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.

Exploring New Technology 7: You Tube

You Tube, where you are encouraged to "broadcast yourself," is not all that new to me. I have been enjoying snippets of skateboarding, ballet, whatever, for a while. But it was this article in C&RL that helped me connect some dots.

As Paula Webb's article rightly points out, YouTube could radically change how we deliver information and instruction to our students. I have heard from many librarians that they would rather provide all library instruction to students via the library web page or college websites. Why? Imagine a 19 year old student putting Champlain College in as a search term in YouTube and a video on how to use the databases comes up. Perhaps that student might discard it at that moment. But perhaps they realize that the library is there the next time they have a question at 4 in the morning and they can't find an article. The chances of them going to YouTube sounds greater than their chances of going to the library homepage, if for no other reason than out of habit, no?

Or, let's look at the really creative folks out there, especially the folks at Common Craft. I've highlighted their amazing video on RSS, which I have shared with our IT folks who loved it. They also offer a great one on wikis.

Rock on Common Craft! Not only are these great explanations of technologies whose names are thrown about frequently, but they are explained in an understandable and enjoyable way. YES!

But to return to YouTube...Common Craft shows us that YouTube doesn't have to be institution specific. General information that is valuable to everyone, whether it be technology, plagiarism, citations, search techniques, readers advisery, copyright clues...it all could be valuable and useful on YouTube and reach any audience.

And let's not forget the web 2.0 applicability here: YouTube is interactive. Perhaps student interns can create something that appeals to their peers, something like this video from the Undergrad at UIUC:


Granted, it's kind of hokey but come on! Digital pics, downloading music to your Ipod, group study, open til 3 am, career services, writing center...this video is hokey but awesome and all inclusive! And when students look up UIUC on YouTube, there it is! And we can rest assured that with so many students in the video, they shared it with their friends, spreading the word to their "social network."

YouTube offers libraries an amazing opportunity to expand our message and our image beyond traditional boundaries. Even if we didn't have the time or technology to make videos of our own, including YouTube videos in our instruction and website seems like a great way to share resources and information in a way that mirrors students' use of the web. So we continue to not only do our jobs, acheive our mission, but we look cool too.

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.

Exploring New Technology 1: Delicious?

So what's all this hub-bub about del.icio.us? After hearing so much about it, I decided I would be the killer librarian that I am and get out there to see what it is and what I think of it, at least on the surface.

The first thing I LOVED about it, and I think should be required reading for all newly initiated Web 2.0 users, was a clear, interesting, and funny description of tags. I appreciated their admission that it might not seem intuitive at first. That certainly was my take: what should I say? What is the "right" thing to say? Especially as a librarian, and a cataloger to part, how can I just describe sites how ever I want? Is there no order to the universe? I quake in my chair just thinking about it.

But that's the whole point: it is YOUR web, your bookmarks, your interaction with the web that makes it worthwhile. And I think that is what makes it slightly difficult for librarians and information scientists to wrap their heads around. The order is self imposed and self described. There is no hierarchy (interesting that they mention this on their site. Perhaps they anticipate librarians incredulity). There is no "right".

Okay, so I get the part about self-creating the web, etc. But still, I coudln't really see the point. I mean, why do I need to be tagging any of this stuff? Who cares?

And then we had a staff meeting. Paula, my fellow funky librarian, was mentioning, yet again, an awesome information literacy tutorial she had found. And it hit me. "Paula," I said, "you should use delicious to mark all these tutorials you love so I can find them. I can never remember all the sites you mention." Voila. Interactivity, purpose, innovation, learning: in the workplace, among librarians at a staff meeting!

This little expose on my interaction with del.icio.us also marks the first of a series of posts I will be trying as I delve into the myriad of technologies that I have been writing down on little post it notes to look at but never make time to check out. Here's my effort at depleting the number of post it notes I have around my computer!

Synthesis: 2.0

Finally time to review some thoughts from ACRL. I think an appropriate name for conference would have been "Web 2.0 and the Academic Librarian: To Be or Not to Be." Every session I went to touched on the proliferation of social networking software and the interactivity of information: great things to think about in a variety of contexts. One thing that I appreciated most about David Silver's talk (and let me shout out to David for his enthusiasm, encouragement, and for finding my blog!) was his reminding the library community that while this is an exciting time in librarianship, technology and information, it is not intrinsically revolutionary but rather an evolution. As he calls it: AEIOU (Already Existing Information Optimally Uploaded). I love the acronym. But his point is an important one for librarians to remember: technology is changing but the effort is the same as it has always been. We are here, still, to help our users find information. But that's the easy part. The hard part is the part we are still hashing out: how do we contextualize that information and actually help our users expand their knowledge. Ah, ontologies. What is information and what is knowledge? I feel like my former professor and guru brain teaser, Allen Renear, would smile at me.

What I mean is that we can choose to use and incorporate the newest technologies, otherwise known as the technology our students use. But the hard part is then helping our students see the value of those technologies, and their limitations. For example: tag clouds. While these are incredibly interesting to look at, they seem to continue to encourage students to read for breadth and not depth. Does knowing how many times a word has been used in a speech really help a student understand the context in which it was used? Does the ability to rate websites mean that you don't have to think about the bias of the reviewer or assign your own set of values to the site? Finally, does the collaborative nature of a wiki mean that you can cast aside any efforts at accountability since what you wrote will be changed anyway?

I don't know. I am thinking about, right here and at my desk and in my living room and in my classroom. These are tough questions. These are fun questions.

The Library, to remain truly germane to our students, and to maintain its viability in the soul of education, needs to expand our role. We can't stop at showing databases. We need to help our students evaluate websites but also evaluate how they now interact with them.

ACRL reminded me how many threads there are to creating a dynamic but sustainable role for the library. And I think that some people find it intimidating. But the idea of the internet was intimidating once, and look at us now. The idea of open stacks was scary once and now closed stacks are almost extinct.

To be or not to be: that is the question. And it might not be as simple as a yes or no. But it certainly is a lot of fun to think about.