Thread by @kidsilkhaze

Between the (false) arguement that Marie Kondo wants us the throw out our books and the Salem library fight, let's talk about the importance of weeding and why it's a good thing.

First off, there's the obvious--in your library (home or institution), there is a finite amount of shelf space. New books come out all the time and you need a place to put them.

Also, books often get "loved" to death. No one wants to check out a gross book. Mold spreads and makes people sick. Missing pages are infuriating. We need to make sure the books on our shelf are actually read-able!

You can tape together a personal copy and be extra careful with it, but you can't do that in an institutional setting. Not all books deserve to go to the rare books room. If it's still a popular title, the library will buy a nice, new copy.

Books don't stay popular forever. Lots of people want to read the latest best seller, so libraries need lots of copies. Not as many people are interested in a bestseller from 10 years ago, so we don't need as many. Weeding some copies doesn't mean weeding all of them!

(I mean, you understand why your local bookstore has a stack of copies of John Grisham's latest, The Reckoning, but only a few of his 2008 release, The Appeal, right?)

Also, let's talk about weeding Nonfiction. Yes, Carl Sagan holds a beloved place in our hearts, but he also died 20+ years ago. Pluto was still a planet. Information changes as we learn new things and make new discoveries.

In a time when so much of the national conversation is about Fake News and actual facts, why do you want your library shelves filled with outdated information?

In 2005, I weeded a book that claimed Gorbachev was head of the Soviet Union. It was a great book when we bought it, but our patrons deserve to know that the Soviet Union broke up and Putin is now running the show in Russia.

In a local weeding scandal a few years ago, politicians were AGHAST that the library was throwing out travel guides to popular destinations like France. They didn't care the guides were 3 years old and the library had newer editions.

Travel Guides that are 3 years old are full of out-dated prices and recommendations for closed restaurants. If you've ever traveled using one, you've probably wanted to chuck it into the river and I can't blame you.

Collection Development policies aren't so-called. They're vital to library services. They help guide us when we make decisions about what to keep and what to buy. We spend entire classes on this in library grad school.

I'm not saying weeding doesn't hurt. Have I kept back a few books that weren't circing, with a personal promise to myself that I would try to hand-sell the heck out of them and find them new readers? OF COURSE.

Did it work? Sometimes. Sometimes I'd eventually have to sigh a great sigh, wax poetically and mournfully at my coworkers, and bite the bullet.

Libraries need to serve their users. We live in a world that is constantly changing. Our collections need to change with it. A static collection helps no one.

Ok, I know a lot of authors wish we still had that 1 outdated book they need for research but...

Where are is your average public library supposed to put aside a copy of out-of-date materials for one user who might one day need one title?

(PS-this is why specialized and academic libraries exist. Also, Inter-Library Loan)