Just a year and a half ago, I never would have referred to Wikipedia as a resource--how can something that can be edited by everyone be accurate? Only professors and professionals should be deemed trustworthy, right? Amazing how my mind has been changing. Now, I think Wikipedia is a great starting point for a quick intro on a topic. No, I wouldn't let a student of mine cite it as a source in lieu of peer reviewed journals, but I do recognize its value.
In "The Machine is Us/ing Us" video*, one part reads: "Digital text [and hyper text and the web] is no longer just linking info. The web [and web 2.0] is linking people...people sharing, trading, and collaborating." Sounds just like libraries--we no longer just match information needs, we are now "about innovation, about people, and about community building" (source: Wikipedia on Library 2.0). Yup.
And a lot of those 2.0 concepts aren't so new for libraries, but the technology part is where the libraries need to buck up: Amazon can suggest other books you might want; Google is a forgiving searching tool. Our catalogs stink by comparison (and how can we not compare?!) I'm glad to read that WorldCat will be letting people tag, create and share lists, etc, because people expect that now. I hope it will also help correct yer wierd speling, too (did you mean your weird spelling?)
And as for organizing information, it is wild to think that we, the people, are deciding how to organize the web using our tags and links. In libraries, of course, Dewey (or LOC) set the parameters, and librarians have to shelve according to them. A book has a single, designated spot and cannot be found in multiple places. But e-content can be tagged a variety of ways. So you can get to it so many different ways, and theoretically everyone can read the same material at the same time. I wouldn't mind being able to "tag" a bit differently for LOC subject words: who the heck calls it "cookery" anymore? It takes a dusty librarian to remember the correct terms to search with!)
*(just as an aside, the music on the video was so skanky that my spouse asked "Are you watching porn in there?!")
In "The Machine is Us/ing Us" video*, one part reads: "Digital text [and hyper text and the web] is no longer just linking info. The web [and web 2.0] is linking people...people sharing, trading, and collaborating." Sounds just like libraries--we no longer just match information needs, we are now "about innovation, about people, and about community building" (source: Wikipedia on Library 2.0). Yup.
And a lot of those 2.0 concepts aren't so new for libraries, but the technology part is where the libraries need to buck up: Amazon can suggest other books you might want; Google is a forgiving searching tool. Our catalogs stink by comparison (and how can we not compare?!) I'm glad to read that WorldCat will be letting people tag, create and share lists, etc, because people expect that now. I hope it will also help correct yer wierd speling, too (did you mean your weird spelling?)
And as for organizing information, it is wild to think that we, the people, are deciding how to organize the web using our tags and links. In libraries, of course, Dewey (or LOC) set the parameters, and librarians have to shelve according to them. A book has a single, designated spot and cannot be found in multiple places. But e-content can be tagged a variety of ways. So you can get to it so many different ways, and theoretically everyone can read the same material at the same time. I wouldn't mind being able to "tag" a bit differently for LOC subject words: who the heck calls it "cookery" anymore? It takes a dusty librarian to remember the correct terms to search with!)
*(just as an aside, the music on the video was so skanky that my spouse asked "Are you watching porn in there?!")
Comments