Starred Items

It's a busy week for me as I am heading to Seattle but there are a few things I've starred in my Google Reader that I'd love to share and hear comments on.

--This story about Vivek Kundra is certainly interesting and important. Who is this guy? And where was coverage in the major news media? Or in the library blogosphere? The Chief Information Officer has a huge role to play in the digital world and especially in an administration that is touting itself as digital. What is it that we want to see IT look like in the US? In government? These are questions I am posing in my Seminar in Contemporary World Issues but I pose them here as well.

--I love this post on the ACRLog, partly because there is so much to read from it. But also because ssmith (I wish I knew their real name!) shared experiences that are particularly familiar to me. As she said, it is refreshing to know you are not alone. Which leads to my next star...

--K.G. Schneider wrote this marvelous post about the impact the world situation is having on her in her efforts to write. I am so grateful for her sincerity and openness. It is difficult to process all that is going on in the world and it is also difficult to articulate its effect on us. It's hard to even realize that it has an effect. Admittedly, I am having a bit of an opposite experience. I am finding it easier to eek out time for writing and for myself, perhaps because I am not spending as much time in my Reader or surfing the news. Or perhaps because it is one of the only things I do have control over in these crazy times. But the important thing I take away from this is that the influx of information effects us all in different ways. The same is true for our students or our colleagues. I so much appreciated this reminder.

--Finally, I grabbed this post last week from the Chronicle on Wikipedia and the future of expertise. We are thinking about restructuring our first year, first semester IL session to talk with students more about Wikipedia and this might be an interesting way to do it since this piece really addresses questions about authority and credibility. I haven't delved into this as much as I would like yet but I will.

And that's it, I think. I am off to print my plane ticket. Hope to see you in Seattle.

The Part We Have to Play

Perhaps you are wondering where the Sheck has been as of late? And I don't mean the Sheck Spot, because I have been posting tidbits, but where is THE SHECK? The thoughtful posts, that get me to flesh out a question or an experience?

I've been wondering that myself. And two things come to mind:
1. Teaching. I've just finished the IL sessions for the 2nd Year Core courses, Champlain's nascent Gen Ed curriculum, and I am meeting with the other librarians tomorrow to rehearse for the 1st year courses, which start next week. I've been putting a lot into the design of these sessions and to collaborating with the ever energetic and amazing Andy Burkhardt to make these suckers work. And not just work but interest the students. Invigorate them. Engage them. Did it work...I think so. I hope so. I think so.
2. The Election. No one should be that surprised to know I am an Obama supporter. But I also am passionately interested in the way in which the digital, media entrenched world shapes the election. Even more interesting is how the digital world shapes our understanding and participation in elections, in democracy. And without question, it has. Sarah Silverman, Don't Vote, Yes We Can, We Are the Ones...full of famous folks, yes. But also aimed at informing and empowering voters, young voters, to participate and think about the world we live in and the opportunities that are before us.

So when I read this post by Ryan Deschamps, the wheels really started turning. Perhaps it was the wikipedia analogy that got me thinking:

To me, voting is the Wikipedia of our government. If alot of people participate, putting in quality thought and decision, then a wiki will provide excellent content. If people let the system be taken over by folks who just happen to show up, our system crumbles and can even be used for serious wrong-doing.

Ryan, that's an idea worth running with. I mean, Forrest Gump style running.

But here's the part that I am stuck on. Ryan's analogy puts a hefty burden on everyday people: to educate themselves enough to make a quality decision. I am in no way suggesting that Joe the Plumber couldn't do that. My question is about WHERE they do that? HOW do they do that? Are we assuming that every one knows the difference between "good" information and "bad" information? Truth and lies? Facts and fiction?

If so, I'll be out of job.

If not...then we have a lot of work to do. And we is not just librarians. We is those of us that do know the difference. Those of us that have the skills and experience to discern between the shades of gray, at least as best as we are able. So videos that bring good looking people out to those of us in our pjs perusing YouTube is great. But we need more than just a Get Out the Vote campaign. We need everyone to have the tools and skills to make quality decisions. We need to find creative ways to educate more people about the issues in ways that they can understand and engage in, much like Andy and I have been trying to do with our students. We need to push our media, our politicians, our schools, but most importantly ourselves. Learning More Is Doing Something!

Which is why I am voting for Obama. Because in the end, the real message, the first message, and the one that still puts butterflies in my stomach is Yes WE Can. Not just him...Us. We. The People. We have a part to play, and it's time that we played it. Game on.

The Future of the Net

The greatest thanks to Michael Sauer at the Travellin' Librarian for posting this video by Lawrence Lessig.



I will be including this video in my course on Technology, Politics, and Democracy this semester. Not only does it offer students an important definition of Net Neutrality but it also asks students to think about how their rights and freedoms, how the foundations of governance and society, democracy itself, are impacted by the Internet. It is something I'm not sure many people think about...though luckily I am in a field where many do.

Information Literacy...on the radio.

I drove to work today, which is unusual. There are two things I cherish on these rare occassions: 1. Bringing coffee from home, 2. Listening to NPR for the ten minutes I am in the car. This morning, though, it was particularly special because a lesson in information literacy was central to this piece on Iran's manipulation of photographs showing their missile tests.

Here's what I love about David Folkenflik's analysis. He emphasizes the need for critical analysis of source. As he says, "consider the source." The photographs were provided by the Iranian military and they have an agenda that needs to be taken into consideration when looking at their evidence. He then goes on to talk about the number of people that provide material to news organizations today might not have the same "journalistic practices."

What did I get from this: we need to evaluate information rather than just accept it.

Gosh…that sounds pretty an awful lot like information literacy. Funny how that happens.

Sick as a dog without a TV

The Sheck has been hit hard by a late season flu. It has been awful. I've been connected to my couch for five full days. Today is the first day that I have been clear enough to check my email, read some posts from my Society and Technology students, and hold my head up for more than twenty minutes without throwing it back down in dismay. I am so lucky to have a canine companion who loves to snuggle and a husband who can deal with my crankiness as I go stir crazy. The Sheck is meant to shake, not sit!

Through the cloud of Theraflu, Halls, Echinacea Tea, and Vitamin Water (that's my product placement for today), I realized how much illness made me crave the TV. We haven't owned a TV in more than five years and I rarely, rarely even think about it. But this week, I really could have used some Law & Order reruns, a few cooking shows, and some incredible nature program that astounds me. While I do have a strong internet connection, YouTube, and Netflix Watch Instantly, there was something missing from my viewing experience. It made me think about this article I read in last month's Atlantic. As the article points out, the trend of interactivity is still to be determined in TV, the true on demand nature of the web, not "On Demand" like you get a movie for $3.99 out of the selection through your cable provider, has yet to be migrated television. This disconnect between the convenience of television versus the internet in terms of programmed content became abundantly clear last night after Jon and I watched Barack Obama's speech on YouTube. We wanted to see how it was covered on the major news channels so we checked out the websites for ABC, CBS, and NBC, assuming they would provide video to watch. This was a disaster. The websites were terribly designed such that Jon got up and walked away from the couch. Being librarian, tech enthusiast, developing media student, and curious george (albeit a sick one), I continued to look....and look...and look for anything that resembled websites that might allow someone who missed the news to watch it, or a segment of it, again.

Alas, ten minutes into it, I was too wiped out to continue. But in the clarity of today, I think that is more interesting than I thought last night. It also came to mind today as I listened to the RADIO (yes, they are still sources of news and entertainment, just ask anyone who listens to the BBC, especially Radio 4) this morning. On Point had an excellent show about the speech, as Tom Ashbrook usually does, but it was one of his callers that really got me thinking again. His caller said that he wishes everyone could watch the speech in its entirety. Tom Ashbrook quickly responded that "it's out there".

Yes, just on YouTube, rather than on TV. What am I getting at? I guess I am finally making sense of reading things like Hirschorn and Neil Postman who talk about the power of the television in contrast to someone like Henry Jenkins who talks about the power of the Internet. At one point in his book "Convergence Culture", Jenkins says that there is no where on the Internet that reaches everyone. And that's the difference between TV and the web. There is this on demand quality to the web but it is based solely on your desire to demand it. Do you have the stamina to LOOK? To search? To click? Obviously I did not, at least not yesterday.

And that's where I question whether or how the Internet will be the great uniter that some hope it to be. It demands more from the user than many are willing to give in light of a convenient alternative. Why scour the web when you can turn on CNN and catch everything important in a 20 minuts news loop? (The fact that anyone would think we could capture important news in 20 minutes loops is a matter for a different post). The assumption that information is out there and you just have to find it is assuming that everyone has the resources to find it, the knowledge to do so, and the wherewithal to proceed and acheive. "It's out there" is a powerful phrase: daunting, empowering, vague, and universal.

Last night, I felt like many people: I didn't feel like it. I just wanted to turn on the tv and get some rest.

What does our use of technology say about us?

My course in Society and Technology is talking about technological determinism this week and the conversation, as always, is varied and fascinating. It also seemed particularly appropriate this morning, when I read this article in the New York Times about a "game show" that essentially applies technology in two ways to dehumanize and subjugate what the article calls "seemingly nice people". By using polygraphs and the mass medium of television, people are broken down to tell the "truth" about the deepest, darket parts of their inner most lives.

The key question my students are facing this week is whether technology or the people propels the directon of our society. Here it is in a real sense: Is it the technology that's a problem or the people on the show? Or the people who made the show? Obviously, people who volunteer for shows like this know what they are getting into. But do they really? Could you really know through description what this show would entail? As the article points out, one woman is trying to get money to get her mother into a house. She has a good motive for subjecting herself to this kind of questioning. And yet, the couple described is ruined and for what?

However, as I think more about the article, it is not the contestents but the producers of the show that really are utilizing technology in a way that might harm society. I cannot help but think about the line "With great power comes great responsibility". I think there is a power in technology, in this case the television, for which we take responsibility. The power remains in the hands of the user, here seen in the producers but also in the hands of those with the remote control. The ever enlightening Jeff Rutenbeck said the other day that technology amplifies. That's an interesting characterization and I think this example proves his point. What does our use of technology say about us?

Some heavy questions perhaps for a blog post but certainly ones that I am carrying around with me. I look forward to seeing what my students have to say about it.

9/11

I was saddened yesterday to see the commemoration of September 11th buried, so to speak, beneath articles on Iraq in the New York Times. But when my eye wandered beneath the fold, virtually mind you, I saw this piece about an exhibition at the New York Historical Society.

If you've never been to the New York Historical Society, right next to the Museum of Natural History in New York, it is an impressive place. Having seen a few exhibitions there, this one seems quite different. The rows of the photos, hung by binder clips, with no frames, with no pomp and circumstance, is a very different approach for them. But, as the article correctly points out, it is most appropriate for this exhibition. Wandering through the photos on line is slightly discombobulating, as I imagine it was to wander through New York on and around September 11th. But I can only imagine...

And I am embarrassed that I didn't do anything to commemorate Sept. 11th at our library. Being in the second week of classes and feeling overwhelmed by all the projects, meetings, changes in the schedules...still, it's not an excuse. And I guess I want to say the same thing to the New York Times: where is the remembrance? Where are our priorities? I don't often write about politics here and I don't think I am writing about politics now. It is not about politics. It is about people. It is about community.

I am teaching a senior seminar this semester on Technology and Society and my students are spending a lot of time mulling over how different their lives would be without the digital technology we have come to depend on. I sit here wondering if we spent less time attached to our computers, our ipods, our cell phones, would we have more connection to remembering something like 9/11? Has an event like this been lost to our memory because it is not being flashed in front of our screens?

I'm not sure. I know that there are projects out there trying to remind us of the changes in our world. This exhibit is one example, the September Project is another. But since I don't own a television, I was curious as to what happened last night in the mainstream. So I just went over to NBC Nightly News' website. And again, I had to go beneath the proverbial fold. But I did find this one piece, by a producer on NBC. And it reminded me of why I am here, in the blogosphere. It is because we are individuals, making our way in the world. And whether or not the mainstream media does what I think it should, it doesn't matter. This, this post, is my remembering September 11th. This post is my promise to myself to never forget.

Medium is the Message

Graphic, explicit with an excessive use of profanity...yes. But focus in: the message is still strong and considers the audience. Once again, from YouTube, we get a call to the audience Boondocks to "Read a *#$&%*@^%*# Book."

Or perhaps it really is for those that don't watch Boondocks but should.

WARNING: This video could be rated R for profanity. Hence, it is linked rather than embedded.

Thanks to Jessamyn for pointing it out.

I couldn't ask for a better example than this to illustrate the power of YouTube as a vehicle for social change. This is clearly quite different than the 802 boys but the use of repetition and animation creates a propaganda quality video but one that questions and criticizes, I think, the use of rap as propaganda. The content of the video is shocking but in large part because of the medium of the message.

Try the comparison: here is the same lyrics but without animation. The slideshow's barage of books that the rapper clearly thinks are necessary for his audience to be reading is still powerful but is it honestly as thought provoking as the one with animation? Or, would it be to young, black, urban youths?

Admittedly, I am reading McLuhan right now in preparation for teaching in the Fall. But as I try to think about how to make something like McLuhan as powerful for students, YouTube seems to have shown me again that its uses are endless.

Sassy, smart, maybe even sexy. What do you mean you're a librarian?

Yes, I too am going to throw in my two cents about the New York Times article on librarians. To start off, it is currently holding the most e-mailed article from the Times. Perhaps that explains why I had a total of 12 emails and 4 phone calls alerting me to its presence. Or perhaps that just shows us that while it is no surprise to the library community that we are "hip", techie, sexy, cool (is that the name of an album?), it clearly is a surprise to everyone else. And hey, if you don't have the Sheck or someone like her in your local library, it's no wonder that this might come as a surprise to you. If I had a dollar for every time I hear "you don't look/act/seem like a librarian"...I'd have a library of my own!

All in all, I think it's a great article for us. Yeah, I hated reading "The myth prevails that librarians are becoming obsolete." It seems clearly oxymoronic in an article that touts rising LIS program enrollment and tries to elucidate on how librarians do a lot more than read books and put them on shelves (oh, wouldn't that be nice).

Many other bloggers had far more difficulty swallowing the public's perception of our work. To me, it just shows, yet again, how library friendly the New York Times really is. At least in the Sunday edition. Over the last few months that we have taken advantage of a sweet deal for getting the Times on Sundays, I've been amazed by how many articles show librarians and libraries in a positive light.

But I also am reminded of picking out my new specs this weekend. Jon and I went to the hip glasses shop in town and I walked around trying to find something that could accomodate my near blindness so on occasion I could not wear contacts. And as I moved from pair to pair, the shopkeeper remarked that one of them seemed funky librarian. Indeed they were, and they are also mine strarting tomorrow. But funny isn't it that there needs to be the adjective "funky" in front? Aren't all librarians (distributors of free information, protectors of privacy and our rights to information, knowers of the next good thing to read) funky? Bun or not?

YouTube as a vehicle for Social Change

I know I just wrote about YouTube but I recently started thinking about it as more than a method for reaching out to our patrons but as a vehicle for social change. Perhaps you laugh. Yes, there are a lot of ridiculous videos on YouTube. At first glance, this video by two kids in Vermont seemed ridiculous:


My personal favorite...."you mess with our cows/we'll break your knees."

But seriously, this video is clever, illustrates pride in these kids' homestate, and gives us a giggle. Social change, you ask?

Those same kids have created a new video addressing global warming and Vermont's environmental pact:


Wow. Stand up and applaud these guys! Locally, this video gets into the serious implications of climate change on Vermont's economy (the maple syrup and ski industries) but also on a national and global level. But their call for Vermont to act: efficiency within the state, to use "methane from manure" or biomass to create energy and lessen our dependence on foreign oil...the list goes on. But most importantly, these guys recognize that it has to happen in our homes (drive a Hybrid) but in our government. Their call to our governor (Jim Douglas) to regulate and to pass H250, a bill that sets a goal for reducing emissions in our state. I could go on because they do: use solar, get wind, BIKE.

This video incites us to educate ourselves, vote, and think. With the number of people in 802 that loved their first video, these kids have taken their popularity and turned towards something important and necessary. Using their creativity and YouTube as a vehicle for social change...I'd say so.

Blogs, everywhere blogs

Has anyone else noticed how often blogs are mentioned in traditional, or "old school" media outlets lately? How about these articles:
-NY Times cites bloggers as the skeptics to a multi-billion dollar company's meager donation of $5 million to Africa. While I applaud any efforts to support impoverishment in Africa, I think taht the bloggers make a great point in asking whether an organization, or a show like American Idol (and I am purposefully not linking that) should be applauded for doing so little when given their appeal, they could something truly impactful.

Or, how about the blogging gadfly (marvelous word, gadfly, isn't it?) at the UN? This piece is especially interesting because it questions the validity of bloggers as "journalists" and how institutions like the UN should handle the rapid influx of new media. But it also brings to light concerns about information sharing. Bloggers are not edited as newspapers are and they also aren't limited by space and time constraints. What does that mean for the likes of the UN? Or the World Bank? Or the White House? Doesn't it mean that blogs could supply in depth, contextualized news coverage? That blogs could be innovating not only how we read our news but how we understand it? Is this really the power of web 2.0? It makes David Silver's AEIOU (Already Existing Information Optimally Uploaded) come that much more into focus. The news is out there, it's the degree to which we find it, read it, understand it, and discuss it that might by revolutionary.

Wikipedia as the Rapid Response Encyclopedia, or a rose by any other name...

The NYT piece on Wikipedia's role in disseminating information on the Virginia Tech shootings emphasizes the rapidity of information gathering, sifting, and sharing but it also highlights how different it is than our traditional notions of the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia administrator Michael Snow points out that "Professional news is the place to get the facts on the ground — after all, that’s where Wikipedia contributors are getting their information, too,” said Michael Snow, a Wikipedia administrator. “Wikipedia distinguishes itself by the ability to bring all the facts, and useful background information, together in one place.”(NYT) Bravo to Wikipedia in bringing together those facts for the rest of the world to look to. Bravo to Wikipedia for illustrating how quickly our world can change.

But that's the issue I am grappling with: is that the role of an "encyclopedia". Don't misread me: I am not suggesting that the service played by Wikipedia in this instance, or the role it plays in the democratization and popularization of information is not important. It is and I applaud it. But I can't help but be reminded of my husband and I standing in the frozen food aisle at the supermarket and his asking me why non-meat products are always given meat names. Why do they try to name fake chicken nuggets chicken nuggets at all? Why not call things by their proper name? The same applies to wikipedia. An encyclopedia is not a rapid response instrument. It is also not a news source. Wikipedia plays a valuable role in the world of information and knowledge today but I always always cringe at its being called an encyclopedia.

Does it really matter, you might be saying? Are you quibbling over words here? Perhaps. But what is that? What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Is it the true nature of things that matters or just the gist that counts?

The Rough Life: Which article to talk about first?

I have a vow not to check email or be on a computer over the weekends, except to watch movies on our laptop since we don't have a television. So I leave my computer for two days and voila: an outstanding array of articles that remind my being librarian ROCKS! I spend my time reading about the coolest stuff!

From a process point of view, I have to list the articles of interest so I don't lose them (I am the kind of person who has to write it down for it to be mine). Posts on these various articles are forthcoming:

1. Sunday NYT had a fascinating piece on Twitter, a technology that was on my list for the Exploring New Technology thread. Let me also take this opportunity to give a shout out to the NYT Sunday Business Section! They are the most library friendly section of any major newspaper: from digitization, to home cataloging, and now a wave of articles on social networking software. Hats off to them and I hope the trend continues!

2. An important piece in today's NYT on the important role Wikipedia played in collecting, organizing, and facilitating information on the Virginia Tech shootings. Highly demonstrative of changes in wikipedia's editorial structure but far more importatntly, the value of collaborative information gathering and disseminating.

3. James Fallows, who I have always respected since reading his "Breaking the News" in college, wrote a disappointing piece about the lack of software to facilitate document sharing. Interesting in two ways: a) how it contrasts the wikipedia piece above, and b) how it highlights, yet again, how things that librarians and technologists use and are excited about have a long ride downstream.

But like I said, more thought is forthcoming. I just didn't want to lose the threads.

Exploring New Technology 2: Digg

Main stream media has not been sharing the most positive news with us as of late and to be honest, I have been left feeling quite despondent: the killings at Virginia Tech, the Supreme Court's abortion decision, the continued arming in Sudan. Not a lot of good stuff out in the world, at least presented by the main stream media. It seems like the perfect time to get to know Digg a bit better.

My first understanding of Digg was incorrect: it does not rate websites, it rates news stories. Essentially, you submit a news story, podcast, etc., and if people like it, they "digg" it. As Digg puts it, they are a digital media democracy.

As usual, there are things I love about this and things that make me tilt my head to one side and say "hm." First off, the notion that individuals decide what is most important to them and there is no "editor" imposing their values or sense of relevance to the stage is exciting. I especially appreciate their efforts to keep us in the loop by recognizing how much information comes to pass on a daily, or even hourly, basis (check out their FAQ and read up on Cloud View).

However, when I showed this to my husband, he responded by saying, "Isn't it just a popularity contest?" Good point. For example, let's look at it from where we are right now, as I type. The top two stories on the New York Times this morning are the Supreme Court's ruling on banning partial birth abortion and another insight into the mind of the VA Tech killer. The top rated stories on Digg as of right now, 9:17 am, is "Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty Fawn) has officially been released!" and "Woman sues after doctor mistake leaves her pooping out her vagina." (Graphic, I know but what is most popular...keep reading.)

It's hard to pinpoint what I see as the problem here. To be honest, I am disappointed in the main stream media's continuous attention to the killer of the Virgnia Tech community. The kind of attention this desperate and sick individual is getting, to my mind, gives credence in some way that to get attention, you have to do drastic things. I would much rather have attention focused on those that died, how the community is coping, and what the rest of us can be doing to ensure things like this don't happen again. But that's just me. And I guess that's the point. To me, both the Digg stories are superfluous and irrelevent (especially the story of the unfortunate lady). If we want to talk about unfortunate ladies, why not focus on the millions of women whose right to choose "their reproductive destiny", as Justice Ginsburg calls it, is now in jeopardy.

I guess that while I am sometimes dismayed by what the mainstream media presents or frustrated by what they don't present (is anyone ever going to give Africa the coverage it deserves), I do find myself in line with their value judgments more than I am in line with the "digg"-ers. I think that there are valuable lessons to be taught from looking at them together, as this morning shows. I know which media outlet best suits my needs and values: what about my students? And if it is a democracy, how do you make a difference? The call to action, to submit stories that they think are important and should be brought into the public eye would certainly be a way for them, or any of us, to participate in the creation of media and the education of the masses.

See what I mean: I like it and I still have my head tilted.