[Web4lib] mass digitization symposium

[Eric Lease Morgan]

On Mar 21, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

>>  http://infomotions.com/musings/mass-digitization/
>
> Collective intelligence and user-driven value-added stuff is great,  
> but it's only great the way the so-called "free market" is  
> great ... but Google's measure of success is popularity; a  
> library's measure of success is how well it serves its community,  
> even those people who might not be able to contribute greatly to  
> the collective intelligence.... The real challenge, I think, is how  
> you can bring along the folks who aren't going to be blogging and  
> posting and social-bookmarking, and find a way for them to benefit  
> from the work of others. I'm not sure how we do this, but it has  
> something to do with providing user education as well as reference- 
> type services that function in this new environment ... I worry  
> about the gap between the digerati and the other people served by  
> libraries... I guess it all comes down to service.


I more or less agree with you, mostly more.

I think service is equally important for librarianship as  
collections. In an increasingly digital environment where the user  
will increasingly have their own collections, the need for services  
will become more apparent. "It all comes down to service."

At the same time, popularity is not the only way Google measures  
success. Statistical analysis based on textual content is another  
measure. Most good writing will contain the necessary words to  
describe the aboutness of items. Google is able to pull these out.  
Popularity, while not 100% trustworthy, has just as many advantages  
and disadvantages as peer-review.

User's who do not blog, social bookmark, and post do benefit from  
other's work by reading the blogs, bookmarks, and posts of the people  
who do.

There will always be a gap between the haves and have-nots. Society  
will have to ask itself, "How small of a gap are we willing to  
tolerate?" Information may (or may not) be a public good, and public  
libraries whether they be public universities or funded by  
municipalities will continue to provide a way for people to have.

I most certainly advocate user education and reference-type services,  
but the user education should lean towards information literacy and  
not necessary button pushing. Mind you, libraries do not have a  
monopoly on information literacy. At its heart information literacy  
is about critical thinking -- a process of analysis and synthesis --  
and this process is the outcome of any liberal arts education worth  
its weight in salt. This is a large part of what an undergraduate  
college career is about. Similarly, traditional reference services  
are beneficial, but fewer and fewer people expect to come to a  
physical library to get these services. Instead I advocate re- 
exploring the use of things like expert systems. Capture the  
expertise of reference librarianship in computer programs and use  
these programs to *supplement* the information seeking and  
information literacy activities of users. Build on the collective  
intelligence of others to assist people with their information needs.

So, again, I more or less agree, but we might disagree on the how's  
not the what's.

-- 
Eric Lease Morgan