Facebook For the Last Time Tonight

“The Use of Facebook in Academic Health Science Libraries” by Hendrix, Chiarella, Hasman, Murphy and Zafron

This was a straightforward piece of research writing, a fact I appreciate as I struggle with LSC557! I raised an eyebrow at the possible ethical no-no mentioned in the literature review section (“Creatively, the authors scanned student group conversations on Facebook” Is this unethical, merely a bit of lurking, or am I being too picky?) The findings were no surprise, especially looking at the date data was collected: Facebook doesn’t play a big role in Health Science libraries.

There were a few surprises in the results, like two respondents not knowing if their library had a Facebook presence. Unless the participating library directors and department heads were in enormous, compartmentalized organizations, I can’t imagine how they could be unaware, considering their positions!

While I imagine Facebook probably would never be perceived as the optimal platform for serious forums and professional information in the medical field, it surprised me that nobody seemed to be using their library’s Facebook to post library tutorials as slideshare/.ppt, video or podcast. Perhaps, as the authors say, “As the comfort level and facility with this product increases, applications become more robust, and actual maintenance time is understood, it may be likely that more libraries will establish a Facebook presence” (p.49). Of course, it is no surprise that Facebook use wanes among medical students as they progress through their degree. The same would doubtless be true for law students, veterinarians and any of the programs that require extraordinary volumes of reading and memorizing. Maybe Facebook doesn’t stand a chance in medical or law libraries for this reason, no matter how digitally versatile the librarians become, but using the FB page to preempt typical student search needs with short, informative tutorials might be an effective use!

Read Full Post »

A Digital Native Goes Cold Turkey

Thinking back to the PEW report, here’s an interesting comment about real friendships from a digital native who voluntarily went without any form of electronic contact for two weeks. (This seems to be a trend treated by some on a par with climbing Everest or surfing those Hawaiian rollers, but this guy may be down to Earth.)

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/mind-soul/story/2012-03-26/Technology-can-push-our-crazy-buttons-rewire-brains/53792424/1

Read Full Post »

Notess

Greg Notess. “The Terrible Twos: Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and More”

Notess describes the new Web technologies as “a conglomeration … that…represent a new way of interacting online.” and the terms, it seems are “ambiguous and sometimes contradictory” (40). It seems the spectrum of applications out there ranges from extremely useful to utterly trivial. When I explore for our LSC597course, I notice there are more of the latter than the former. Perhaps I’m just not with it. In any case, I am grateful to the bloggers who cull and sort through what is useful and how to use it.

Notess gives a clear rundown of various technologies constituting or exemplifying Web 2.0. I learned quite a bit, like AJAX actually being a use of mixed technologies. I always thought it was code, or a computer language, like CSS or HTML.

Then there are the APIs. Why wouldn’t a software programme want others to incorporate their API? This must be motivated by profit and competition fear, but I would think the higher exposure would be good for business. Anyway, I explored a few of the APIs at programmableweb.com as Notess suggests and found this great example of a mashup: http://www.programmableweb.com/mashup/vuzzbox

In general, I was surprised by how many sites were still active six years after this article was written. It’s a pity that tagcloud.com no longer exists, but of course there’s wordle.

Oooo. and I like that word Notess uses for mashups: “concatenations”. It sounds willful, spirited and headstrong. I don’t suppose that helps me explain things one bit, though.

 

I looked at another Notess article, “Forget Not the Forums”, which really appealed to me. There was a lot of practical information and the sensible reminder that not every Internet search should be started with the usual giants. I looked around some of the content sites and forum search engines Notess recommended. Boardtracker appears to be in limbo, omgili returned nothing on my public library/libraries/school library searches (Is NOBODY talking about these things?) and Boardmaker returned 1000 on public library (mostly Facebook!) and 283 forums on libraries. Some of them were definitely not what I was searching for, but there were links to The Chronicle of Higher Education boards among other interesting relevant forums.) I will definitely use Boardmaker again.

Read Full Post »

FACEBOOK Musings, or Am I a Closet MySpace Guy and LinkedIn Gal?

Reading the PEW Report on Social Networking Sites and our Lives, by Keith N. Hampton, Lauren Sessions Goulet [I wonder if she’s from RI], Lee Rainie and Kristen Purcell (no, I did not read all 85 pages -or 82 omitting notes & references- the week of Comps) I felt the indigestion of (un)healthy skepticism catching in my craw stat after stat.

First there was the implied announcement in the summary that the survey findings could tell us “how use of these technologies is related to trust, tolerance, social support, and community and political engagement” (p.3)

A few gems:

The average American has 634 “ties” in their overall network, but if they use the Internet at home several times daily, they average 732. Ties, not people. LinkedIn and Twitter have larger networks than FB etc. etc.

And friends, the true “I could tell you anything if I needed to” friends are rare at 2.1 but more common than two years ago.

It did make sense that well over half of Facebook friends are from High School, and I’m not surprised that younger FB users friend their “core friends” more frequently than older users.

Here’s another one I liked: “Those who use MySpace have significantly higher levels of perspective taking.”

Or, if we use Facebook heavily, we’re more likely to trust people, attend political events and sway the voting choices of…ummm… others.

HOW do they come up with these things? Yes, I know they compiled data from survey (The report lists 27 questions, but there are 156 questions listed under separate .pdf. You’re kidding.) It is so easy to answer something like “I intend to go to a political rally” because there is no commitment and it “sounds” engaged. There is a political world of difference between “would” vote and “do” or “did” vote. Maybe I’m just too cynical, or maybe I belong on MySpace.

More on the other readings later.

Read Full Post »

More on Next Gen

Just a couple more thoughts on the Next or Third Gen Catalog discussion:

I found it interesting that the “Recommender” features in Endeca get positive feedback as reported by Antelman et al., while the Amazon link is so disliked in trials with WCL. I think this shows that it’s the commercial attribute of the Amazon link that is unwelcome, not the “more titles like this” or “most popular” advice potential.

A couple of classmates have already mentioned the OPAC features they dislike in HELIN, in the  Curriculum Resources or the libraries where they work. I do find it strange that when I initiate a database search in HELIN using title or keyword and an author’s name from an APA citation, it often won’t return anything, but if I truncate the author’s name, I’ll get what I’m looking for. This isn’t always a problem, only sometimes. Fickle, I’d say.

Going into the public library catalog in RI is much friendlier via Encore, I find, but of course they don’t have such a depth of academic databases.

Read Full Post »

Okapis and other Rarities: Lost Catalogs Lament

I read Toward a Twenty-First Century Library Catalog by Kristin Antelman, Emily Lynema and Andrew  K. Pace as the last piece in the “Next Gen Catalog” puzzle. In a replay, I would have read in exactly the opposite order, i.e Antelman et al. first, the .ppt second and the taskforce findings report third. Oh well. Accordingly, I must officially state this is not going to be a very helpful post, but I intend to have fun.

The Antelman et al. article put a lot of OPAC history in the context of current catalog dissatisfaction. I understand a little more every time I read anything about search engines, web crawling, databases and the whole algorithms/semantics/folksonomies/FRBR business. Really, I do, but I can’t explain it in some better more succinct way. Let me digress instead.

I am still exhilarated by the beauty of the rare, elusive and weirdly giraffe like OKAPI. They have such a nice rich chestnutty brown color, and those ears. So we have moved beyond that “tree” in cataloging history perhaps, but the zoological version is, thank goodness, still considered a natural wonder. Do you know they weren’t “discovered” (by white colonial explorer types, that is) until the end of the 19th century, and the first live siting/capture  wasn’t until around the time of WWI (white man again)? What, you may ask, does this have to do with the reading? Well, it was just the names of some of the first prototype “improved’ online catalogs had interesting connections to elusive figures: Okapis are real but hard to find, and CHESHIRE… well it’s that smile left when the rest of the cat has disappeared. Did someone have a great sense of humor?

I’ll try to be more insightful next time. For now, let me say I miss the old card catalogs. Not the cards, just the drawers. They were wonderful examples of good carpentry. I know a few artists who managed to get a hold of the junked pieces.

Read Full Post »

Copyright, Patents, Intellectual Property…

I presume many of you have read about the suit Yahoo is bringing against Facebook, claiming misuse of Yahoo’s marketing and advertising ideas.  I will keep my eyes open for what Cory Doctorow has to say on this. The scary thing about this social media battle is the prospect of domino litigation if Yahoo sues successfully. Facebook has certainly used other ideas in the past, but there we are, back to what’s acceptable repurposing and what amounts to copyright infringement.

Copyright.

That reminds me of the special irony of the form I chose for my book review.

While putting together my Glogster poster about Cory Doctorow’s book,”©ontent”, I couldn’t print the title’s

© into my poster.

After all Doctorow’s admonitions, did it occur to me why Glogster wouldn’t print the ©? Did I read the terms of use verrryy carefully? Well sort of, but it only hit home that Glogster, like Pinterest, claims copyright of any material you post on its site as I saved to publish publicly. And there was the © in Glogster’s claim of “my” poster. No other ©s allowed, thank you very much.

I’m all for sharing. I like being able to browse LibGuides, Pinterest, Glogster, Flickr, Scoop.it! and a ton of other sites for inspiration from peer ideas. Oh yeah, books and journals too. I would be flattered if -was flattered on Pinterest when- someone pinned my uploaded photograph. I presume most people give credit when using material they find, though often this is in the form of “I found it on LibGuides/Scoop.it!/YouTube/Pinterest” rather than giving an individual’s name. Whether citations are correctly specific or too generalized, I think it odd that a company would claim copyright on a product created in their “space”. Does a studio get to claim the artist’s work as their intellectual property, just because an easel was set up and paints were used? Not likely. This will never matter to me personally. I will not be the next big name in anything. But I have to wonder what the owners of sites like Pinterest and Glogster are hoping for.

Read Full Post »

Book Review : ©ontent : Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright, and the Future of the Future

Greetings, 597!

I’ve created a Glogster for my book review. You can listen to my podcast, look at/listen to two of Cory Doctorow’s 2011 speeches, link to Boing Boing and Doctorow’s website, Craphound, read my favorite quote or look at some great photographs of the author on Flickr. One of them, the image I used in my poster, has lots of fun information about the artifacts in the photo if you hover on the Flickr version!

For me, the hardest thing about this review has been paring down the text – again and again, and yet again, to a length and delivery that the average listener might be expected to endure. I hope you are all as far above average as I have rated you! (Now, what do I mean by that? ;-))

Happy listening (you can let the voice play in the background) reading and viewing!

Read Full Post »

Some Social Tagging Sites

I’ve explored a number of sites on inspiration from classmates in previous courses, so I’m already familiar with a few fun ones like StumbleUpon, Flickr, LibraryThing, and Shelfari, but I’ve not used these with any particular attention to academic collaborative value, more from personal fun. This year, I’ve been using Evernote and “Read It Later” to bookmark and save pages and I began to have fun with Pinterest through the PUBLIB listserve. I think it has the potential to be a great site for libraries despite some recent publicity about giving up rights to anything you upload to the site.

In connection with my other course this semester, I found the following useful for research:

BibSonomy http://www.bibsonomy.org

Maintained by the University of Kassel, Germany, it’s easy to join and you can choose from various groups and “popular”. The site is run in German or English, and the contributions (as bookmarks and publications) are multilingual. This gives a real overview of what issues are current in which cultures.

So under the Group “Collaborative Knowledge Construction Challenge 2007” for instance, the articles cited below, posted to the group about a year and a half ago by a single contributor, can be seen w/abstract and directly called up Full Text .pdf via URI remote:

Kwak, H.; Lee, C.; Park, H. & Moon, S. (2010), What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?, in ‘WWW ’10: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web’ , ACM, New York, NY, USA , pp. 591–600 .

Lipczak, M. & Milios, E. (2010), The impact of resource title on tags in collaborative tagging systems, in ‘HT ’10: Proceedings of the 21st ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia’ , ACM, New York, NY, USA , pp. 179–188 .

Tags appear in the right hand panel, as well as group members (you can join some) and discussions.

Under “Popular” you can explore posts, discussions, specific authors, tags and concepts.

Exploring under popular posts (last 7 days vs. last 30 days & older) I came across an illustrated explanation of a PhD, which you can see here: http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/

Scroll down and you get to another delight: If it’s popular, people translate it! Look at the list!

Pros: scholarly and international content, which makes up for the …

Cons: some navigation annoyances when clicking on group URLs vs. name of group and the interface display visibility/discoverability needs getting used to. As a precaution, you are required to submit a CAPTCHA phrase TWICE (!) before bookmarking.

 

Compare to: Delicious (Delicious has lots of content-more mixed in popular and content rich, tags are easier to include in saved items. Visuals are attractive. I have a harder time sifting through themes in Delicious, but perhaps it’s because I’ve only just started exploring despite being aware of the tool for a few years.)

Diigo I need to explore more, but I like being able to highlight, share, make sticky notes on web pages etc. I think this is one I may want to use regularly.

Read Full Post »

Folks Find Stuff…Sometimes

This week’s readings, “Survival Of The Fittest Tag: Folksonomies, Findability, And The Evolution Of Information Organization” by Alexis Wilchowski and “Social Tagging as a Knowledge Organization and Resource Discovery Tool” by Heshem Allam led into another bit of uncharted territory in my personal “Atlas of the Information Highway”. That, I think, describes the crux of the problem: our personal information atlases don’t always show the same outline though we’re navigating the same territories. It leads to the danger of “imprecision, overlap, duplication, ambiguity, and erroneous identification” as Wilchowski quotes Dotsika and Guy&Tonkin. And that leads to the dark edge of the map and lost information. “Here be dragons”, and all that.

Folksonomies and Social Tags to the rescue!

Both articles provided interesting factoids (the last 30 years worth of info production outstripping the previous 5,000 years’ output!), some helpful explanations and details (research shows combining folksonomies and traditional controlled vocabulary increases findability) and, most of all thought provoking ideas, concerns and suggestions for information management in an age of information deluge.

As usual, I find myself jumping back and forth across the fence, playing Devil’s advocate on either side with every new sentence. Here’s a snippet with the fence:

What’s the value of the last 30 years of information vs. the 5,000 years preceding?	The ability to share and produce new content opens phenomenal possibilities in humanitarian work, research and start-ups.
The quality of shared content is impossible to assess and inconsistent	And so forth…

What remains undeniable: we need a dependable consistent order to our information to retrieve it effectively. Emily gave a wonderful example in her blog about “outsourcing” to a group of knitting experts to create a useable set of terms for a crochet and knitting pattern database. This seems viable, not unlike the catalogers with areas of expertise in large libraries. Yes, there’s a certain amount of personal interpretation involved, but shared among a population who have likely drawn a recognizably “same map” that they feel represents effectively to outsiders, too. Just imagine how effective such interest/expertise groups could be in bringing a weave of cross references and descriptors if a project got going like Wikipedia. This seems to be the positive outcome Allam describes when people are made aware of the positive contribution they can make to the greater public.

Still, one thing has me a bit worried: as the next generation of catalogers/classifiers grows up and takes over, will there be a phase of “not knowing the old system” before a reliable, efficient new system matures? Wichowski matter-of-factly states that formal methods of information organization will not disappear (“the mainstream will not disappear, of course”), but fails to support this assertion. Look at the number of cataloging positions cut or deliberately left unfilled in economic downturns. Think of the cuts in 2009 at the LoC. And it is just the lack of context or well developed web of synonyms etc. that make folksonomies unreliable all on their own.

 On the other hand, so much of what’s out there really is only there for personal use, and sometimes it’s really quite private. I’m thinking images or links that are really only intended for a closed circle of friends.

As for the photos on Flickr and pages on delicious, scoop.it etc: The question is risky, but do we need to retrieve all that information? If millions are producing, isn’t it likely (duplication again) that we’ll retrieve enough with a logical search term to reveal a tip sufficiently representing the hidden part of the iceberg? How likely is it that someone hid “diamond” in “ice” or, if they did, that they want you to find it?

Read Full Post »