Siva Vaidhyanathan. (2005) The Googlization of everything and the future of copyright.

Summary

Vaidhyanathan explains the history of the Google Books project along with the legal ramifications and its relation to copyright law.

What I learned

The Google Books project and the ensuing legal battles could have a much wider effect than I had previously thought. This article highlighted many of the ways in which this project could make fundamental changes in copyright in this country, often not in a good way. As he mentions in the conclusion, this could have significant ripple effects in how information is shared on the internet generally, not just in relation to digitized print materials.

What I am taking away

Reading this article after the second Google Books settlement was rejected in court gives me the impression that, in the six years since publication of the article, more of the world is worried about this project than just Mr. Vaidhyanathan. It is also interesting to see that he was able to foresee many of the issues surrounding this project.

Discussion question

How could a similar project happen in a way that doesn't harm copyright but still provides access to materials?

Coombs, K. A. (2005) Protecting user privacy in the age of digital libraries. Computers in Libraries, 25:6. 16-20.

Summary

This article is an account of one librarian's and one library's effort to ensure its users' privacy. Coombs works at the SUNY Courtland library, and she systematically addressed the user data each of their systems was storing and determined what should be kept and what should be discarded.

What I learned

I think the most interesting part of the article is the balance libraries have to strike between maintaining user privacy but also obtaining the data and statistics to help in collection development, strategic planning, etc. Having the demographics and other data about the library's users helps the library to tailor its services and better spend its money, but that same data is also often a privacy concern, especially in a post-USA-PATRIOT-Act world.

What I am taking away

It's about balance! And as much as I like data, the users' privacy and sense of privacy is more important.

Discussion question

Are there any systems that store data that she forgot about? Or that have developed since the article was written in 2005?

Holmberg, K. (2009) What is Library 2.0? Journal of Documentation, 65:4. 668-681.

Summary

This article is an attempt to define Library 2.0 by means of a literature review and then co-word analysis. After presenting a multitude of definitions already presented in the field, Holmberg et al. go on to present the findings of their research which consisted of getting definitions from 29 individuals and then synthesizing their word use. The authors determined that interactivity was the most pervasive aspect of Library 2.0 but that other necessary building blocks include: users, social aspects ("soft values"), technology and tools, web and Web 2.0, library and library services, and participation.

What I learned

Ultimately I feel I learned very little from this article. Perhaps it's because I am in my fourth semester of library school, but none of their findings are anything new or interesting to me. I could have provided that exact definition if asked. I feel like this type of scholarship, while helpful to give everyone a jumping off point when discussing this area, does not do much to push librarians forward. By even defining Library 2.0, we are admitting that we have not been able to evolve faster than our users, that we are merely responding to their responses to Web 2.0. This feels backward looking to me, rather than forward-thinking. Perhaps it is because I am a young person who has grown up with these constant technological changes, but it seems to me that no debate needs to exist about whether or not libraries should get involved with these participatory new tools. It should be obvious that as new technologies emerge, we should be testing them out, using them, (if they're good) presenting them to our users, and then seeing if our users are getting any value out of them. We not only need to go where our users are; when possible, we need to already be there when the users arrive.

What I am taking away

This is an academic approach to a real world situation, and while it does add to and synthesize the literature it also doesn't present anything inherently new or helpful to me.

Discussion question

"Interactivity can be interaction between the librarians and the customers or library users, but also between library staff or between users of the library services." This description/definition of "interactivity" leaves out a critical layer of both librarians and users interacting with the information and/or content. Was this an intentional omission? What does it mean?

Maness, J. (2006). "Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries." Webology, 25:1.

Available free online here.

Summary

In this article, Jack Maness is attempting to define Library 2.0 and to speculate about the direction the 2.0 movement will ultimately take libraries. He asserts that Library 2.0 should be defined by the following characteristics: user-centric, multi-media, socially rich, and communally innovative. He follows several technologies--synchronous messaging, streaming media, blogs and wikis, social networks, social tagging, RSS feeds, and "mashups"--that fit these criteria and expounds upon the roles they are already beginning to play within libraries and the future he sees for them.

What I learned

This article was written five years ago which in technology time is tantamount to an eon, so it is interesting to read this article through the future-lens we have. Much of what Maness posits is becoming increasingly a reality in today's libraries, but also much of it is not.

In light of the recent OCLC Perceptions of Libraries, 2010 report (available free online), we can see that while much of what Maness foresees has become a reality, it isn't really resonating with users the way he seemed to expect. Maness foresaw a great and rich future of virtual reference, one in which "Web reference is nearly indistinguishable from face-to-face reference." While libraries are implementing these "Ask a Librarian" chat services, the OCLC report notes that few people are using them but are instead flocking to ask-an-expert websites (p. 33-34). The OCLC report also mentions the decline in blogging among teens, who now go to Facebook and Twitter instead of the longer-form blogs. Blogging has increased among young adults and older generations, but teens are are future adults (!) so we should also be paying attention to their information habits.

The OCLC report does, however, agree with Maness about the prevalence of social media/networking and other Web 2.0/Library 2.0 practices, which are becoming more and more a part of how users communicate and learn every day.

What I am taking away

The future is hard to predict, but in order for us to move forward we will need to incorporate the sort of technologies our users access regularly into our library systems or else we risk losing user who are unwilling to be inconvenienced by our out-dated practices.

Discussion question

Maness writes, "In a world where no information is inherently authoritative and valid, the critical thinking skills of information literacy are paramount to all other forms of learning." (1) Do you think this is true? (2) How do you think libraries can better meet this need?

M. Breeding (2005). "Re-Integrating the 'Integrated' Library System." Computers in Libraries, 25:1. 28-30.

Summary

This article is more what I was expecting from the previous article. Breeding provides the briefest description possible of the history of the ILS and then goes on to enumerate the number of issues we currently have with the systems available along with some hopes and realistic expectations for the future. The main problem with the ILS, according to Breeding, is it's lack of actual integration now that library's are growing their digital collections at such an impressive rate. The ILS as it currently exists seems to still be geared more toward print collections. While new add-ons to the ILS system allow for greater functionality and integration, those add-ons don't really integrate with each other.

What I learned

ILS have a long way to go. As Breeding points out, thus far they are not keeping pace with users' search habits or with other non-library technologies now available. He says they are "evolutionary" not "revolutionary" which is what has caused them to fall so far behind in terms of integration.

What I am taking away

I think this was the most important part of the difficulties found among ILS: "On the front end, it's enormously difficult to craft an environment for the library user that functions seamlessly. an you imagine a searcher easily navigating through the library Web site, into and out of the Web OPAC through the metasearch interface, and linking among a set of e-journals without giving up in frustration? The Google escape hatch awaits any user who finds a library interface too complex and frustrating." This is the currently state of the library integration environment. There is stiff competition among other non-library products and ILS just isn't keeping pace.

Discussion question

Do you see a positive future for ILS? Do you imagine that they will now begin to evolve more quickly because the need is evolving more quickly?

M. Deddens (2002). "Overview of Integrated Library Systems." EDUCAUSE.

Available free online here.

Summary

This article discussed the advances in Integrated Library Systems (ILS) and the way they connect libraries with content and assist with information retrieval. It discusses three vendors in particular and enumerates their functionalities and capabilities: Endeavor Information Systems, Innovative Interfaces Inc., and SIRSI.

What I learned

It is interesting to see some of the functionalities of these different systems provided by different vendors and to compare them side-by-side. Aside from these comparisons, though, I didn't get much out of this article.

What I am taking away

There are lots of options.

Discussion question

Which of these three systems would you pick? Or would you keep shopping around?

C. N. Mooers (1960). "Mooers' law or why some retrieval systems are used and others are not. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 23:1. 22-23.

Summary

This article explains Mooers's law which states that "An information retrieval system will tend not to be used whenever it is more painful and troublesome for a customer to have information than for him not to have it." This is an ironic statement explaining why people avoid more efficient information systems: having information is often more difficult than not having it so using less efficient systems provides less information to cause problems.

What I learned

It's interesting reading this article in 2011 when it is more common to find articles about "information overload," "information anxiety," and the "information age." What Mooers was making a joke about has, in some ways, become a common trope of modern life. Nowadays, you can't go 24 hours without stumbling on some article highlighting the problems with having information, namely that the constant onslaught of information is making it more difficult to process, reflect upon, think about, and absorb the information that is actually relevant and necessary.

On the flipside Mooers is also commenting on a common human pitfall: looking for the easiest way out. Often people don't want to be challenged with information that either doesn't jive with their beliefs or that doesn't fit into their well worn path, so users approach information retrieval with the hope of finding information to confirm what they already think to be true. In this way, little has changed since Mooers' original writing 50 years ago. Even if it requires using an inefficient system, if it provides the information or non-information the user needs to maintain the status quo, that user will come back again and again. Perhaps this is part of the reason online catalogs have been so slow to develop (as was pointed out in the previous post) and why legacy systems are so hard to abandon.

What I am taking away

Three things:

It's good to joke.

Some things never change.

Information is hard sometimes.

Discussion question

What do you think Mooers would think of modern information search and retrieval behavior? Would he see similarities with what he was trying to describe in the past?