[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-598769-105":59,"doc-detail-598769-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","time-for-a-paradigm-shift-volume-7-issue-2-article","Time for a Paradigm Shift - Volume 7 - Issue 2 - Article","","Academic librarians should broaden how they define authoritative information and be willing to contest entrenched assumptions. The article argues that clinging to traditional symbols of authority risks professional obsolescence as digital platforms change how information is created, shared, analyzed, and validated. It reviews the original ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards, critiques limitations in relying on curated resources, and supports revised ACRL standards that address evolving scholarly communication and the open web.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/time-for-a-paradigm-shift-volume-7-issue-2-article/598769/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/time-for-a-paradigm-shift-volume-7-issue-2-article/598769.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"awa","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-05","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does the article say about authoritative information resources?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It argues librarians should expand what counts as authoritative and challenge long-established wisdom, rather than treating traditional references as inherently superior.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why does the article claim librarians face professional obsolescence?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It warns that if librarians keep clinging to outdated symbols of authoritativeness, they risk becoming obsolete as information ecosystems shift.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does the author critique the original ACRL standards?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The article notes that the original standards were cautious about searching the open web, but it argues this overlooks weaknesses in peer review and recognizes that new sources like Wikipedia and social platforms can also be evaluated critically.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},598769,1792160609,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},3985747858093,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","Volume 7, Issue 2, 2013  \nREFLECTING ON THE STANDARDS [ARTICLE]  \nTIME FOR A PARADIGM SHIFT  \nThe new ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education  \nMarcus Banks  \nSamuel Merritt University  \nABSTRACT  \nAcademic librarians should expand our understanding of what counts as an authoritative resource, and be unafraid to challenge long-established wisdom in this domain. Wikipedia is far from perfect, but neither is the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia is updated daily, while the Britannica is no longer printed. If we cling to the Britannica as a symbol of authoritativeness, we will become obsolete ourselves.  \nOne way to prevent this fate is to reframe our collective thinking. In 2014 the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) will issue a revised version of the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. The task force shepherding this revision (ACRL, 2012) argues that the standards “should not be reapproved as they exist but should be extensively revised”(pg. 1) . This is because the Internet has profoundly altered the ways in which we create, share, analyze and validate information. To be credible, the new ACRL standards must take full account of this change.  \nBanks, Time for a Paradigm Shift Communications in Information Literacy 7(2), 2013  \nINTRODUCTION  \nIn order to prevent professional obsolescence, librarians must reframe their collective thinking on information literacy. In 2014 the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) will issue a revised version of the Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. The task force shepherding this revision (ACRL, 2012) argues that the standards “should not be reapproved as they exist but should be extensively revised”(p. 1) . As we librarians know, this is because the Internet has profoundly altered the ways in which people create, share, analyze, and validate information. To be credible, the new ACRL standards must take full account of these changes.  \nThere are positive signs that the new standards will meet this test. Strikingly, the task force makes this claim (ACRL, 2012):“With changes in scholarly communication and the evolving digital landscape, we recognize the need to break down the hierarchical structures for disseminating information and level the information playing field”(p. 5) . This is a revolutionary statement for academic librarians. Most of the tools we have developed and the training we offer are in service of hierarchical structures for disseminating information. This is the core of our profession, using perspectives and techniques that have been honed over centuries. Going against this grain is a profound, courageous, and necessary step.  \nCRITIQUE OF THE ORIGINAL ACRL STANDARDS  \nThe original standards appeared in early 2000. Given that publication date, those standards are understandably cautious about  \nsearching the open web. Google was an infant, Wikipedia did not yet exist, and Twitter was a distant development. ACRL’s standards refer students to librarian-created tools such as controlled vocabularies and subject-specific databases (ACRL, 2000) . Those tools direct users to vetted materials such as articles in scholarly journals or a chapters in academic books. Traditionally these tools did not search the open web. Indeed, the standards look warily upon resources that are not formally curated (ACRL, 2000): “Information is available through libraries, community resources, special interest organizations, media, and the Internet--and increasingly, information comes to individuals in unfiltered formats, raising questions about its authenticity, validity, and reliability” [italics mine] .  \nGiven the ubiquity of false information on the open web, the caution contained in the ACRL standard quoted above is reasonable. As we know some of the false information is simple error; some reflects prejudice; and some stems from a malicious intent to deceive. Any web user needs skills ","cbCaie3TGxRvg9Kx","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaie3TGxRvg9Kx","pdf",395020,"English","# Reflecting on the Standards\n## Introduction\n## Critique of the Original ACRL Standards\n## Assessing the New Standards","[{\"question\":\"What does the article say about authoritative information resources?\",\"answer\":\"It argues librarians should expand what counts as authoritative and challenge long-established wisdom, rather than treating traditional references as inherently superior.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the article claim librarians face professional obsolescence?\",\"answer\":\"It warns that if librarians keep clinging to outdated symbols of authoritativeness, they risk becoming obsolete as information ecosystems shift.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the author critique the original ACRL standards?\",\"answer\":\"The article notes that the original standards were cautious about searching the open web, but it argues this overlooks weaknesses in peer review and recognizes that new sources like Wikipedia and social platforms can also be evaluated critically.\"}]","Time for a Paradigm Shift - Volume 7 - Issue 2 - Article | PDF",1792087566,13]