My Photo

Chat with us


Flickr

  • Flickr Pix
    www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing photos in a set called Fall 2006 Membership Meeting. Make your own badge here.

Statcounter


Seth Godin on Curiousity

Found this via John Blyberg's great blog

Interesting Debate on Web 2.0: Weinberger vs. Keen

Debate Yesterday the Wall Street Journal ran a piece, "The Good, the Bad and the Web 2.0" that featured a debate between Andrew Keen, author of, "The Cult of the Amateur" and David Weinberger, author of "Everything is Miscellaneous".

I highly recommend the article, but for you fans of Cliffs notes, here's my quick 'n' dirty summary, followed a by a few questions to ponder.

Notes on Keen's position

IS WEB 2.0 A DREAM OR A NIGHTMARE?  It is: "The radical democratization of media which is enabling anyone to publish anything on the Internet.    

  • Web 2.0 tranforms all of us into digital writers, music artists, movie makers, journalists (and critics)
  • YouTube, blogs, Wikipedia, MySpace, Facebook, Flickr, Tagging
  • A flattened media is a personalized, chaotic media without that essential epistemological anchor of truth.  The impartiality of the authoritative, accountable expert is replaced by the murkiness of the anonymous amateur.  When everyone claims to be an author, there can be no art. no reliable information, no audience
  • Web 2.0's Democratization of information is creating a generation of media illiterates.  That's the Nightmare.
  • Web 2.0 (combined with broadband) will transform the media into "ubiquitous chatter".  Digital abundance will lead to intellectual poverty.  "The more we know, the less we will know."
  • Traditional media has done a good job in discovering, polishing, and distributing talent.
  • To use this chaotic media efficaciously, we need to invent our own taxonomies -- which isn't realistic to the majority of the people.

Notes on Weinberger's position

THE WEB IS ABUNDANCE, WHILE THE OLD MEDIA IS PREMISED ON SCARCITY

  • The web is problematic because there are no centralized gatekeepers BUT the Web is ALSO the continuing struggle to deal with that problem:  sites that enable users to tag online resources; the Web invents ways to pull together ideas and information, finding the connections and relationships that keep the "misc" from staying that way.
  • People rely on a wide range of trust mechanisms appropriate to the domain to guide us (i.e. ebay reputations; persistence of posts on blogs; recommendations of other bloggers; Wikipedia's sophisticated governance and complete transparency…)
  • Amateurs aren't driving out pros.  But the criteria governing our choice of whom to listen to are expanding from "those are the only channels I get".
  • Keen's picture of talent is formed by the binary view the traditional media has forced on us.  It's been expensive to produce, market, distribute products (book, records, films).  The traditional distribution system made it look like talent is a you-got-it-or-you-don't proposition.  That doesn't reflect the scarcity of talent so much as the scarcity of distribution, a result of the high cost of delivering the first copy.
  • We couldn't find so much on the web if finding required creating our own taxonomies as Keen says.   We rely on taxonomies created by experts (catalogs, indexes), computer assistance (search engines) and recommendations from people we trust.  We're getting better at all of these.
  • Consider how much more we know about the world because of bloggers.  They may not be "journalists" but they are sources.


Thoughts/Questions

  1. What can libraries be doing to help people find information?
    • Creating (good) expert taxonomies
    • Building recommendations systems into our catalogs and websites
    • Leveraging our reputation as a trusted source
    • Become actively involved with social tagging.   
  2. What can/should libraries be doing to help customers create and share?  Can/should we be aggregating or creating local community or subject oriented:
    • Blogs
    • Wikis
    • YouTube "channels"
    • Podcasts
  3. As information professionals, what are our information competencies in the web 2.0 world?
  4. Web 2.0 fosters communities of interest.  Are there opportunities for libraries to strengthen their role in their community and/or connect people (or connect with people) in their communities?

Bookswim: Books by mail

Bookswim_1 via Tame the Web

Michael Stephens Writes...
 

Add this to Starbucks book clubs, wifi, and music sales, iTunes movie downloads and "third place" contenders like the aforementioned Starbucks or Panera Bread and you have a whole bunch of services, physical spaces and web sites competing for what libraries used to have a hold on.

Frankly, if a site like BookSwim flies, we need to be very aware and plan accordingly. I hope some of those innovating libraries out there are working on a Netflix model and that they will share it openly ASAP.

This troubles me. In fact let's look at the big picture of the last few days in notable news:

A library CLOSES to prevent young people from being rowdy

A site LAUNCHES soon that duplicates the successful Netflix model for the library "brand" - BOOKS!

What do these two events forecast for the future of libraries folks?

SEE ALSO:

 

Waiting for your cat to bark...

The often brilliant, always stimulating Stephen Abram (Sirsi/Dynix VP for Innovation) recently posted a great article, to the Sirsi/Dynix OneSource newsletter, "Waiting For Your Cat to Bark".

Stephen presents an insightful listing of what libraries do well, what we don't, and where the jury's still out. 

Jezebel_barking_1What do we do well?  "Libraries are all about community – workplaces, neighborhoods, research, and learning communities."

What do we do poorly? "We are poor at marketing and promoting the library and librarians..."

Where is the Jury Still Out?   full-text book searching; service to PDAs;

Read the whole post here

Email notification

Other SJRLC feeds

Upcoming Events

Powered by TypePad