Libraries

Fri Mar 1 12:11:02 EST 2013

Speaking to the permanence of library's -- yes, I read the other posts,
including Peter's clarification:

What becomes of libraries will be determined more by community values
than by technology. Community values for fairness, access to information
(both present and past), and compassion for a wide range of people with
differing levels of information literacy would be predictors for
libraries to endure.  Absent those, good luck!

>>> On 3/1/2013 at 8:22 AM, in message
<CAJbtYxRvBzZsdVN95roWFoW8QxHjNQk4EzxXqkyrJ-0OyDx-mA at mail.gmail.com>,
James Olson <olsonjam at HAWAII.EDU> wrote:

It's an unfortunate thing, but the only people I hear talk about the
infobubble personalized results creates are librarians. On the one hand,
people want pertinent results, but then on the other hand, they don't
want to have their ideas challenged. A serendipity factor, where a
certain percentage of results comes from outside your bubble, would be a
nice feature, but I'm afraid most people would set the ratio at zero.

Non-tracking versions of search like DuckDuckGo do have some
popularity, but I think it's mostly due to aversion to being tracked,
not to the search bubble. I keep telling myself I should use
alternatives to Google, but sadly I don't do it.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Walt Crawford <waltcrawford at gmail.com>
wrote:

I partly withdraw my original comment....partly.

Yes, I quoted out of context. No, I don't apologize for criticizing
this dystopian view of a short-range future. I find that both "public
libraries are dying" and "libraries will die if you don't adopt my
solution" visions are both unfortunate ways to improve library support
and funding--they're playing from weakness.

As part of a collection of essays about possible futures, *in that
larger context*, I wouldn't be quite as critical. And probably shouldn't
have been. Not that I've always agreed with Peter in the past or am
likely to in the future...

Sorry for the grumpiness. I still find that stories about libraries
closing or losing funding (almost always about branches closing, not
libraries) get 100 times the attention of funding increases or the
continued success of libraries in being the hearts of their communities.
I believe libraries would be better served by building from strength,
not the constant focus on perceived weakness. But that's just me.

walt crawford

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Michael <drweb2 at gmail.com> wrote:

It would be hard to miss your points, Peter.. thought-provoking,
thanks for posting that...

Best,
Michael

Michael aka DrWeb | E-mail: DrWeb2 at gmail.com | Twitter: @DrWeb2

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Peter Morville
<morville at semanticstudios.com> wrote:
> I'm very pleased that my article/chapter about the future of
libraries has provoked thought and discussion. Just so the quote "nobody
uses the library anymore" isn't taken out of context, I'm including
(below) the first three paragraphs. I find it hard to imagine how one
could read that and not realize it's about the future (and that I'm
using humor and hyperbole to draw attention to serious concerns).
Finally, if you read the whole article, I hope you'll see how much the
author cares about libraries. Cheers!
>
> Peter Morville
> President, Semantic Studios
> http://semanticstudios.com/
> http://findability.org/
>
> ---
>
> Inspiration Architecture: The Future of Libraries
>
> http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000664.php
>
> Adapted from a chapter that I wrote for Library 2020, a book edited
by Joseph Janes and published by Rowman & Littlefield (in press).
>
> The library in 2020 is the last bastion of truth. Sure, you can
search yottabytes of free data by simply batting an eyelash. But it's
dangerous to believe what you see through the iGlass lens. As you
learned the hard way back in the Facebook era, if you're not paying for
it, you are the product. That research study about the safety and
efficacy of Lipitor Lollipops* was sponsored by a subsidiary of a
subsidiary of Pfizer. That consultant you almost hired wrote his own
customer reviews. And while you can't tell for sure because the
algorithms are opaque, it sure seems like the first page of web search
is pay-to-play. You routinely skip past the top ten results.
>
> Unfortunately, this state of corruption isn't limited to the Web.
Politicians are in the pocket of lobbyists. Doctors push pills for
profit. Teachers and bank clerks work on commission. And journalists?
Well, they don't really exist. And neither does evolution, climate
change, or Newton's Law of Gravity.
>
> Polarization was solved by personalization. Now, people learn their
own truths. We should have known back in 2015, when the ratio of adults
who believe "God created humans in their present form within the last
10,000 years" hit 51 percent, that we had passed a tipping point. At
least we're not burning witches at the stake, except in Texas, which
doesn't really count...
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2013, at 8:08 PM, Michael wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Joseph.. In the book, I don't know if anyone would confuse
the
>> message with current times, or a future projection idea.. for any
>> standalone postings (blogs, Web sites, etc.) of such materials for
the
>> 2020 book, I'd think a disclaimer or clarifying remark would be
nice,
>> and justifiable. I think particularly that those contemporary
library
>> world figures (your authors) would not want any reader to think
they
>> believe "nobody uses the library anymore"...
>>
>> My $.02
>>
>> *speaking only for himself*
>> Michael aka DrWeb | E-mail: DrWeb2 at gmail.com | Twitter: @DrWeb2
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Joseph Janes <jwj at uw.edu> wrote:
>>> I feel as though I ought to jump in here; Peter wrote that for a
book I'm
>>> editing which asked a pretty wide group of people to write similar
short
>>> pieces finishing the sentence "The library in 2020 will..." So
it's
>>> partially my fault.
>>>
>>> It's being published by Rowman & Littlefield this summer, and it's
got quite
>>> a cast of characters, from all walks of the library world, new and
seasoned
>>> professionals, names you know and some you don't (I won't name drop
here,
>>> 'cause I'll leave important people out--rest assured it's a great
group).
>>> These are provocative, and fascinating, and uncomfortable, and
>>> inspirational, and depressing, and hopeful, and more. Peter asked
if he
>>> could post his in advance on his web site, which I was happy to
accommodate.
>>>
>>> Think of Peter's piece as something to whet your appetites. :-)
Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> Joseph Janes
>>> Chair, MLIS Program
>>> University of Washington Information School
>>> jwj at uw.edu
>>>
>>> [remainder snipped]
>>
>> ============================
>>
>> To unsubscribe: http://bit.ly/web4lib
>>
>> Web4Lib Web Site: http://web4lib.org/
>>
>> 2013-02-28
>>
>
> ============================
>
> To unsubscribe: http://bit.ly/web4lib
>
> Web4Lib Web Site: http://web4lib.org/
>
> 2013-03-01

============================

To unsubscribe: http://bit.ly/web4lib

Web4Lib Web Site: http://web4lib.org/

2013-03-01

============================ 
To unsubscribe: http://bit.ly/web4lib 
Web4Lib Web Site: http://web4lib.org/ 
2013-03-01 

============================ 
To unsubscribe: http://bit.ly/web4lib 
Web4Lib Web Site: http://web4lib.org/ 
2013-03-01 

============================

To unsubscribe: http://bit.ly/web4lib

Web4Lib Web Site: http://web4lib.org/

2013-03-01
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.nd.edu/pipermail/web4lib/attachments/20130301/2f483b76/attachment.htm>