Week 14: Case Studies, Wikipedia and the Patriot Act

Wikipedia:
Wikipedia is a wonderful idea; I have to admit that I consult Wikipedia when I want to find an answer or just some information on a topic. It may not be like what you would read in Encyclopedia Britannica on that same topic, but that’s not necessarily a negative trait. Since average people can post articles, the text is usually easy to read and clearly outlines the major points of the article. And, with all the diverse people out there posting on issues that are important to them, it enables so many other people to go online and find an obscure topic that may not be formally addressed in more academic publications. In the posting called Criticism of Wikipedia, systemic bias is brought up as a point of critique. I however, feel like that is a reflection of current social values. People post more on what it is important to them now, or what they’re interested and know about. By that logical, so much more information will make it onto the Web than one encyclopedia could cover. That’s brilliant.
Nonetheless, there’s that whole issue of legitimacy and verifiability. One of my friends in particular said he doesn’t “use” websites very often, he knows which one’s work for him and he “puts them to use”—Wikipedia is one of those sites. It’s an easy to browse, quick reference that to this day has always provide me with a general answer to whatever I was seeking, but I’ve also always been skeptical of what I read, in general and of Wikipedia in particular. Just like you can’t believe everything you see on TV, you certainly can’t believe everything you read online. People need to think for themselves, and stop taking the path of least effort in seeking information for themselves or the needs that arise during daily life. Too many people want the answer to their question on a silver platter without a side of thinking please! Fortunately, I’ve never been one of those people.
Lastly, I didn’t know that Wikipedia had a policy of verifiability or that their editors poured over the contents for vandal postings. Those are just some of the policies in place for posting too. I couldn’t help but wonder as I was reading about Wikipedia: under these watchful eyes, is it really anyone posting anything? Certainly adds more credibility to the integrity of the website that someone holds those who throw anything up on the Web accountable, especially since Wikipedia has taken on an air of pseudo-encyclopedia respectability, even if it’s unfounded.

The Patriot Act:
Ah, politics. To every new fiasco, there is always partisan mudslinging with each side triumphing the truth of their reasoning over the false propaganda of the opposing school of thought. As a moderately politically involved person, I still do not know that I fully understand the full implications of Bush’s controversial Patriot Act. I know there was a whole lot of contention, that Bush pulled some fly by night sneaky maneuver to get he bill passed in the first place, and that a lot more people were up in arms about First Amendment infringements, which is where I fall. There were also those blind patriots throwing in their support for the just cause of protecting our lives, families, and freedoms from terrorism; who doesn’t want that when you put it that way?
One thing I know for sure is that law is a tricky, complex field of study and practical application, and just because a law is written in all that legal jargon to mean one thing in particular does NOT mean that the law will be enforced that way. That’s the grayest of gray zones—maybe even the Danger Zone—in between the three branches of American government. I currently work in a law library, and I, without any formal legal training, certainly interpret legal text differently from attorneys, who have been through the courtroom ropes more than once. They have seen firsthand how all those technical terms as laid out in state statutes and US code translate into real life; they know the subtleties and nuances and inferences of Lady Justice—that’s why they can charge so much for their guidance in navigating the system. Anyone can read the text of the law, but not everyone can interpret what it means. It can be written in Section 215 that the FBI cannot make a request for records to a judge “solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment”, but I distinctly remember hearing that the FBI could take the records and retroactively submit a request to the judge. Just like Anne Turner who found a way to circumvent the law, so too can the authorities. Maybe that whole retroactive granting of a records request was another loaded attack by mudslingers. Maybe I should look up the text myself to see if there is some kind of time limit on the records request application in a primary source, like the US Code, since it should be plainly stated. Maybe I should just get an attorney.

Week 13: Evaluating technologies

Richard E. Rubin “Information technologies…”
I found it quite interesting to read through the section on the developments and history of microphotography after we just finished reading Baker’s Double Fold. Rubin writes of microfilm that it “proved to be an exceptional medium for the preservation of materials that were likely to deteriorate over time, such as newspapers, magazines, and documents” (81). He then continues by including Rider’s idea that the “actual book be photographed and attached to the back of the catalog card” (81). As I was reading through this section, I couldn’t help but recall all the counterpoints Baker made about the integrity of microfilm as a conservation medium, not to mention how he kept insisting librarians overstated the rate of paper deterioration. And then you have the villainous Freemont Rider and his futuristic dreams about all the applications of microfilm for library materials. It’s really fascinating for me to read diverse perspectives confrontations like this one, between two separate, print-published articles and their authors’ rivaling points of view. Not everyone takes the time to consider opinions that fall outside of the mainstream; what a dull world if we all accepted history as golden and failed to analyze the past for improvements that could be made in the future. I think a good example in the library world is microfilm; many people heralded this new medium as a panacea for library woes, but sadly it didn’t turn out quite so. What about the current support for digitizing library documents? What about documents that only exist in digital formats? Are we once again putting too much faith in an untested medium?

William Y. Arms “Libraries, technology, and people” (Ch. 1 + 4)
Arms clearly supports society’s progression towards digital libraries; however, I feel like he grossly neglects the issue of access equity. At one point he recognizes the need for an Internet connection in order to use a digital library. He asserts that for “$2000 worth of equipment, perhaps $20 per month for a dial-up connection, and a modicum of skill” (12) people could provide their own hook-up and other necessities for home computing and Internet access. That may be a fair estimate on cost—although I don’t know if condemning someone to $20 dial-up is fair—but I couldn’t help from asking myself who does that still exclude? A sizable chunk of society will still be marginalized even if the initial start-up fees could be addressed because of the lack of resources to teach these new users how to efficiently use their new computer equipment. What Arms condescendingly labels a ‘modicum of skill’ is the product of the narrow-sight of a privileged Internet user who fails to realize how difficult it is for a startling number of people to use computers, especially if they have received no formal training or have been rarely exposed to computers in their daily lives. Besides those marginalized because of their socioeconomic status or technological skill inadequacy, converting the world’s library collections into a solely digital resource would also exclude many older citizens who have not taken to the world’s new technology. These are the people who turn out to be staple library patrons in studies—retirees. I agree with Arms when he says traditional and digital can coexist, but he goes on to say, “in the long run, there appear to be no barriers to digital libraries and electronic publishing” (20). At least his argument on the gradual nature of these changes reassures me that we will have time to think about the future consequences of our actions today—and hopefully we will take the time to do that.

Isn't Fate Funny?

As I was reading through Baker's Double Fold, I couldn't help but notice fate's funny coincidence. Isn't it funny that the two men in charge of the two opposing methods of dealing with library materials, conservation and preservation as carefully differentiated by Baker earlier in the text, are not only both named Peter, but one is Sparks--which Baker really pointed out as ironic (p. 121) and one is Waters, and both were around in the era of pyrophoric diethyl zinc, which is also reactive with water?
He he he...clever.

Week 12: Preserving Culture

Nicholson Baker: Double Fold
Baker writes in a very biting, very accusatorial tone of voice, but drawing on his story-telling expertise as a fiction novelist, creates a flowing narrative. It’s captivating and engrossing, and at more than one time, my mouth dropped open from what I was reading. Very interesting overall, and I think that comes mostly from his pointed attack on librarians, which is a fresh perspective to say the least. In particular, he criticizes the administrative leadership of Verner Clapp and his LOC Council on Library Resources. I was surprised to learn that a lot of his appointees had no training in the Library Science field, but rather came from government agencies like the CIA where they developed technology for military and national defense purpose. [As an aside, government officials are still grossly abusing power by appointing cronies to positions they are obviously unqualified for. See this article for a modern example: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/06/bush_cites_authority_to_bypass_fema_law/.] These members of the Council, like Warren Weaver, Philip Morse, and Merrill Flood to name but a few examples, possessed a shared knowledge of rich scientific and mathematical fields; however, this background does not allow for the pursuit of a more humanistic mission of library institutions. They developed technology more in the interests of militaristic developments and used library materials for experimenting rather than developing technology appropriate to preserving materials and information for posterity. This resulted in the loss of original information and printed sources by the millions, as Baker reiterates repeatedly, and left large, irreparable gaps in our nation’s library collections.

Though libraries exist in communities across the US, many people are not aware of the internal struggle librarians endure to preserve collections or even more generally, the library itself. Until I began my MLS program, I had no idea of all the issues and concerns facing libraries, and I would consider myself an active, pro-library, enthusiastic reader and learner. I think Baker does a remarkable job bringing this public ignorance to our attention. One poignant example is his experience in the LOC’s conservation lab and the subsequent differentiation between “conservation” and “preservation”. I found his supplementary explanation of the politics surrounding these two fields logical to anyone with some understanding of how the political machine operates, and yet quite unsettling. I would think the common person who goes about their daily life, working and trying to make ends meet, would not bother to involve themselves in these issues, and so a lot of people are simply unaware of the situation. I know I was.

Week 11: Producing knowledge

Gloria J. Leckie, Karen E. Pettigrew, and Christian Sylvain: “Modeling the Information Seeking of Professionals…”
I think this article was a well-intended attempt to synthesize the current research on various professional groups into a comprehensive model, but ‘professionals’ is too generic a term and too general a group to be a cohesive sample. Even the definition of profession that the authors provide reflects this general sense: “those service-oriented occupations having a theoretical knowledge base, requiring extensive formal postsecondary education, having a self-governing association, and adhering to internally developed codes of ethics or other statements of principle” (162). In order to devise a model, these common features must be extracted, but I think this approach underestimates all the nuances of specific professional contextual demands by glossing over them. While this model may be a good starting point in helping professionals, it’s not very useful for helping a specific professional who would require information and assistance unique to their situation.

However, I did find their break down of the professional’s information need as dependent on either their work role or task interesting. Previously I wouldn’t have been able to see a distinction. Most professionals are primarily identified by their work role I would say, because this is the image that they project out into the public, which formulates a conception of what that professional does based on their projected image. I never would have considered the individual tasks the professional must accomplish behind the scenes as affecting their information seeking or even their information needs, although now it seems quite obvious. To label a professional merely by their title, and consequently to allow this label to dictate their information needs, certainly overlooks all of their distinct responsibilities. However, it is these responsibilities that are specific to a professional’s designated field (context) that are necessary to be aware of in assisting their information search and that are lost in the model created by the authors.


John Willinsky: “Opening” and “Cooperative”
From this article, I learned that researchers pay publishers to publish their research. I had no idea this was the case. I assumed just the opposite was true; publishers compete for the right to publish new research, and thus collecting all the benefits from its success and reputation in that field. The author cites one journal, the Springer journal, as allowing the contributing authors to make their articles available through open access for a fee of $3000 (5). Maybe my concept of money and costs is still skewed, as I am a student and once again living on a meager income and budget, but that seems like a ridiculous amount to require from an author. Is that to say that the researcher must then either pay out of pocket, force the university and thus students like me to shoulder the publishing cost, or allocate research/grant money in order to allow those paying into the system, through tuition or taxes, to access the article? What does the publisher charge to be published in the traditional, printed journal? It all seems very sneaky to me; putting a hefty price tag on ‘free, open access’ can easily be construed as a significant disincentive to make more research results available to a wider range of people and institutions.

Not too long ago, I was having a conversation with a friend, who works in a competitive online information field but is not connected to developing research results because of the restricted access of academic journals. As we were talking about what an exorbitant amount of money universities must pay for annual ‘subscriptions’ and database access to these journals for their faculty and students, he asked me “why wouldn’t you make more of that information available for less?” Maybe because experts in their field would fear the common joe walking into their office with educated questions, making them liable for the information they have published and accountable for further information as demanded by a much wider range of people, not just other experts in their field who formerly would have been the likely reader of the article. Also, it would level the playing field so to speak, as the Alliance for Taxpayer Access claims (1-2), for those in smaller, less wealthy institutions who cannot keep pace with the larger universities, for example. I like the author’s idea of a researching, publishing, consuming cooperative; at the very least, it represents the multitude of non-traditional ideas yet to be discovered.

Week 10: Building Communities

Public Agenda: “Long Overdue…”
Two results of this study exemplify interesting current issues facing libraries, and they are topics we touched on in class. First, the surveys revealed that people feel the government should pay the cost of installing Internet access in public libraries, which is complemented by the later finding that people rank maintaining free library services as a high priority for their local communities. Together these two opinions speak loudly to the democratic, social value of the public library as an institution. Even the subsection of non-PC users rank computer/Internet accessibility as a priority, which is most likely a reflection of society’s growing dependency on and value of technology. These related results are hopeful about the library having a definite role in society in the future; however, it will most likely need to evolve in nature and expand to include new materials as demanded by social needs, like computer access for younger generations and those compromised by their socioeconomic situation.

Second, this one is extracted from the results of the interviews conducted on civic leaders, one major stumbling block for public libraries is the lack of marketing boosting awareness and subsequent involvement from the local community. This is one commonly cited idea for increasing the library’s influences, yet is an unfeasible solution. Isn’t it funny how people look to the government to provide the necessary funding while the government apparently looks right back at the private sector? Advertising is something major corporations spend lots of money on per year, with the hope of turning a profit in the end from the customers buying their goods. No such reciprocity exists for public libraries, which assess minimal charges for their services if any at all. Companies spend substantial percentages of their budgets on effective ads that will capture the fancy of its target consumer. Libraries cannot afford that type of expense in a shrinking, already strained budget. In light of mega-bookstores revolutionizing how the public accesses or even approaches accessing information, public libraries will need to consider other options to stimulate new sources of revenue, like seeking donations from private corporations or individuals (like Andrew Carnegie) which would bring in new money but would not force libraries to compromise their mission’s ideals or their service to their patrons under the conditions imposed by a corporate vendor.


Thomas Mann “The differences between real and virtual libraries”
I found the author’s identification of the trade offs between real and virtual libraries very insightful and directly on point, especially his analysis of the restriction of access between what, who, and where when talking about people accessing information. Many optimistic people view the Internet as this massively powerful new information-wielding technology, and yet it’s those same people who gloss over the vast number of people who cannot regularly gain access. Without regular access people do not learn how to integrate the technology into their lives and thus find a way to make the technology work for them, bringing tangible benefits. Instead it’s an occasional use if ever, and mostly frustrating as the user struggles through navigating a technology they are unfamiliar with using. It cannot be overstated that the library serves to level out the access discrepancy between the often referred to technology ‘have and have-nots’, especially for those who can’t possibly afford to pay to access a database or to purchase their own copy of a book or magazine from a store like Borders.

Though I agree with the author that the digital library should not be consider a replacement for the real library and rather a supplement, time seems to be indicating otherwise. Mann points to how a fraction of the world’s printed collection can be accessed through virtual portals, but that was 8 years ago. Since he wrote this article, websites an online-accessible databases have proliferated and saturated the Internet, bringing more and more of the world’s print information to a distance of only a few clicks. The most recent example I can think of is this Google Book Project initiative, which brilliantly began with various universities’ libraries and their collected publications with expired copyrights. Even the UW has jumped on the Google bandwagon. I see two potential paths for the years to come: either people will recognize how valuable accessing these newly scanned materials is and the project will expand in scope and popular involvement, or people won’t really care and so they won’t take up the fight of establishing copyright ownership and the project will expand in scope. I use the Internet mainly as a starting point when researching information on a topic, since the UW’s search engines are easy to navigate from the comfort of home, but I often end up going to the library to patch holes in my online research or to do more thorough research with the available resources or librarians. Hopefully society will recognize library’s essential role in free information provision before we all preemptively switch to an entirely electronic way of life and the libraries wither away from neglect. I’m with the majority of the people studied in the first article when I say that the disappearance of the library would be a great loss felt by the whole community, not just a few of the current generations, but certainly all the future generations who would never experience the quiet oasis of opportunity that a library contains, if only you should choose to take advantage of its resources.