Are we there yet????

As I read through the evolution of library technologies in the Neal-Schuman Library Technology Companion (Burke, 2013), I kept thinking how ironic that I have lived through the development of most of these technologies; from mainstream use of PCs in libraries to the “Techno-Savvy Populace” demanding resources that are available when and where they need or want it.  So I was asked to write about what I learned in this module, not much, because I’ve lived it (minus the printing press and development of MARC).  However, the reading did get me to thinking, where are heading?

Sometimes, I feel like the child in the back seat of the car (as I’m sure many of us have) asking over and over, “Are we there yet?” We have so much available to us, so many ways we can deliver services to our patrons, but are we just driving around, or is there destination and a specific route to get there?  Can we keep pace with the evolution of our patrons and the technology they use to access information?

I found the following infographic that illustrates the libraries of today and the possibilities for libraries and librarians of the future, I find this to be fairly accurate as we are beginning to see these changes and challenges occurring in the here and now.  Libraries are a patron driven entity that is evolving and changing everyday, the best way we can serve patrons is to be flexible and adaptive and yet be able to walk that tightrope between trending and traditional.  Today more than ever the community is looking to libraries to provide access to the world beyond their immediate surroundings whether through technology or tangible items.

I have come to the conclusion that libraries will never, “be there yet” and if they find themselves in the position of arriving, then they are probably already dead in the water.  I think the best route for serving our patrons through any means of technology means that we need to let the patrons do the driving, let them steer libraries toward what meets their information needs in the format with which they feel comfortable, and more often than not, that will include some sort of electronic technology.  I don’t think that we have seen the death of paper information, yet, but I have noticed that people seem to be developing deep attachments to their electronic devices, the infographic below illustrates 46% of US adults own smartphones and 88% use their phone to access the internet, 51% for information they need right away; just think about how many people you know personally that you never see without their smartphone.  It has become part of them, a close friend to them; they have formed an attachment to that device that could rival any bond between humans.

The role that libraries will play in this scenario or driving is that of passenger / navigator, we’ll ride shotgun; not a passive traveler, but an active participant assisting in the plotting the course with the least amount of detours and toll booths.  I’ve heard libraries asking when will all libraries be paperless; my answer, when their patrons are ready, libraries are a direct reflection of the community they serve and they cannot force a façade onto that community.

++ Click to Enlarge Image ++

Source:LibraryScienceList.com

Connecting the Dots

We were asked to look at the Wikipedia articles of several of the concepts we covered in this course and share our impressions and comments about them. The following is my expressed opinion and not necessarily endorsed by my school, place of employment or colleagues.

I conducted several searches using Wikipedia’s search form and was able to locate the majority of topics as asked. I noticed several things right off the bat. There is no real detailed description of Belkin’s Anomalous State of Knowledge (ASK) model, but this model is briefly mentioned in the Information Behaviour (yes, that’s how it’s spelled in Wikipedia) article which then references the biography article for Nicholas J. Belkin where ASK is mentioned in passing. The same goes for Dervin’s Sense Making model, which only mentioned her name but didn’t link to her biography until I fixed that. I wonder how long that link will stay because Brenda Dervin’s biography is flagged “The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guideline for biographies.” AND, “If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.” So far I’m feeling a little disappointed in the fact that Wikipedia contributors do not take an in depth interest in Information Science, seeing as they are producing information. Curious.

Sometimes the lack of tags can be confusing.

Another head scratcher was the biographies of Marcia J. Bates and David Weinberger. Both articles are tagged with a VIAF number, which on further investigation is defined as (by Wikipedia no less) “Virtual International Authority File…is a joint project of several national libraries and operated by the Online Computer Library Center”, yet, Bates’ biography is flagged “This biographical article relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful.” and Weinberger’s is not flagged. This further confuses me since Bates’ biography is based on 19 sources and Weinberger’s is based on nine.

So I’m not really seeing any consistency or basically any rhyme or reason to what the heck Wikipedia is doing…maybe I’m just dense. Is there some behind the scenes tagging or categorizing that I’m not aware of that would prompt the addition of flags or absence thereof? Or is it simply that Weinberger is a figure that is recognized in a more public arena than Bates that makes his article “authoritative”? Does Wikipedia even know why? I looked through the discussion page and quickly decided that it takes a VERY special person to be a serious contributor to this forum…don’t think I’ll be clicking on the “Talk” tab any time real soon.

Something else that struck me; Wikipedia does not use any visible “tagging”, there are links to cross referencing articles, links to supporting materials, even links to cities mentioned in articles; links upon links upon links, but no identifiable tags. In his book, Everything is miscellaneous, Weinberger discusses the importance of making connections [p. 212], how connections can lead to discovery of alternate forms of information. For instance if I were posting a digital resume where I could utilize tags I would probably include words like “energetic”, “innovative”, “leadership”, “decisive”, “analytical”, etc.; to draw potential employers to me by inciting their curiosity about these qualities I’ve chosen to highlight in the hopes that they will be interested enough to seek further information about the skills or experience that these words describe. Fundamentally, they would be making connections between what qualities they want in an employee and what details on my resume they might discover that match and complement those qualities, which in turn gives them more knowledge about the level of performance they could expect from me. So tagging, I think, is a rather important aspect of knowledge; this form of metadata that leads from discovery to discovery, giving meaning to the messiness of miscellany.

We could apply Shedroff’s Model of Understanding (which has no entry in Wikipedia, nor is there an entry for Nathan Shedroff), which illustrates how creators and consumers of information interact with each other along the journey to the ultimate goal of wisdom. Those that tag items are creating data that describes information and makes it understandable to the consumer, which in turn allows the consumer to apply this knowledge in their life as an experience, which eventually leads to wisdom. So if a potential employer is seeking an employee that is energetic and innovative, they would be led to my resume which would give a more in depth picture of what those terms actually mean, following the bread crumbs through the forest. Weinberger writes that “Understanding is metaknowledge”, knowledge about knowledge, when the pieces fall into place and all the dots are connected we are able to see the big picture.

Integrated Library Systems – better watch their back

Integrated Library Systems (ILS) is the best thing since sliced bread. They have provided a clean and efficient way to search for information within the parameters set up by the facilitating library. They provide bibliographic data and holdings information so that patrons can obtain information needed. Traditional ILS have replaced the card catalog because of ease of use and for years have been the preferred research tool since the late 1980’s. However, the ILS is in trouble, as reported by Walter Nelson.

Nelson argues that OPACs are too narrow and constrictive; built for books not for journals or articles, yet not sharing content beyond the specific boundaries established by the system administrators, making the system irrelevant to patrons and staff alike. Nelson states that over the next few years discovery and content management systems will displace traditional ILS, he warns the vendors that is where their competition lies.

These systems offer a wide variety of options that make them more dynamic than the traditional ILS; featuring XML import and export tools, MARC import, export and display tools, multiple authors for rich content, and full-text and faceted search. All of these features add up being the library’s entire web site making a one-stop shop, so to speak; flexible metadata for non-traditional content, open to searching externally, creating a dynamic environment for library patrons and other information seekers.

Fortunately, there are institutions that are anticipating this inevitable fact, search engine to accept user tags, links to other resources where items can be obtained, links to all the libraries that all own the item (as well as mileage showing how far that library is from the user’s current location), an image of the item and reader reviews, among other things. OCLC and other institutions that are implementing discovery layers and content management systems are ensuring the survival of their OPACs. As Nelson states in his presentation, ‘”Library” remains a viable organizing principal, with reference <and cataloging still in symbiotic relationship’, sustaining their value in the information community.

Free digital library – is it possible?

I don’t know whether it’s because Brewster Kahle is just a poor speaker and doesn’t really articulate his idea well, or that I’m just skeptical about how a completely free digital library would work or not.

Great idea, free digital library that contains every piece of printed material every published. Well, that’s just peachy, but anything free is never free, even the that buy one get one free infomercial promotions still require you to pay separate shipping and handling charges to receive the “free” item. Where will the funding come from for all this digitization? Grants? Private donors? Then this begs the question how will the funding continue after the grants and donors run out?

Kahle is talking some major money, I think that he’s putting the cart before the horse. His cart is really, really great, spectacular in fact, but where is he getting his horse and once he has the horse how is he going to take care of it? He’s talking about $100 computers as e-readers; where is the money going to come from to provide these $100 computers in countries where people can’t afford them or don’t even have electricity to charge them.

I’m trying not to be pessimistic, but I felt more like I was listening to the ramblings of the Nutty Professor. There are so many things working against Kahle’s cause I don’t know that it is actually feasible to beat the commercial world at their own game. I hope he does, but it will take years and the dedication of many.

The perfect mess

I’ve been told that organization is the key to success. I’ve been told that if I would just organize things better things would be easier. I’ve been told that if I would take the time to put things in order I could stay on top of everything. Well, I’ve always been hard-headed and a procrastinator and to top it off I have ADHD, so those thing really went in one ear and out the other. I also happen to believe that a mess is a sign of genius (that’s what I keep telling myself). Just because you can’t find anything in my office, doesn’t mean I can’t, I know exactly what that pile is, why I’ve stacked things there and what all the post-it notes pertain to. Okay, so it’s not a perfect system, sometimes I forget, but hey, who hasn’t.

Now the funny thing is, I really don’t have a system of organization for anything, except my kids, especially the twins. Jake and Emma are the biggest (and most wonderful) mess in my life and I’ve had organization down to a fine science for them, which concerned my mother to no end. Tacked up to my fridge (Command Central) were The Schedules; feeding schedules, bathing schedules, bowel movement schedules, doctor appointment schedules, sleep schedules, belly-time schedules; even a cleaning and laundry schedule and I enforced those schedules like a drill sergeant at boot camp. The Schedules were what made things go smoothly, it made life easier to integrate not just one, but two new babies into our household and helped me keep what little bit of sanity I had intact. Now that they are older the schedules no longer exist, things are more relaxed and they still run smoothly. Almost like implicit signs The Schedules have been so embedded into our lives we no longer have to have an explicit message explaining how things should run, it becomes automatic.

Just as disorganization usually works for me, Valdis Krebs found that de-organizing companies actually made them more productive. Krebs found that by studying the social cartography (map making) of companies by filling in the white space within their organizational charts he could identify the layer of real productivity. He analyzed who was sending e-mails to whom, who was the office sounding board, and the basic social dynamic of the office; then based on those results he reconstructed the physical layout of the office so that people could more effectively, efficiently and productively communicate to acquire better results and achieve greater productivity. As a student of information, I do find this technique fascinating that simply mapping the social structure of an office other ways of efficiency can be found; however, I’m not inclined to go any further than to maybe have Krebs’ organization do a study in my work place.

On some level Krebs is really identifying the prototypes (the good examples) of organization within the office, which can be related back to the research conducted by Eleanor Rosch [p. 183-p.189]. Rosch found that we relate objects to words on very basic levels; for example, we can relate robin to bird, but not so much ostrich or penguin. A robin seems to have more basic and therefore relatable traits to what is considered a bird than does an ostrich or penguin. Just like in the Environmental Scanning model discussed earlier in this course, we are able to pick up on subtle traits of the robin and relate them back to the idea of “bird”. We then base all our beliefs about birds on the prototype, “robin” and make decisions about what is a bird and what is not a bird based on that concept. I don’t believe that this theory has cultural boundaries in a sense that it only implies to one or two cultures, I think that it is applicable to each culture in its own distinct way; what is happening is basically people are taking external information and internally computing it to make sense of the world around us.

Just as in libraries we tend to make prototypes out of objects; EbscoHost Academic Search complete is a database, it has all the traits of a professional research database and we teach our patrons that this is a good standard to judge against other searching tools to determine if it is truly a research database, it makes ideas neat and orderly. Whereas, Bing is a search engine and brings the whole mess to your computer screen; you get blogs, advertisements, facts and opinions, the whole unadulterated mess. In my opinion one is not necessarily better than the other as sometimes you need order and sometimes you need chaos.

Speaking of chaos, let’s talk abstraction, in libraries we can view the different layers of abstraction as the slots that libraries are stuffed into. We try to define each library by their focus; academic, public, museum; but then we start to get messy with all the other libraries that are out there; medical, law, genealogy, or music; so we throw them all together into a category called “special” libraries. These layers give us a way to think about the information that is contained within these facilities and guide us to the source that best suits our information needs. However, most libraries are labeled one thing but contain aspects of many others; academic libraries can contain items about law, medicine, nursing, art, music, etc; which lends to the very messy business of organizing what is contained within the library.

I know it sounds like a lot of round and round (I’m a little dizzy myself), but overall this messiness lends to a very sophisticated way of discovering information for different types of users. It all depends on their information needs and expectations and how they define the prototype of “library” for themselves.

Wake up call – What rock have I been hiding under?

from Augmented Reality realmixed.blogspot.com

I use information every day (I mean literally every day), for work, for school, for my husband’s business, for the heck of it. Seven days a week I’m on the Internet for business or pleasure, I’m reading articles, books and newspapers, I watch PBS programming and listen to NPR (of course throw in a little mindless I Love Lucy and local rock stations for vegetating), and with my smartphone, I’m connected 24/7. This is something that I really take for granted and until I listened to the lecture on Access, Information Inequality and Different Ability, I had never really given any thought to the fact that there are places where information in any form (digital or physical) isn’t freely and readily available.

It was very disheartening to learn about countries where even children’s literature is a precious commodity; countries where crude information centers had been established with one telephone, one fax and five computers for people from numerous villages to utilize. What a shame that the governments of these countries are either too corrupt, or too poor, or just plain unwilling keep their citizens informed on local and global issues.

I find this appalling, but what I find even more grotesque is the fact that nations rich in information and access (i.e. the United States) has inequalities in information access to the extent that is isolates entire regions of the country. I live in an area designated as Appalachia (technically the Edge of Appalachia), where millions are under served in many capacities from education to healthcare to information access.

In 2011 the Tennessee Libraries conducted a discussion in regards to inequalities in access to high speed broadband connections in rural and suburban areas and how public libraries could play a more active role in advocating for their patrons to secure wider broadband access in all regions in Tennessee so that people could more fully participate in socially and economically in society. I provided a link so that you could peruse this document for yourself, but my point being that in 2011 in a state that is part of the United States of America is having a discussion on the lack of broadband access to a major population in their region is just repugnant. We’re not talking about getting these people on Facebook so they can play Farmville, we’re talking about getting these people connected so they can search for jobs, further their education, explore the world, see that there is something beyond the next hill.

Please don’t think that I’m stereotyping the people in Tennessee, because this is happening in Ohio, in my community. I’m very fortunate to be able to access and afford broadband connection at my home; however, I know many people who do not. In fact, the lack of broadband access was so deficient an initiative called ConnectOhio began in 2008 to provide training, offer more affordable connection options, and promote its use to help make Ohio competitive in the “connected global economy of the twenty first century” through programs such as Every Citizen Online, Connect Appalachia Broadband Initiative, and Digital Works.

Hopefully, by organizations working cooperatively, sufficient access to information will be available to all people all over the world. I know that I certainly will no longer fail to appreciate being able to pick up a newspaper, read a book, browse the Internet, or search a database again. I’m a lucky gal.

Hidden hotbed of invention

“The minds on the margin are not marginal minds.” This inspiration quote is from Anil Gupta’s TEDTalk India’s hidden hotbed of invention. Gupta talks of how poverty inspired people to innovate in unique and creative ways. He shared the genius that is available to solve problems that are hindered only by their lack of financial means. I found this to be very inspirational, I think it is a testament to humanity that Gupta and his organization are helping these people, not just from India, but around the world to bring their inventions and ingenuity into the light of the public eye.

Although, I have to say, I have witnessed this creative innovation first hand. I am the eldest of three children on a dairy farm. The ‘girls’ and tobacco was the family’s only source of income so I was raised with the philosophy of ‘use it up, wear it out or do without’; no not philosophy, that was life. My dad was a high school graduate, he was not a scholar by any means, he was pretty much your average student, but when it came to figuring out how much seed or pesticides per acre the man was a human calculator armed with only a dusty dashboard.

So when you are just above the poverty level, trying to make ends meet, trying to feed three little mouths and trying to build a living, you find creative solutions to problems, not because you want to; but because you have to. You look around at what you have, barter and trade for the rest and figure something out that won’t dip into the weekly grocery money.

Dad figured out how to build hydraulic tobacco presses and we were the first in the neighborhood to have them. He rigged up a dump bed from a wrecked dump truck to work off a tractor PTO, he built a tray to seed tobacco trays instead of doing it my hand, he even figured out a way to automate the feed troughs in the milk parlor so it would release a certain amount with the flip of a switch. Was all this technology available? Some yes, some he dreamed up, but all of it was to make his work more productive and in the long run more profitable.

I believe very strongly that necessity is the mother of invention, and I love that Gupta and his group recognize that just because you may lack finances, you don’t lack intellect.

Which came first the implicit or the explicit?

Implicit?

In libraries there are two types of information; implicit or that which is implied, and explicit, that which is expressed. We see this in the signage and displays (explicit); in the titles that are on the shelves or not and the overall information experience or lack thereof (implicit). Signage and displays shout loud and clear where things are, what image we are trying to render; the implicit context of a library can blatantly express biases and prejudices within the library by excluding certain topics and / or subjects in the information base.

Weinberger discusses how maps are designed for exclusive audiences, relating very specialized information for very specific identified segments of the population [p.158]. Libraries are really no different. The library where I am currently employed, we are very aware that our target audience is of an academic nature. We tend to stick very closely to the current curriculum offered in order to develop the collection and events (lecture series, performers, etc.) that are hosted in the library. We walk a fine line between attempting to grab our audience’s attention, fulfilling their information needs and catering to their needs academically. We work closely with instructors to develop extra-curricular activities that relate directly to what is being discussed or studied in the classroom in order to generate participation either by interest or extra credit (yep, not above playing that card).

I think that over the few weeks of this course, I have come to see how transparency, as mentioned in Kevin Kelly’s TEDTalk, is very important in sharing information. Although I love social media and connecting with people world-wide, I’ve never been that comfortable with sharing information I feel is personal. However, after reading Weinberger’s comments on his list of “hobbies and interests” on profile forms [Mapping the Implicit, p. 154], I found that what I’m not sharing is really more telling about me. I like Weinbeger kept my hobbies and interests very vague in order not to ruffle feathers and / or seem controversial. Which is funny because in real-life, I don’t seem to be able to filter anything that comes out of my mouth…if I have an opinion on it, you’re gonna know it. Online, I have tried to construct a very carefully conservative persona, but am I really giving clues to the uncensored, dissident that I am? (well, maybe not dissident, but even my old high school counselor still calls me the square peg trying to fit in a round hole, 20 years later)

I’d like to think that what I have contributed either implicitly or explicitly has played some part in helping someone out there find information. I like to think that I’ve had a part of participating in this infinite community that has been built on wires and computer chips. I will have to say I feel more comfortable about being more transparent in the online world as I now understand what kind of impact it can have on this new layer of society.

Create, Re-mix, Repeat

This TEDTalk by Larry Lessig, was interesting in the fact that he pointed out how the new creativity, social creativity, is bringing people together, mimicking the “good ol’ days” of sitting on the front porch socializing with family, friends and neighbors. Taking content that already exists and collaboratively or solely reorganizing that content into a new work. He points out that these works are of amateurs, but not amateurish, meaning that the creators prefer to offer this quality content free of charge for the love of creating, and not for the love of profit.

User generated content is taking the online world by storm, reflecting how the younger generation processes what’s going on in the worlds around them; either current events, humor, or just to say things differently. User generated content is not using new techniques, it’s just more widely available; give a kid a $1,000.00 computer and some inspiration, and they will produce the rest. These are not acts of piracy, they are acts of creativity.

Copyright laws, however, are trying to squelch this movement, and suppress user generated content by imposing regulations on how, when and where this content can be posted and how users can produce this content. Lessig’s mission is to overcome these hurdles, to nurture user generated content by developing the Creative Commons. Creative Commons allows for people to share content they have produced for others to use freely to produce their own content. This in turn is creating a new movement of togetherness both of the creators and the consumers. We are once again becoming an engaged world, instead of passively watching content that is produced by those who can tell us what is entertaining, we as consumers can choose what it entertaining and if we don’t find anything to our liking, then we have the choice to produce content of our own.

In this second TEDTalk, Re-examining the remix,

Lessig discusses what Democrats can learn about copyright law from the Republicans, particularly the conservative Republicans. My first impression about this video was “Wow, he lost a lot of weight in three years!”, secondly, I was surprised by his message. Normally you think of Democrats as the liberal, the open minded, however, Lessig points out that it is the Democrats that fervently support the copyright laws which would classify the re-mix culture as piracy. Lessig uses a video analysis by Julian Sanchez about Remix Culture.

Sanchez points out that these remixes serves as something that feels familiar and people can relate to them, resulting in a social creativity that changes the way in which we relate to each other. Sanchez makes the overall point of how copyright law is essentially dictating what level of control we sacrifice over our social realities. Lessig takes it a little further, “Freedom needs this opportunityto both have the commercial successof the great commercial worksand the opportunityto build this different kind of culture.And for that to happen, you needideas like fair use to be central and protected,to enable this kind of innovation,as this libertarian tells us,between these two creative cultures,a commercial and a sharing culture.” Lessig is trying to convey that we need to learn a culture of openness in creativity, through fair-use, a ‘some-rights-reserved’ rather than an ‘all-rights-reserved’ environment, which fosters expression while still respecting the rights of the creator.

I think that these are very important lessons that we as consumers and creators need to take very seriously. It is part of the transparency that we accept as members of the web community, or any community really. In order to be an active, contributing, productive member of any community one must be at least a little transparent, without transparency, there is no trust and without trust we have no community.

Visualizing Information

While I was listing to the lecture Visualizing Information, I kept thinking about a metaphorical search engine that I ran across while working on a project for another class. The search engine, YossarianLives!, is based on the concept that rather than sharing information everyone else knows you generate new knowledge based on algorithms generated by the search engine. The search engine returns pictures that are potentially metaphorically meaningful to the user who can then tag them and / or share them creating a whole new knowledge base.

So for instance if I search “information” I am returned a number of photos which in some way shape or form can be or could be or have been related to term “information”. I mark the photos that speak “information” to me thereby creating a whole new genus of information about information. This type of search engine caters to “people working at the edge of their field…looking to generate new ideas or see their problem or topic in a whole new light.” [YossarianLIves! About] It’s geared toward the creative, the stumped and the blocked.

Some of the images are very obvious…

…and some of them are not

But it is fascinating how the images I may not find useful in relation to information someone else might, and then there will be a totally different genus for information based on how that person saw “information”.

So swinging this around to libraries, I think we, as professionals, need to keep in mind that people will see and understand things differently. I think the best way to alleviate this issue is to incorporate the Library 2.0 tools that we have available allowing the user to tailor the library at least virtually to their needs, wants and tastes. By letting the patron design their own map we are actually gathering valuable insights to how people access, digest and use information. Which if we’re smart we’ll use to that data to figure out a way to reorganize the library for the patrons.

In the lecture one student pointed out that by specifying directions for one place isn’t it possible that the user is missing another; and I have to agree, by letting a handful of people decide what and how materials are organized we are running the risk of obscuring information that could be very valuable. I think in libraries we need to let the users take the steering wheel and make the maps, we have the technology, we just have to use it.