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?

K. Antelman, E. Lynema, A. K. Pace (2006). "Toward a Twenty-First Century Library Catalog." Information Technology & Libraries, 25:3. 128-139.

Available free online here.

Summary

After providing a brief summary of the history of online catalogs, Antelman et al. go on to present as a case study the system implemented North Carolina State Universities (NCSU) libraries, the Endeca Information Access Platform. The article enumerates several of the unique ways in which this system has moved beyond the catalogs currently used in many libraries. The Endeca system features such capabilities as relevance ranking of search results, browsing the catalog without entering a search term, and using LC classification as a search dimension. It also allows for significant customization of the user interface. The article goes on to briefly describe some decisions made during the implementation of the Endeca system as well as what parameters were used to assess the new catalog and further additions and changes NCSU libraries would like to make.

What I learned

Firstly, I honestly didn't know that much about how search results were displayed and calculated in more traditional catalogs. That relevance ranking of results is a new feature was a surprise to me. As someone who grew up on search engines, I forget that not all information retrieval systems work on Google's algorithm. I think sometimes that librarians forget that people like me exist, that people expect relevance ranked results. Early in the article, Antelman et al. mention that catalogs have become a place users go to find call numbers. When I started thinking about that, I remember as a child using the catalog at the public library as a way of discovering new information; however, for the last decade or so, the catalog has not been where I go to discover resources but rather where I go to discover the physical location of resources that I learned about elsewhere. This article provided an interesting case study of how library catalogs can move beyond what they have been and become the place where users go to discover not just to locate.

What I am taking away from this article

Online catalogs have a long way to go. The Endeca system described in this article has a lot of great capabilities, but this is just one example of a library moving beyond the staid catalogs with which librarians have grown so comfortable.

Discussion question

On page 32, Antelman et al. write, "[T]he implementation team decided that authority searching (author, title, subject, call number) would be preserved in the new catalog interface. This allowed NCSU to retain the value of authority headings, in addition to providing a familiar interface and approach to known-item searching." I think this "familiar interface and approach" bit is problematic because, while these fields are familiar to librarians and users, they are also not what users most often use. As more and more people go to Google to find information, it seems that the search engine paradigm is the most familiar interface and approach. Are the author, title, subject, and call number fields still necessary? Are they comfortable? Is this something users look for? And if so presently, is it something they will continue to look for in the future?

Kochtanel and Matthews (2002). Chapter 1. The evolution of LIS and enabling technologies. Library Information Systems, pp. 3-12.

Summary

This article traces the history of library information systems (LIS) beginning all the way back in the 1930s. Kochtanel and Matthews highlight many of the technological developments over the last 70 years and try to distinguish between different periods: the host centric period, the network centric period, and the end user centric period. These defined eras of computing in libraries take us from punch cards and the automation of circulation services to use of the internet for researching and accessing a wide-range of library services and offerings. As a young person who never experienced punchcards and mainframes, it is interesting to see this development traced over much of the 20th century. The authors also include some predictions for the future, which they believe will include a further emphasis on digital resources and greater use of the internet. Almost ten years later, and it seems like they were right.

What I learned

This article provided a lot of historical context for much of the library technology I am familiar with today. It is also nice to see an even-handed approach to the intersection of libraries and technology instead of a focus on the demise of libraries or some justification for the future of libraries. This was just a factual article providing background.

I thought Kochtanel and Matthews did a nice job of speculating on future developments briefly without throwing out outlandish or impossible future possibilities. On page 11, there is a discussion of how users want an integrated single application from which they can access a variety of resources instead of having to navigate any number of separate systems and databases. I think this is something we see more and more of now. Aggregators are very popular and one of the greatest benefits of Google is its single search box that provides results from a vast number of different locations/resources. Page 11 further goes on to mention that users "are more interested in accessing information from distributed locations, any time of the day, any day of the week." I think this statement in particular foresees the development of and reliance on cloud computing. Users do want to be able to access their information from a variety of locations at any time, and storing data in the cloud is one way to make that happen.

What I am taking away from this article

Technology, both generally and in libraries specifically, has come a long way, and I am lucky enough to be living in the current day where so much information is immediately at our fingertips.

Discussion question

On page 7, they authors write, "Today's applications of technology in libraries are more focused on information content and the end user and, as such, support the user directly in his or her quest to identify information resources, some of which are now encoded digitally. Yes, these applications still rely on technology as a tool (but not an end unto itself)." In the years since this article was published, do you think we've moved more toward using technology as an end unto itself? And what does that even mean?

Arnold Hirshon (2008). "Environmental scan: A report on trends and technologies affecting libraries."

Summary

This article provided an overview of libraries in 2008 with a focus on their use of technology. It was intended to inform libraries about trends in the use of information. Hirshon broke his article into five main sections: society and economy, technology, education and learning, information content, and library leadership and organization. He is trying for forecast how each of these five areas will be effected in the future and how they will effect libraries and library users. He provides examples from a wide range of sources but notes that this environmental scan is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a sampling.

What I learned

It's interesting reading this report written in August 2008 from a January 2011 perspective. Many of the trends Hirshon identifies and many of the predictions he makes about the future are in fact happening now. For instance, when discussing e-readers, he notes that in many other countries it was common to see e-reader capabilities on mobile phones and he mentions that the iPhone would likely offer that in the future. Almost two and a half years later, there is definitely an expanding number of people who use an e-reader app (Kindle or otherwise) on their iPhone but also on any number of other smart phones in the expanding market.

What I am taking away from this article

As technology becomes more and more intertwined into people's daily lives, it will also need to become more incorporated into libraries in order to keep pace with users' expectations and wants.

Discussion question

Hirshon discusses Chris Anderson's assertion that "anything that touches digital networks quickly feels the effects of falling costs." Do you believe this is true?