Libraries

Fri Mar 1 13:13:56 EST 2013

The sad thing is that, IMO, most people aren't aware of getting personally biased results in searches and think it only relates to the ads that come up. When there is awareness, the concern is certainly not limited to librarians from what see in blog postings, conversations, etc outside libraryland. It would be great if librarians were on the frontline of this in terms of educating the public. It could actually be a campaign for librarians to get attention in the media or just a way to promote the library. How about a catch-phrase "librarians love conflicting viewpoints"?  It's a reason to go past the visible web and use library resources. Even though much time has passed since personalized search was introduced - it is getting worse as people inoculate themselves to outside influences cocooned in social media spaces.  Librarians can speak to that.

So, I really like Morville's piece I don't see why anyone would assume it is anti library or bad for the library's image - it's very attention getting in an Orwellian way on a number of issues that librarians care about and libraries can impact. I'm afraid that librarians don't necessarily want to confront some of the ills of technology, particularly as it relates to social media because they might be perceived as uncool  and on the wrong side of the generational divide, as someone mentioned regarding librarians who do cool stuff and those who don't.  (It's really interesting how this article has brought out our prejudices and sore spots - including my own. Well done!)

Minna Sellers
Info Services Librarian
John F. Reed Library
Fort Lewis College
Durango CO

... my opinions are my own

From: Web technologies in libraries [mailto:WEB4LIB at LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of James Olson
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 9:23 AM
To: WEB4LIB at LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [WEB4LIB] Libraries

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:DrWeb2 at gmail.com> | Twitter: @DrWeb2

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Peter Morville
<morville at semanticstudios.com<mailto: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(tm) 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<mailto:DrWeb2 at gmail.com> | Twitter: @DrWeb2
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Joseph Janes <jwj at uw.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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/daf4889e/attachment.htm>