Week 1 Reading Notes

Article 1: OCLC report: Information Format Trends: Content, Not Containers (2004). In my opinion the implications this article made about the changes in society as a whole brought about through the increased use of information technologies were the most fascinating part of the piece. Based on the perspective of the author, it seems that society as a whole is caring less and less about the concept of quality as well as quantity of information. I’m not certain that I completely agree with this point of view. There is a difference between downloading one track of an online music album and downloading one sentence out of an online journal. Also, who are these “ordinary” people that can now bypass editors and publishers and self-publish on a blog? I do not see the harm in allowing every person with a computer the ability to put his or her opinion out there. It is up to readers to decide the value of a piece, and whether or not the writer is an authoritative source. Perhaps not everyone has the best judgment to decipher fact from fiction, but one must only enter a bookstore to see numerous examples nonauthoritative sources that have nonetheless been printed by respected publishing companies, so this is nothing new. However, I do see a major danger in the fact that scientists and other professionals may publish articles completely without peer review. If they were ever to be taken seriously be their fellow researchers, the whole scientific method may find itself in jeopardy when professionals publish results that have not been adequately tested and retested by their peers. Misinformation in the realm of the sciences cannot be tolerated, as it can lead to dangerous assumptions. Another part of this paper I feel may pose a serious challenge for humanity is the fact that future populations will interact more in the e-world than in the physical realm. There is a reason humans are social creatures, and I’m not convinced that e-interactions and communications can fill the void left by losing relationships with family and friends beyond the computer screen or smartphone screen. How much honey would a beehive produce if the bees never sent pheremonal messages or danced for one another, but instead relied on more unnatural means of communication? Beyond the issue of productivity, what would the quality of life be like for children who spend more time chatting online than playing outside with friends? One last comment, and then I’ll desist my rambling. The article mentioned that library users are now more “self-sufficient” at finding materials. Yet if I walk into an unfamiliar library today and try to find a book without the use of a computer or search engine, it would take far longer than if I simply asked for help from a librarian who had worked there for forty years. My point is that being able to use a search engine or a computer is not the same thing as being self-sufficient. Granted this article is about technology’s effect on libraries and society, but technology is not infallible. In my experience working at a small town public library, the power went out on two occasions within a one month period of time. Truly self-sufficient patrons did not need the help of any sort of catalog or of the librarian to find books, and in this instance had there not been several knowledgeable staff members on hand to aid in locating materials, every patron would have left the library that day emptyhanded. Article 2: Clifford Lynch, “Information Literacy and Information Technology Literacy: New Components in the Curriculum for a Digital Culture” The major important point that I gathered from this article was that modern librarians need to have more than just the skills to use computer programs and set up networks and databases, but must more importantly understand the connections between their job as information guardians and every other aspect of society. A world-view is needed in this situation. I agree wholeheartedly with this idea, though also understand how difficult it can be to implement. In a perfect world public school teachers would teach critical thinking as soon as children were mentally developed enough to respond. Yet for the sake of efficiency, K-12 programs, and many colleges to adhere to the practice of teaching skills only and leave students to make the connections between their own field and others themselves. Without understanding the many issues that effect librarianship today, I think we cannot hope to keep up with the needs of our patrons. Article 3: Vaughan, J. (2005). Lied Library @ four years: technology never stands still. Library Hi Tech, 23(1), 34-49. This article was fascinating, and I especially liked the more scientific style that Vaughan chose to write in. It was very useful to read about not only results, but also methods. I’ll have to catch up on a lot of the programs mentioned, but it could prove a useful reference for any librarian who is renovating or even simply building a library. The take-home message of this one was that the library’s job isn’t just to store information, but also to reinvent and revitalize itself continually in order to meet the growing needs of its patrons. I did wonder why the staff of Lied library even allowed students and community members alike to play games on library computers. Every public or academic library I’ve visited makes games strictly prohibited. I did object a little to the concept of giving precedence to students versus community members. Once one type of patron is put above another, I would think that a library would need a complicated list of who gets booted off of a system first. For example, does a graduate student who sleeps in till noon and then comes to the library at its busiest hour (for example) begin to feel entitled to a computer to play games on even though there are community members who may have a more pressing need than games? What about community members that are alumni who are job searching? Emeriti? In my home town public library we restricted all patrons to one hour on our computers, but when a retired doctor who had held a library card since it was opened came in, he was allowed to stay on indefinitely. I never thought that was particularly fair, but that is an example of when favoritism can interrupt the workings of the library. On a more broad note, I would think that the issue of internet security in an academic library must be huge. Students are typically required to give everything from their social security number to their great-grandma’s maiden name in order to get a student identification card, and all this information could be very dangerous in the wrong hands.