Library 2.0 Activity #22

Amid the wandering sky
I sensed a light greater than age.
A fell traipsing, dashed beyond hope.
An illusion crashing,
Defying my pursuit.
An emblem of mockery,
Dispelling all pretense,
A shadow of nakedness,
Quells in its tolling
Rogues solemn in display.

Online Office Application Tools Library 2.0 Activity #22

I work with large spreadsheets and MS Access files on a daily basis at my full-time job. I can't say how many times we've been frustrated because our proprietary office email won't handle our files. We send large files of images (in our case, of thick gazetteers) back and forth, and sometimes have to store them on an external hard drive and hand carry it to someone in another building because they are too large for our in-house network. We also work with geographic information system hardware, which can have compatibility issues with MS Office. None of the online applications featured has something comparable to MS Access. However, for just about everything else, we could use these online apps. The prospect of sharing our information online from any computer is very intriguing. Everyone has had problems emailing attachments which won't open on someone else's computer because a certain proprietary software isn't installed. We talk a lot at my work about the "silo effect", about the need to break down hierarchies and departmental barriers. This software, I think, holds the key. The difficulty is getting everyone to use the same communication medium. There will always be security issues with posting sensitive internal communications online, or getting everyone to agree to use the same software. Some people don't like signing up with an online vendor, even if it is free, because they don't want to register any personal information to register. I believe the momentum, however, is shifting in favor of open source, collaborative applications. The price is right. No software is entirely bug-proof, but the collaborative nature of open source products make correcting errors a faster and simpler process. The monolithic, corporate approach has not been keeping pace with specialized needs. Rather than one size fits all, the future lies in tailoring products to specific niches. Many people are more open to the idea of storing and sharing data online, because the workplace is increasingly mobile. The idea of LOCKSS (lots of copies keep stuff safe) is at play here. If the mobile storage device is lost, or the hard drive damaged, where is the backup? Why lug your mobile device around, with its limited storage capacity, when you can look up your files on the Web, anywhere, with theoretically limitless capacity? What is the logic, say, of squirreling away all all your family history information away on a hard drive, instead of posting a version of it online for others to augment or revise? Many have had their lineages extended, their research dead-ends broken down, or even anonymous photographs identified, by sharing their information online. In collaboration there is strength.

Search engine comparisons: Library 2.0 Activity #21

I decided to settle on Mooter, Exalead and Clusty as my search engines to use in my experiment. I was trying to remember a case I had looked for earlier, involving the courtroom shooting of an accused child murderer by the victim's mother in a German courtroom. I finally found it after I had tried just looking for "accused child murder shot by victim's mother in German courtroom" in Google. It was about the twentieth result, and was actually about a play on the subject, currently being performed in Canada. I learned the shooting victim's name was Klaus Grabowski and the shooter's name was Marianne Bachmeier. I typed in "Grabowski Bachmeier" in Mooter, Exalead and Clusty, to simplify the comparison of results. Clusty and Exalead displayed results like Google. All three cited Wikipedia articles, but not in the different order. I liked the graphical representation of results in Mooter, though there are clearly some language-recognition issues. Mooter clusters results under "der", "die", and "den", which are indicative articles, too common in German to be useful headings. Results cluster under separate surnames, "Mutter" (for "mother") and "movie" were a bit more useful. I learned from the last cluster heading that a movie had been made about the subject. I liked the thumbnails of web pages, along with the "preview" feature, in Exalead. Clusty's results clusters were less relevant than Mooter's, even totally off the subject. The fourth result was an ad for one of those paid personal data search services (in other words, completely irrelevant). I came away deciding that I need to try out Mooter, Exalead and other search engines, and not depend so much upon Google for my research. I've felt that way actually for years, but haven't implemented it. The main thing to always keep in mind is that you never really see all that the Internet has to say about your particular topic, only what the search engine's algorithm can retrieve. And what it retrieves may still not be relevant. I would like to look at engines which score the results. It also comes down with how well the search is formulated, utilizing syntax and codes peculiar to each search engine. Gravee, by the way, seemed to freeze up in Firefox when I used it. I don't think I'll bother with that one again. I'm willing to try Clusty some more, but will be more skeptical of its results.

Librarians on Library 2.0: Activity #20

What constitutes "a library" these days? What is a librarian's role in a community? What constitutes a "community"? With the Internet and increased digitization of resources, these terms are more difficult to define. Traditionally, librarians have seen themselves as the gatekeepers of knowledge. They want to help people find the information they're looking for. But they also want to expose people to a variety of perspectives. They also want to preserve a certain canon of culture for posterity. To this end, they have cataloged materials, selected materials for their collections, and deselected materials because of space limitations. Some libraries maintain only a popular "core" collection, weeding what becomes worn or obsolete. Some take on a more archival or research orientation, where space and obsolescence matter less than collection comprehensiveness. Some libraries have been highly specialized, serving a more rarefied community.
Now, because of the World Wide Web, every library has the potential for a limitless collection, serving a potentially worldwide audience. Libraries have become more peripheral to general information-gathering. With the potential of downloading what media is requested on demand, librarians no longer need to guess what people will want and risk buying and storing a lot of materials which won't move. Librarians risk marginalization, or being seen as irrelevant. Library 2.0 offers ways in which the librarians can become part of the process, again. They can connect with the online community using social networking software. They can spur digitization efforts, particularly of local history collections. They can promote standards for metadata and digital preservation, keeping efforts like Google Books honest. They can maintain an online presence, publishing guides to the best websites, blogs, or tips gleaned online. They can archive online content, which might be lost when someone takes down their site, supporting efforts like the Internet Archive. They can provide 24/7 reference service online. They can coach people on using software, managing and producing their own content. They can promote information commons, like the Open Archives Initiative, and institutional repositories. They can support greater access to public records online, less restrictive copyright legislation (such as public domain status for orphan works), and freeing up digital rights and patent protections for products which hinder the sharing of information. They should also be championing open source software alternatives, keeping the major vendors honest.
However, much of what I've described is still theoretical. Not everyone has equal access to the Internet. If I have a DSL , T-line or a cable modem, for example, I can download an audio book file in a few minutes. If I have a dial-up connection, the same download would take several hours. Although many mobile phones are capable of browsing the Internet, service providers have been slow to permit customers to browse the web anywhere, at any time. Wireless Internet services have not been as widely deployed in urban areas as their promoters originally envisioned. For rural areas, the closest broadband option is via satellite. The fastest fiber optical networks remain out of reach for most Americans. For the poorest, dial-up and Wi-Fi are often out of reach, even at their underfunded public libraries. Not everyone has adequate mobile phone coverage, let alone landline coverage. Libraries should also be lobbying for local access networks for underserved areas. If private companies won't bring broadband to rural communities, the communities should be allowed to create their own broadband utilities. I like the idea of private enterprise, but I also think the marketplace needs some regulation. I like the idea of librarians providing mentoring and guidance in the marketplace of ideas. I like the idea of librarians being publishers. I also like the idea of librarians promoting, as well as devising applications for, new technologies. We know from history that librarians have championed technology which would help spread information. The general public, on the other hand, has the media stereotype of librarians as cranky old Luddites. Library 2.0 initiatives will help dispel this misperception. The opportunity is here for making our case.

Countries I've Visited: Library 2.0 Activity #19

create your own visited country map
or check our Venice travel guide

Map of States I've Traveled Through in the US: Library 2.0 Activity #19

create your own personalized map of the USA
or check out ourCalifornia travel guide