Now that cataloging is in the hands of everyman, I think the web is going to become easier to navigate. I definitely liked the experience of creating my own tags for websites in Delicious. Chances are, there are people out there just like me who are looking for the same kind of information. This type of “bottom up” classification is very helpful. When a website is created, the outlook of the creator is often very different from that of a user. This way, the web creators can see exactly what someone was looking for when they accessed their site. It further expands the two-way communication that is the hallmark of Web 2.0.
The implications for librarians are great, but also very exciting and promising. I can imagine a library website where users can create their own tags for books, as I understand some libraries are already doing. Everyone can find out which books were helpful for what types of research. These tags would most likely go into much more detail than the ones assigned by the Library of Congress. Searching a library’s ILS will generate much more accurate results and make the library much more useful to the patron. Websites like Shelfari already allow people to share their own libraries and their opinions of books. Pairing opinions and reviews with an ILS will further enhance a patron’s searching ability. I look forward to Catalog 2.0. It is a ways away in my mentor’s library, but I’m willing to wait.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
It's Alive!
Professor Wesch gave his clever video an equally clever and intriguing title: “The Machine is Us/Using Us.” I think he may have wanted us to consider the dichotomy.
“The Machine is Us” refers to the user generated content of Web 2.0. As pointed out in Courtney, wikis, blogs, and You Tube videos are all contributed by the user, which Berners-Lee points out was the intent of the web from the beginning: interaction between people. Everything contained on the World Wide Web is contributed by the collective “us.” Thus, Wesch hints through his title that the web is a digital representation of people. What people are interested in, they put on the web. This enables them to be connected to people who are interested in the same things. Information that is valued is contributed to the web. By studying the information on the web, we can glean insight into what society’s values and beliefs are. If an alien race somehow gained access to our wi-fi, say, at an intergalactic Starbucks, they would get a fairly accurate picture of humanity as we know it from what they viewed on the web. It is us: digitized in many different forms. The other version of his title, “The Machine is Using Us,” hints that the computers may have an inherent intelligence of their own.
Wesch points out that every piece of information we put on the web teaches it something new, creates new connections, and makes it smarter. This, however, implies that the web is somehow sentient, which it is not. The web is man-created, and continues to evolve only because humans continue to build onto it. Yes, the web may have similarities to the human brain, with connections between information, information that leads to more information, organization of information, etc., but it is not growing smarter. The web is growing more complex because of the vast amount of content that man continues to add. This version of the title would suggest that the web is somehow manipulating us into contributing data, compelling us to feed its never ending hunger for information. The web is not hungry. We are hungry to organize and access information efficiently. We are perhaps also hungry to create a digital representation of ourselves. We saw Dr. Frankenstein attempt it in fiction, and now we see cloning as reality. The web is us, created by us.
“The Machine is Us” refers to the user generated content of Web 2.0. As pointed out in Courtney, wikis, blogs, and You Tube videos are all contributed by the user, which Berners-Lee points out was the intent of the web from the beginning: interaction between people. Everything contained on the World Wide Web is contributed by the collective “us.” Thus, Wesch hints through his title that the web is a digital representation of people. What people are interested in, they put on the web. This enables them to be connected to people who are interested in the same things. Information that is valued is contributed to the web. By studying the information on the web, we can glean insight into what society’s values and beliefs are. If an alien race somehow gained access to our wi-fi, say, at an intergalactic Starbucks, they would get a fairly accurate picture of humanity as we know it from what they viewed on the web. It is us: digitized in many different forms. The other version of his title, “The Machine is Using Us,” hints that the computers may have an inherent intelligence of their own.
Wesch points out that every piece of information we put on the web teaches it something new, creates new connections, and makes it smarter. This, however, implies that the web is somehow sentient, which it is not. The web is man-created, and continues to evolve only because humans continue to build onto it. Yes, the web may have similarities to the human brain, with connections between information, information that leads to more information, organization of information, etc., but it is not growing smarter. The web is growing more complex because of the vast amount of content that man continues to add. This version of the title would suggest that the web is somehow manipulating us into contributing data, compelling us to feed its never ending hunger for information. The web is not hungry. We are hungry to organize and access information efficiently. We are perhaps also hungry to create a digital representation of ourselves. We saw Dr. Frankenstein attempt it in fiction, and now we see cloning as reality. The web is us, created by us.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Technology Windfall
My technology director has not only made my day, she has made my year! I have $10,000 to purchase handheld devices for my library. Spending this much money is a daunting responsibility. My research has convinced me this money would be best spent on Smart Phones.
Courtney suggests that librarians should support what their patrons already have. Mobile phones are the most common technology there is. More families have mobile phones than have computers. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that my patrons are most familiar with this device. The technology in Smart Phones enables them to do almost everything a computer can, and wirelessly, no less!
With this budget, I could purchase approximately 35-40 Smart Phones, depending upon the price of the exact model I choose. These smart phones will be able to play audio, video, read e-books, take digital pictures and video, and have wireless internet access.
I think having a device that could function as an e-book might entice reluctant readers into the library. I could have phones loaded with specific e-books for students to check out. For safety, I think I might require a signed parent note to be on file so that the parent is aware their student is taking responsibility for this pricey technology.
Beyond using the phone as an e-book, I think its capabilities would open up many creative avenues for students and teachers. Teachers could check out whole class sets of phones at one time to be used in reports or research. Students could snap digital pictures or make digital videos relevant to the subject they are studying. Having a class set will ensure all students have the same technological opportunities, because not all students have access to a digital camera or video camera at home.
This would be a wonderful way to energize the book report. Instead of it being in written format, the student could produce a short video that could serve as the report. The student could simply e-mail it to the teacher to turn it in. Further, the exceptional book reports could be uploaded to a library web site and serve as book reviews that other students could peruse.
Smart Phones would be a wonderful addition to any library. The device is common, and many students will already know how to use it. I only wish this assignment was not hypothetical!
Courtney suggests that librarians should support what their patrons already have. Mobile phones are the most common technology there is. More families have mobile phones than have computers. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that my patrons are most familiar with this device. The technology in Smart Phones enables them to do almost everything a computer can, and wirelessly, no less!
With this budget, I could purchase approximately 35-40 Smart Phones, depending upon the price of the exact model I choose. These smart phones will be able to play audio, video, read e-books, take digital pictures and video, and have wireless internet access.
I think having a device that could function as an e-book might entice reluctant readers into the library. I could have phones loaded with specific e-books for students to check out. For safety, I think I might require a signed parent note to be on file so that the parent is aware their student is taking responsibility for this pricey technology.
Beyond using the phone as an e-book, I think its capabilities would open up many creative avenues for students and teachers. Teachers could check out whole class sets of phones at one time to be used in reports or research. Students could snap digital pictures or make digital videos relevant to the subject they are studying. Having a class set will ensure all students have the same technological opportunities, because not all students have access to a digital camera or video camera at home.
This would be a wonderful way to energize the book report. Instead of it being in written format, the student could produce a short video that could serve as the report. The student could simply e-mail it to the teacher to turn it in. Further, the exceptional book reports could be uploaded to a library web site and serve as book reviews that other students could peruse.
Smart Phones would be a wonderful addition to any library. The device is common, and many students will already know how to use it. I only wish this assignment was not hypothetical!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
