Goodbye to my first blog

This is it... the last entry. We had our presentation yesterday, and other than the video mishap, I think it went very well. I had a fun time, anyway, and I was glad that people weren't too sleepy to participate (maybe it was Ruth's strong coffee). Group 4's presentation was good, though I think they could have done less explaining of what One City, One Book projects are-- presumably, most of us did the reading they assigned. In all, an enjoyable last day!

Group 4 Readings

Group 4: One City, One Book

One Book, One Community: Planning Your Community-Wide Read

The main thing that struck me when reading this was just what a huge undertaking a program of this nature is. It seems easy enough—publicize a book that everyone should read. More hidden are venue concerns, bringing in speakers, making copies of the book available, and coordinating several organizations to work together. This booklet seems very thorough and well thought-out… it seems like it would make a good jumping-off point for any city considering holding a One City, One Book-type event. I do wish the group had specified which parts of this to read, but I used my judgment and read some parts more thoroughly than others.

One Book Projects Grow in Popularity

My undergraduate institution always assigns a book (usually fiction) to incoming freshmen. During New Student Week, students meet in groups and discuss the issues in the group. I found myself wondering how long that program has been going on, and it turns out it was started in 1988, fully ten years before One City, One Book began. I’d be curious to learn more about similar programs and how they relate to One Book. I looked at the link of One Book projects and was surprised by just how many cities have adopted it—pretty neat.

“Building a Community of Readers”: A One Book Program

Ah… well, here’s some information on other similar programs… just like I asked for. A nice example of the application of the idea to a smaller, different setting.

Reactions to the first 3 groups

I was struck by how well the three groups' presentations fit together. These presentations are an effective way to wrap up many of the issues we've been discussing this semester. I especially enjoyed the Banned Books presentation and wish we could have heard more about book censors and book burners. I also wish they'd referred to the longest reading they assigned; it was time-consuming to read and then not central to their presentation. The Wikipedia group did a nice job as well, and I learned quite a bit more about the site. It's too bad they had to rush through the end, because I would have liked to hear more on pop culture. The Patriot Act did a good job explaining a confusing topic, though some visuals might have been nice. On the whole, the presentations could have been a bit livelier and involved the class before a short question period. At the same time, they were informative, well-planned, and interesting.

Groups 1, 2, and 3

Group 1 Readings (Banned Books)

Paul S. Boyer, Boston Book Censorship in the Twenties

I had no idea that Boston was such a hub of censorship in the 1920s, though after reading the explanation provided (mainly that the Catholic Church and large numbers of Irish immigrants wielded stronger influence there) makes sense. How did the Watch and Ward society, a private group of older individuals, gain so much power over booksellers and policymakers? It’s a bit scary, though it’s a common enough story for influential and well-off individuals to band together lobby on behalf of a cause and enact real change. An interesting historical account.

James LaRue, Buddha at the Gate, Running: Why People Challenge Library Materials

One to hang on to. The patron complaining about a book or other library policies is a very real situation, and I admire the compassion and level-headedness LaRue describes as the ideal response. In general, I think people are too quick to become defensive, and a librarian hearing a patron complaint is no exception.

Geoffrey Nunberg, The Internet Filter Farce: Why Blocking Software Doesn’t- and Can’t- Work as Promised

I’m really curious what he’d say now. I’m guessing filters have improved, though the last time I encountered one they were still inaccurate and annoying. I was shocked when my roommate mentioned that her undergrad institution used a filter on their network. People’s private computers on campus were filtered, too, and she mentioned not being able to access art sites that she needed. The article also mentions a company called Secure Computing, where several good friends of mine from college are employed. I don’t think they work on the filter software, but I was a little surprised to see the name listed. I find it hard to imagine a filter that worked well enough that I’d want to see it used in libraries or schools, but perhaps the day will come.

Group 2 Readings (Wikipedia)

B.X. Miller, I Want My Wikipedia

These short articles raised several good points. I most often turn to Wikipedia for pop culture reference questions or as an initial source for an obscure topic, and the first reviewer highlighted the same. She also noted that “the pleasure and fun of serendipitous strolling is actively encouraged in Wikipedia through its extensive use of embedded links.” This reminded me of a criticism we’ve made in class of online searching, when we pointed out that often it inhibits the kinds of serendipitous encounters one experiences when browsing the stacks at a library. Links do alleviate that problem. I didn’t know before reading this that sites like Wikipedia are protected from libel suits.

History of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is described as a “large glob project”—what does that mean, exactly? Very interesting to read about “Nupedia,” and the eventual winning out of the non-peer reviewed, non-expert written version that we have today. It’s crazy to read a history where some things are documented in minutes—the German website established minutes before the Catalan one, for example. I love the graph of how their popularity skyrocketed after Seigenthaler complained about his biography. “Wikipedia Day” is coming up!

Criticisms of Wikipedia

Nothing too surprising here. I think people tend to get too worked up over the problems with Wikipedia, instead of appreciating the things it does well. Is it true that “Free trumps quality all the time”? Of course not, and we have room for all kinds of new reference sources. Should be an interesting class discussion.

Group 3 Readings (Patriot Act)

Patriot Debates (Sections 215, 501, and 502)

I must say that I’m still a little confused about where the law currently stands. I’m embarrassed to say I don’t already know the details, and this little debate confused me. What happened with the gag rule? I think I’m going to go find a summary of these parts somewhere and then read the debates again. There is a summary on this page, but it doesn’t seem to have a date listed.

Shush.ws

I read the second article on this site. I was struck mainly by Joseph Bottum’s defense of section 215 by stating, “[it] has never been used” (emphasis in original). How is that comforting when it could still legally be used in any of several worrying ways? He also points out that it’s unclear in the new law how much evidence would be needed to persuade a judge that information is needed. Shouldn’t that be made clearer no matter which side of the argument you stand on? I also skimmed the first article.

ALA’s Response to the Patriot Act

I read the “Confidentiality and Coping with Law Enforcement Inquiries: Guidelines for the Library and its Staff.” It seems like a guide for a worst-case situation; reading it made me a little tense. It seems like it would be useful if your library found itself subpoenaed and wanted a legal overview, but it also seems like it was written with urgency and a bit of fear. I hope it doesn’t come to the point where most libraries have to deal with inquiries on a regular basis, but it’s hard to argue that it’s probably best to have a prepared staff.

Finished the green packet

Richard E. Rubin, Information Technologies in the Twentieth Century

Not much to report here. I did read with amusement the part about microphotography, imagining what Baker would say. The article helped clarify to what extent the government was a player in several big technology movements. And I have to confess that I learned a lot from the Internet/Web section. Most of the article seemed to focus on that, in fact-- lucky me!

William Y. Arms, Libraries, Technology, and People and Innovation and Research

Already seems quite outdated. I did appreciate his list of things that are different in a digital library—it’s a nice summary. Most of what he says about digital libraries seems mostly true, but I do question a few things. I’m not sure about his claim that digital libraries are (or can be) less expensive than traditional libraries. Arms states that library buildings are expensive, but if we want to make even digital libraries accessible to all, we still need the bricks and mortar. It also seems to me that the equipment will need constant, expensive upgrades. We need faster computers, computers with more disk space, and more of them. The cost of storage may be going down, but our needs for it, I’d guess, are growing at at least the same rate. It’s not clear what’s around the corner in digital technology, but if the past is any indicator, something new is just around the corner, and it’s still expensive. Archiving and preservation are more expensive in the digital world. Not to say that we shouldn’t have digital libraries, just that I’m not sure that reduced cost will be realized to the extent suggested here.

I think it’s interesting and notable that most digital library research is undertaken by non-libraries and non-library workers. It seems important that we have a stronger say in how these libraries evolve, but I’m also not sure where the funding would come from to allow libraries to have more time and staff for research and innovation. Also interesting is the role that government funding had in supporting research only in the computer science field.

What computer is he using that has such a readable screen? Arms says, “Until recently, few people were happy to read from a computer” (11). Five years later, I think it’s still true that most people prefer to read on paper.

Speaking of increased library pay....

Yikes.

Double Fold

Nicholson Baker, Double Fold

I read this book in 2002 as part of a small experimental undergraduate course in Trade Publishing and the Control of Cultural Information. We read not only Double Fold, but also The Size of Thoughts, The Mezzanine, and several articles by Nicholson Baker. Near the end of the term, Nicholson Baker came to our 20-person class for a day to answer our questions. He brought with him beautiful old newspapers, and I found him more affable in person than in writing. I struggle with Double Fold. For the most part, I agree with Baker. But it’s the same sort of relationship I have with Michael Moore: I wish neither man were quite so abrasive. At the same time, I realize that the extremities in position and personality might be exactly what allow their messages to be widely disseminated. Reading Double Fold for the second time, I found my opinions largely unchanged, with the exception that I’ve now had practical work in a library environment where we engage in scanning and where space is a real concern. For the most part, we’re scanning in old articles and making newer copies of them for our paper archive—so we’re tossing copies, but we’re tossing photocopies. I don’t think Baker would mind. We still have our card catalogs (though possibly not forever) and haven’t thrown a book away in anyone’s recent memory. For more, ask about my book review due next week.