated below. For  pears, see the article on Pears."
*To the best of my knowledge the usage of the phrase "Library and Information Science is only in the following contexts:
#as the name for a school (or college or department). This  represents an effort to try to escape the stigma of "libraries". Many such schools do have programs in information science as well as library science, but not all of them do.
#as the name of a degree "MLIS". Here again its the attempt to avoid the same stigma, and pretend that the graduates actually do know something about information science, which can of course sometimes be the case. More neutrally, it can simply be regarded as elegant variation
#in the titles of textbooks (or of a few journals). Again, this is simply variation. 
So I suppose its ok with everyone to change the necessary existing articles to represent the stated content, beginning with thepresent  LIS page.  As a  *But with any encourgement at all, could start separating out the library topics, and change the  page name. :) DGG 05:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this has been discussed before and it gets quite complex. We are not only dealing with U.S. meanings of the words but also British. Right now Library and information science is just a redirect to here Library science. I think that is the best way to go considering the usages you mentioned above, lib schools etc. Information science and Informatics are different fields and have their own pages, though there is a whole different debate on the overlap between those two, which also falls into regional usages of the words. I am not sure I completely understand your name change proposals, but to me it seems ok as it is. Maybe you can elaborate. Nowimnthing 16:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good ,  I didn't spot it, as I was working from memory--about which I feel a little embarrased. Thanks, now I can go on to further improvements without worrying about this. .DGG 17:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe it would be more effective if the article stated that some degrees for new librarians are now LIS degrees, combining studies in library science with studies in information science.  Library science and information science are two different but related fields.  A degree in LIS combines either the coursework of both, or it maintains the LS coursework with a different teaching perspective, with some professors, perhaps, specializing in IS rather than LS.  Perhaps some schools just change the name to make it sound more elegant as someone else suggested, but for many librarians with LIS degrees, the distinction is real.  -mtf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.4.131 (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: name of topic

message: according to the general discussion on this & ohter LIS pages, as I see it--I have no illusion that what I did is the least definitive, but it seemed logical as a  start, & I'm sure others will improve on it.DGG 00:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rearranged headings

message: right now, there's a note on the top of this article: not to be confused with informatics and not to be confused with information science. First off, this is non-standard wording (generally this sort of confusion is clarified in the text itself, with disambigs being used for terms that have the exact same name) and second, "library and information science" redirects here, so, uh... --phoebe 06:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and yes, I see now that this was discussed two lines up. Guess I should learn to read! but this is still non-standard wording, and the kind of thing that should be discussed in the text itself. --phoebe 07:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation issues?  

message: Please see the recent discussion at WP:CFD, for Jan. 20, item 1.9 Category:Library and Information Science, which is about to be changed into Category:Library Science--a very good move. in my opinion, for reasons I've given there. 
Is this merge of the history section compatible--personally I think it overbalances the article here.DGG 04:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is fine.   --Buridan 12:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent merge

message: * Do librarians confuse electric and elecronic books? True librarians would classify whatever need be classified. Meanwhile, why are they so desperate not to separate information science from librarianship? Surely, they are free to abstract anything from anything, hence, LIS from librarianship plus information science. However, such might be ridiculously called a greedy reductionism. Such things as abstraction and implication are boundless indeed. Greedy librarians simply appear wise or foolish enough to know that! But are they truly wise or foolish? --gybag 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specialty if not paradigm  

message: Hi there, I'd like to suggest a new article on the full history of information handling/management/techonology (details). I'm not knowledgeable enough to do it myself, but contributors here probably are. Thanks, JackyR | Talk 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article request 

message: The first occurrence of the word is original research. You can find occurrences of it even before 1900 . Also see Google Ngram Viewer. —Ruud 19:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First occurrence of "library science" 

message: Someone has started a new article, "Library and information science". I am not qualified to comment on the article's content, but it does worry me that the article at its current name has replaced what was formerly a redirect to this article. So now there are several dozen incoming links to this new and unreviewed article by a single author. Could people with knowledge in this area please take a look at the new article and edit/comment there, and if necessary correct the incoming links to point to this article should that be more appropriate. Thanks.  — Scott • talk 05:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Library and information science" 

message: This section seems vague, and as if it is not certain what should be discussed exactly, whether it is the history of the buildings of libraries themselves, or publications on library science, etc. I've added a section on 17th century history because it seems to jump too much from ancient to 19th century, and am considering adding a note about the first instance of teaching library science at a Canadian instituation. I'd appreciate if anyone could help to edit this section to make it flow more smoothly and to find a theme of sorts. Daso88 (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of library science? 

message: Editors may wish to know that there is a requested move debate happening at Talk:Gray literature which could do with some input from anyone (but especially Americans) who has some familiarity with the topic. GrindtXX (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: In Canada and perhaps in other countries, the field of LIS can also refer to "library and information studies." Many LIS-related programs and degrees offered in Canada reflect this terminology. There isn't much in other entries about this. As well, the entry for "information studies" appears to have been redirected to "Information science." Perhaps someone can add more about the varying terminology or clarify the relationships. I have added one  reference to the use of the term "information studies" in Canada which lists programs in information studies but this could/should be replaced with a higher-quality reference if anyone can find a better one. 98.143.212.198 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information studies 

message: Editors may wish to know that there is a requested move debate happening at Talk:Gray literature which could do with some input from anyone (but especially Americans) who has some familiarity with the topic. GrindtXX (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Can we please decide on the citation format to be used in this article? There are two types being used and consistency needs to be taken into consideration. Cyberathenaeum (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Inquiry 

message: The article about Library science already mentions "library and information" (science/studies) 27 times (15 in the body of the article and 12 times in the list of references); also for consistency with other Wikipedia articles, such as the Glossary of library and information science. fgnievinski (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge - LIS has a lot of overlap and talking about them in two articles creates duplication of effort, etc. Jamzze (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Merge - as I noted eleven years ago, this article was created (by , now blocked) as an apparent POV fork of Library science. It's clear that they should be merged, but some work will be required to resolve the areas of overlapping content. "Library science" also needs to be whittled down and globalized. I just extracted a large section to Diversity in librarianship, but it's all about the US. Perhaps there should be a Librarianship in the United States. Also, a decision needs to be made whether the title of this article or the other one is appropriate for the merged product.  — Scott • talk 20:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Merge - The two concepts are identical and do not for any reason need there own separate articles. aaronneallucas (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Merge - I believe Library and Information Science would be the more appropriate and inclusive name for the article. Joyous! | Talk 05:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Merge - While library science was once separate, it is no longer. I think it is worth noting how the name changed to library and information science, but otherwise, a merger would be fie, although some work will be needed to resolve overlap as Scott notes. Personally, I think "Library and information science" should be the title of the article, rather than "Library science".Historyday01 (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Klbrain (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you . As "Library science" had history going all the way back to 2001 (and was also originally titled "Library and information science", if you can believe it), and the new article was created much later, I've performed a title swap, and changed the merge direction.  — Scott • talk 11:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

text: The separate Wikidata items for "library science" and "library and information science" suggest the articles should not be merged. It helps clarity to maintain ontological precision in separation of subjects in Wikipedia articles. The authoritative sources to which the Wikidata items trace further suggest the articles should not have been merged. In case of doubt, one of the two Wikipedia articles could provide a short scoping description and then direct the reader to the other article. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Library science]] into [[Library and information science]]