Above quote is courtesy AndersH from #lililicious
I've decided to change internally to Library Science from Young Adult Library work (which ended up requiring far more energy and creativity than i am capable on any given day) to Asian Library work. I know, I know... it requires knowledge of 3-4 Asian languages and often a European Language as well. I'll pull it off somehow... or die trying?
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
"Angry avatars have taken virtual action."
That's right: the title is a quote. Although i wish i could take credit for such a cleverly devised statement, this time the cynicism is not my own.
As reported in American Libraries Direct (the digital monthly version of the not-so-digital monthly for-library publication), the Latimes has recently reported on the backsliding of "real world" commerce in Second Life in their article, "Virtual marketers have second thoughts about Second Life" (i apologize but viewing the essay requires registration by Latimes.com. But don't worry, you can always make up bogus demographics and give them a fake email addy).
Of particular note in this essay, "Ludlow (University of Toronto philosophy professor Peter Ludlow that is) isn't impressed. He said most firms were more interested in the publicity they received from their ties with Second Life than in the digital world itself. "It was a way to brand themselves as being leading-edge," he said." i have a real problem with this: namely, it isn't commerce--it's advertising. This reminds one clandestinely of bumper stickers of companies sponsoring a motorcyclist in some obscure off-road competition. For a bona fide Virtual Reality, which purports to having 8,000,000 members (of which one can expect to find only 30,000 unique users during peak hours), this sort of "commerce" is offensive.
It's like businesses have stopped taking Second Life seriously. In terms of Library 2.0, there's no doubt that Second Life posses a definite "emerging technology linking patrons and library service" (my words), but for businesses, that just doesn't cut it. Given the fact that "one of the most frequently purchased items in Second Life is genitalia." (qtd. in LA Times), and users often participate in furryism and hit on strangers at the same time, it comes as no surprise that traditional companies are having difficulty reaching an interested consumer base. What can Dell, Best Buy, American Apparel or Sun Microsystems to such a, shall we say, niche demographic?
Even Nissan's innovative "automotive amusement park" can really only go so far. Visitors are not buying cars. Such fiendish marketing results in less than profitable returns. For libraries, Second Life seems to be a viable alternative for hipsters and wannabes such as myself, but for corporations, who no doubt spend the equivalent of a computer programmer's salary or more on their Second Life coordinator, it would be more than difficult to see a return on their investment.
But... what i think is worse than a waste investment, is an investor who doesn't learn from his/her mistakes. IBM who has had a strong Second Life presence, is now moving to the greener pastures of There and Entropia Universe...
Excuse me, but... how is that different from the failed experiment of Second Life? Do they actually think the demographic is more receptive on those servers? Oh please. If you've seen one non-RPG-MMORPG you've seen them all. Besides which, there are FAR more users to be found on actual RPGs such as Worlds of Warcraft, Everquest, URU or the like. When many users on the same server can't even speak the same language (other than pigeon English), doesn't that... put a whole new spin on the term "International Conglomerate"? Of course i have no idea if Sony would allow outside commerce on their servers, it seems like those companies who invested so much time and effort on Second Life, if they're not willing to change their strategy, should at least consider opening themselves up to a far larger consumer base than can be found on There or Entropia Universe. When people forgo their actual wedding to have a ceremony on WoW... wouldn't said people want a company that could take care of all the trimmings?
As reported in American Libraries Direct (the digital monthly version of the not-so-digital monthly for-library publication), the Latimes has recently reported on the backsliding of "real world" commerce in Second Life in their article, "Virtual marketers have second thoughts about Second Life" (i apologize but viewing the essay requires registration by Latimes.com. But don't worry, you can always make up bogus demographics and give them a fake email addy).
Of particular note in this essay, "Ludlow (University of Toronto philosophy professor Peter Ludlow that is) isn't impressed. He said most firms were more interested in the publicity they received from their ties with Second Life than in the digital world itself. "It was a way to brand themselves as being leading-edge," he said." i have a real problem with this: namely, it isn't commerce--it's advertising. This reminds one clandestinely of bumper stickers of companies sponsoring a motorcyclist in some obscure off-road competition. For a bona fide Virtual Reality, which purports to having 8,000,000 members (of which one can expect to find only 30,000 unique users during peak hours), this sort of "commerce" is offensive.
It's like businesses have stopped taking Second Life seriously. In terms of Library 2.0, there's no doubt that Second Life posses a definite "emerging technology linking patrons and library service" (my words), but for businesses, that just doesn't cut it. Given the fact that "one of the most frequently purchased items in Second Life is genitalia." (qtd. in LA Times), and users often participate in furryism and hit on strangers at the same time, it comes as no surprise that traditional companies are having difficulty reaching an interested consumer base. What can Dell, Best Buy, American Apparel or Sun Microsystems to such a, shall we say, niche demographic?
Even Nissan's innovative "automotive amusement park" can really only go so far. Visitors are not buying cars. Such fiendish marketing results in less than profitable returns. For libraries, Second Life seems to be a viable alternative for hipsters and wannabes such as myself, but for corporations, who no doubt spend the equivalent of a computer programmer's salary or more on their Second Life coordinator, it would be more than difficult to see a return on their investment.
But... what i think is worse than a waste investment, is an investor who doesn't learn from his/her mistakes. IBM who has had a strong Second Life presence, is now moving to the greener pastures of There and Entropia Universe...
Excuse me, but... how is that different from the failed experiment of Second Life? Do they actually think the demographic is more receptive on those servers? Oh please. If you've seen one non-RPG-MMORPG you've seen them all. Besides which, there are FAR more users to be found on actual RPGs such as Worlds of Warcraft, Everquest, URU or the like. When many users on the same server can't even speak the same language (other than pigeon English), doesn't that... put a whole new spin on the term "International Conglomerate"? Of course i have no idea if Sony would allow outside commerce on their servers, it seems like those companies who invested so much time and effort on Second Life, if they're not willing to change their strategy, should at least consider opening themselves up to a far larger consumer base than can be found on There or Entropia Universe. When people forgo their actual wedding to have a ceremony on WoW... wouldn't said people want a company that could take care of all the trimmings?
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Abstract vs. Concrete
According to John Blyberg's recent post "Four Little Octets" a strong composite tenet of Library 2.0 is "a set of attitudes that are less constrained by convention and more motivated by collaboration, empowerment, and hospitality." This sounds very motivating and inspiring, but the truth is, i have to come up with an insightful response. Convention is... a little vague. What and how is convention defined? i wanted to make sure i knew what i was about, so i looked it up. According to Funk & Wagnalls Standard Comprehensive International, convention is defined as: general consent, or something established by it; precedent; custom; rule, etc. Obviously there are commonly shared "conventions" when it comes to library service, but it is my belief that this word does not operate linearly.
Is the internet now a convention? How long precisely does it take for a practice to become common place and even an expected outcome of reference service? i want to believe libraries the world over are motivated by collaboration, empowerment and hospitality. If they were not they wouldn't make their millage. i thus proport that those attitudes are a given. What doesn't immediately make a lot of sense is: what is an attitude which espouses being "less constrained by convention"look like?
So again, how long? If we assume as Blyberg supposes that the internet gave rise to a revolution in library service which has only very recently been recognized as such, and if we assume the internet didn't really get off it's feet until 1994, we could easily surmise that a convention can come into being in less than 13 years. So, about a decade. Well, actually, that presupposes that the internet is in fact, a convention. But if it wasn't, i'm not at all sure what Blyberg is arguing. So if we round that down to a decade, and also suppose that most "modern" (i use the term loosely) libraries are or soon will be internet dependent you arrive at... yes, the internet must in point of fact be a convention.
Except if we go back to the composite tenet of Library 2.0, the attitude we're looking for is one in which we are less constrained by convention. Uh-oh. I smell a problem brewing. What we're looking for is a library service that isn't limited to those which are internet dependent. Yet, the alternative is what? The past. Card and CD-ROM catalogs and research that took weeks instead of hours (yes, i realize these sentences are fragments Amber). Obviously, despite its novelty reminisce-quotient, no one wants to go back to those days. But... we have yet to uncover a new platform by which to jump beyond our present methods of providing service. So... what then IS our goal here? Find new ways to utilitze old technology? We do that all the time--software is only as good as the way in which it was conceived to be used in. For example: most people utilize more than just one piece of software when they build a website. You can't create images that will do what you want in a program like Frontpage or Dreamweaver, but you also can't create code that'll function as a java script in say Adobe Photoshop. When someone goes to make a website, they'd probably be utilizing both types of software. Not because they were told to. It's just the logical conclusion.
So what is the logical conclusion to the convention of the internet? How do we move beyond the tether of the world wide web and the Internet 2? Some people are saying SmS and yes, text messaging has been used and abused very affectively in Japan for many years. But is it the natural next step? No. i would argue that while we exist in the convention of the internet, until we slip upon that eureka-like moment of designing a new technology or creative design to base library service on, Library 2.0 is dependent on the internet. Just knowing that we're dependent, as Blyberg seems to suggest here, isn't enough. Would AACR2's natural next logical step actually be RDA if we were trying to think beyond the internet? We're not all of us visionaries but we can learn as much as possible about current trends and experiment with what other's have found successful. No one's saying we shouldn't be looking to the future, but falling back on a convention doesn't necessarily equate failure to change and grow.
Is the internet now a convention? How long precisely does it take for a practice to become common place and even an expected outcome of reference service? i want to believe libraries the world over are motivated by collaboration, empowerment and hospitality. If they were not they wouldn't make their millage. i thus proport that those attitudes are a given. What doesn't immediately make a lot of sense is: what is an attitude which espouses being "less constrained by convention"look like?
So again, how long? If we assume as Blyberg supposes that the internet gave rise to a revolution in library service which has only very recently been recognized as such, and if we assume the internet didn't really get off it's feet until 1994, we could easily surmise that a convention can come into being in less than 13 years. So, about a decade. Well, actually, that presupposes that the internet is in fact, a convention. But if it wasn't, i'm not at all sure what Blyberg is arguing. So if we round that down to a decade, and also suppose that most "modern" (i use the term loosely) libraries are or soon will be internet dependent you arrive at... yes, the internet must in point of fact be a convention.
Except if we go back to the composite tenet of Library 2.0, the attitude we're looking for is one in which we are less constrained by convention. Uh-oh. I smell a problem brewing. What we're looking for is a library service that isn't limited to those which are internet dependent. Yet, the alternative is what? The past. Card and CD-ROM catalogs and research that took weeks instead of hours (yes, i realize these sentences are fragments Amber). Obviously, despite its novelty reminisce-quotient, no one wants to go back to those days. But... we have yet to uncover a new platform by which to jump beyond our present methods of providing service. So... what then IS our goal here? Find new ways to utilitze old technology? We do that all the time--software is only as good as the way in which it was conceived to be used in. For example: most people utilize more than just one piece of software when they build a website. You can't create images that will do what you want in a program like Frontpage or Dreamweaver, but you also can't create code that'll function as a java script in say Adobe Photoshop. When someone goes to make a website, they'd probably be utilizing both types of software. Not because they were told to. It's just the logical conclusion.
So what is the logical conclusion to the convention of the internet? How do we move beyond the tether of the world wide web and the Internet 2? Some people are saying SmS and yes, text messaging has been used and abused very affectively in Japan for many years. But is it the natural next step? No. i would argue that while we exist in the convention of the internet, until we slip upon that eureka-like moment of designing a new technology or creative design to base library service on, Library 2.0 is dependent on the internet. Just knowing that we're dependent, as Blyberg seems to suggest here, isn't enough. Would AACR2's natural next logical step actually be RDA if we were trying to think beyond the internet? We're not all of us visionaries but we can learn as much as possible about current trends and experiment with what other's have found successful. No one's saying we shouldn't be looking to the future, but falling back on a convention doesn't necessarily equate failure to change and grow.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Innovation vs. Stagnation
It's possible someone has already blogged on this topic as i am pathetically slow in getting these things done.
Librarian.net recently posted on "are librarians innovators? do libraries innovate?" and i like to think it echoes one of my previous blogs.
"However, when you’re the only free internet in town, taking a step like offering free wifi when the library is closed, or having a way that people can use your computers to download ebooks checked out from other libraries in other states seems pretty innovative indeed."
Such innovations seem to represent little work on the place of the administration (unless of course you have a very conservative Board of Directors), but could greatly improve service and library use. It probably goes without saying that improving library use would also lead to a increase in circ, among other things. So why aren't they doing it?
Perhaps innovation isn't necessary to keeping your library alive, but it certainly can't hurt. Probably the biggest culture shock a western experiences when visiting Japan is being dumb struck by the sheer amount of constant innovation, in industry the U.S. hasn't even looked at in decades. It's silly. Everything from super-intelligent toilets to ferris wheel parking garages hidden in old buildings to cafes where you can get cozy and are encouraged to fall asleep reading manga you haven't paid for...?! Well, suffice it to say western innovation is... found wanting.
i want to believe the biggest road block against western innovation is simple resistance to change. i find it very hard to believe that U.S., Canadian and U.K. research and development departments are simply not as creative as those in Japan. It is our economies simply are not equipped to pour much money into reinventing the wheel. Though, legislature is always opting for new methodologies like the recent bill for Stem Cell Research.
If libraries could jump on the innovating bandwagon and have our industry lead others into the 21st century, why wouldn't we?
Librarian.net recently posted on "are librarians innovators? do libraries innovate?" and i like to think it echoes one of my previous blogs.
"However, when you’re the only free internet in town, taking a step like offering free wifi when the library is closed, or having a way that people can use your computers to download ebooks checked out from other libraries in other states seems pretty innovative indeed."
Such innovations seem to represent little work on the place of the administration (unless of course you have a very conservative Board of Directors), but could greatly improve service and library use. It probably goes without saying that improving library use would also lead to a increase in circ, among other things. So why aren't they doing it?
Perhaps innovation isn't necessary to keeping your library alive, but it certainly can't hurt. Probably the biggest culture shock a western experiences when visiting Japan is being dumb struck by the sheer amount of constant innovation, in industry the U.S. hasn't even looked at in decades. It's silly. Everything from super-intelligent toilets to ferris wheel parking garages hidden in old buildings to cafes where you can get cozy and are encouraged to fall asleep reading manga you haven't paid for...?! Well, suffice it to say western innovation is... found wanting.
i want to believe the biggest road block against western innovation is simple resistance to change. i find it very hard to believe that U.S., Canadian and U.K. research and development departments are simply not as creative as those in Japan. It is our economies simply are not equipped to pour much money into reinventing the wheel. Though, legislature is always opting for new methodologies like the recent bill for Stem Cell Research.
If libraries could jump on the innovating bandwagon and have our industry lead others into the 21st century, why wouldn't we?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Stolen Once Again... the Top 100 Web 2.0 Services
Not precisely Library 2.0 related, but many of these sites and services overlap. Besides, this item was linked from American Libraries Direct - Tech Talk.
Webware.com in its recent survey of supposedly 489,467 votes (probably from 20 unique users with spam bots), found the follow as being the best of the best for 2007. i'm not sure why they didn't decide to wait until the end of the year, but i digress...
Umm... something seems screwy already. Google Reader? As a webbrowser or a pdf viewer? Google Reader... beating out Internet Explorer...
>.>
<.<
If you say so.
Glad to see Firefox took first: hands down, the most powerful. Opera has really fallen by the wayside. Too bad so sad. Oh and Safari bites everyone's dust, no surprise there.
Obviously the fact that AIM still has such a ridiculous following is more than a little disappointing. It's nice that Gmail came out 2nd but... Google Talk didn't even place? Google Talk was beat out by... Skype? Gimme a break. Jabber is Jabber so far as I'm aware. i was happy to see Meebo and Trillian place well. Oh yeah, and those of you who voted for Hotmail and Yahoo!, wake up--your decade ended a while back.
"Community - Online gathering places and group-powered content."
And the winners are: Bebo, Deviant Art, digg, Dogster/Catster, facebook, friendster, Gaia Online, Linked In, Me.dium, MySpace.
Wow, this is sad. Of those listed, I only have a Deviant Art and a Facebook account (against my better judgement, for the express purpose of helping my friend with her BFA pottery show). Who the heck are those other people? I thought friendster was a flop? Dogster/Catster? Umm... i don' t know who you are, but your name is utterly retarded and you should be drug out into the street and shot. Fortunately, MySpace came in dead last, there may be hope for the world yet.
"Data - Tools for finding online info, and storing and sharing files."
And the winners are: AllPeers, .Mac, Bittorrent, box, ChaCha, Google, Pando, Windows Live Search, Yahoo! Search, YouSendit.
Fascinating. There's really no excuse for Bittorrent not taking first place. It's apparent to me that this survey was only given to techys who like to try out stuff, not the average end users who actually knows what the heck she or he is doing. Bittorrent is used, oh, i don't know, about a thousand times more than the rest of these people. .MAC beating out Bittorrent. HAHAHA~ *begins to hold stomach and cry from the excess tears* In your wildest dreams Apple. That'll be the day. Oh, and people who voted for Windows Live Search and Yahoo! Search may in fact be living in a cave ten miles beneath Antarctica. In terms of sheer usability and practicality how could Google not stomp them completely off the list?
"Entertainment - Tools for taking time off: Games and contests."
And the winners are: Desktop Tower Defense, Eventful, GameGum, Homestar Runner, Lime Rider, Newgrounds, Revision3, Stardoll, Yahoo! Bix, You Don't know Jack!
I'll be the first to admit, i know nothing about online games. What i do know is that Newgrounds is older than most people who use it. Same goes for You Don't Know Jack! but at least that has some semblance of intelligence behind it. Homestar Runner...? What can I say: people are immature... and they always will be. The rest are of little consequence.
"Media - Places to consume and share videos, photos, and music."
And the winners are: Flickr, Fotki, Last.fm, Netflix, Pandora, Photobucket, uStream.TV, Yahoo! Video, YouTube, Zooomr.
I am beginning to think the couldn't have been real voters for this, perhaps a program was written in VB to generate random votes in all categories. Millions and millions of people use YouTube everyday, both views and posters. In what universe would that not justify it taking first place? Flickr is good, but hardly as recognized. Netflix? You've got to be kidding me; no body really gives them money do they. Please tell me they don't. I will be sad. Photobucket is good. The rest can bite me.
"Mobile - Products that make your mobile phone a Web 2.0 appliance."
And the winners are: Google, 3Jam, Google Gmail Mobile, Mundu Radio, Radar.net, SoonR, ShoZu, TellMe, Yahoo! OneSearch.
Uh-huh. i guess i'm not surprised that Google placed twice. I am disappointed that Palm didn't place, i guess i'm living in the stone ages by still using my Handspring Treo.
"Productivity and Commerce - Sites for getting things done and doing online business."
And the winners are: Amazon, Basecamp, Blinksale, Craigslist, ebay, Google Adwords, Google Calendar, Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Microsoft Office Live, PayPal.
Sounds about right. Though, i think PayPal ranks a little higher than DEAD LAST if you ask me. Craigslist is nice but... beating out ebay? Wow. We live in tumultuous times. Google Adwords i can understand, and Google Docs i can accept (without understanding ) but Google Calendar?! Umm... i am standing behind my theory of randomly generated votes.
" Publishing - Tools for producing your own site: Blogging and Web content services"
And the winners are: Adobe Flash, Blogger, Drupal CMS, FeedBurner, Google Analytics, PollDaddy, Silverlight, TypePad, Vox, and WordPress.
W3Schools didn't even rank. It seems like they are only going for sites that offer widgets. Speaking of widgets, seems to me Google ranked a little low this time. i guess you never know who'll come out on top with net tools. WordPress came in dead last. No surprise there. Adobe Flash...
... ADOBE Flash...?
...
i hate my life.
and last but not least, the one that actually maybe pertains to Library 2.0:
*shakes head in disgust* Yet another example of throwing your vote away. It's apart to me now that they must have used chimpanzees in their demographic. This truly hurts my head.
Answers.com? How could that actually yield any valid research?
Ask.com - hahaha
Geni - no comment
Google Maps - should be number 2 in the list if it were to only encompass these 10.
IMDB - lol. You call that research?
MS Virtual Earth - ahem. Excuse me? i'm sorry i don't think i heard you correctly. Did you say Google Earth? Yeah... that's what i thought you said. Idiots.
WebMD - sigh
Wikipedia - how could this not take first place?
Wikia - no comment
Yahoo! Maps - remember what i was saying about those chimpanzees? i take it back, single celled protoplasmic life forms would know to vote for a better web resource.
All in all, i'd say i want to throw out this survey. The fact that Yahoo! made it to so many categories only reinforces the fact that internet users are prone to sitting too close to the monitor and subsequently irradiating themselves. Yahoo! doesn't seem to me to be the sort of dynamic company that's going to lead us into the new millennium. i myself stopped using Yahoo! when i was 15 years old. Obviosly that's about the age-level mentality of the people who voted on this survey.
The only thing that makes me feel like the internet isn't doomed is that AOL only ranked once. Unfortunately, that was only because of the age old bandwagon advertizing slogan which persists to date amongst the unthinking masses: "But all my friends use it..." ^^;;
Webware.com in its recent survey of supposedly 489,467 votes (probably from 20 unique users with spam bots), found the follow as being the best of the best for 2007. i'm not sure why they didn't decide to wait until the end of the year, but i digress...
"Browsing - Fundamental Web access tools: Browsers, extensions, widgets, and security."
And the winners are: Firefox, Google Reader, Internet Explorer, MyYahoo!, OpenID, Opera, Safari, StumbleUpon and Yourminis.Umm... something seems screwy already. Google Reader? As a webbrowser or a pdf viewer? Google Reader... beating out Internet Explorer...
>.>
<.<
If you say so.
Glad to see Firefox took first: hands down, the most powerful. Opera has really fallen by the wayside. Too bad so sad. Oh and Safari bites everyone's dust, no surprise there.
"Communications - Person-to-person communications platforms: E-mail, chat, voice"
And the winners are: AIM.com, Gmail, GrandCentral, Meebo, Skype, Trillian, Windows Live Hotmail, Windows Live Messenger, Yahoo! Mail, Yahoo! Messenger.Obviously the fact that AIM still has such a ridiculous following is more than a little disappointing. It's nice that Gmail came out 2nd but... Google Talk didn't even place? Google Talk was beat out by... Skype? Gimme a break. Jabber is Jabber so far as I'm aware. i was happy to see Meebo and Trillian place well. Oh yeah, and those of you who voted for Hotmail and Yahoo!, wake up--your decade ended a while back.
"Community - Online gathering places and group-powered content."
And the winners are: Bebo, Deviant Art, digg, Dogster/Catster, facebook, friendster, Gaia Online, Linked In, Me.dium, MySpace.
Wow, this is sad. Of those listed, I only have a Deviant Art and a Facebook account (against my better judgement, for the express purpose of helping my friend with her BFA pottery show). Who the heck are those other people? I thought friendster was a flop? Dogster/Catster? Umm... i don' t know who you are, but your name is utterly retarded and you should be drug out into the street and shot. Fortunately, MySpace came in dead last, there may be hope for the world yet.
"Data - Tools for finding online info, and storing and sharing files."
And the winners are: AllPeers, .Mac, Bittorrent, box, ChaCha, Google, Pando, Windows Live Search, Yahoo! Search, YouSendit.
Fascinating. There's really no excuse for Bittorrent not taking first place. It's apparent to me that this survey was only given to techys who like to try out stuff, not the average end users who actually knows what the heck she or he is doing. Bittorrent is used, oh, i don't know, about a thousand times more than the rest of these people. .MAC beating out Bittorrent. HAHAHA~ *begins to hold stomach and cry from the excess tears* In your wildest dreams Apple. That'll be the day. Oh, and people who voted for Windows Live Search and Yahoo! Search may in fact be living in a cave ten miles beneath Antarctica. In terms of sheer usability and practicality how could Google not stomp them completely off the list?
"Entertainment - Tools for taking time off: Games and contests."
And the winners are: Desktop Tower Defense, Eventful, GameGum, Homestar Runner, Lime Rider, Newgrounds, Revision3, Stardoll, Yahoo! Bix, You Don't know Jack!
I'll be the first to admit, i know nothing about online games. What i do know is that Newgrounds is older than most people who use it. Same goes for You Don't Know Jack! but at least that has some semblance of intelligence behind it. Homestar Runner...? What can I say: people are immature... and they always will be. The rest are of little consequence.
"Media - Places to consume and share videos, photos, and music."
And the winners are: Flickr, Fotki, Last.fm, Netflix, Pandora, Photobucket, uStream.TV, Yahoo! Video, YouTube, Zooomr.
I am beginning to think the couldn't have been real voters for this, perhaps a program was written in VB to generate random votes in all categories. Millions and millions of people use YouTube everyday, both views and posters. In what universe would that not justify it taking first place? Flickr is good, but hardly as recognized. Netflix? You've got to be kidding me; no body really gives them money do they. Please tell me they don't. I will be sad. Photobucket is good. The rest can bite me.
"Mobile - Products that make your mobile phone a Web 2.0 appliance."
And the winners are: Google, 3Jam, Google Gmail Mobile, Mundu Radio, Radar.net, SoonR, ShoZu, TellMe, Yahoo! OneSearch.
Uh-huh. i guess i'm not surprised that Google placed twice. I am disappointed that Palm didn't place, i guess i'm living in the stone ages by still using my Handspring Treo.
"Productivity and Commerce - Sites for getting things done and doing online business."
And the winners are: Amazon, Basecamp, Blinksale, Craigslist, ebay, Google Adwords, Google Calendar, Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Microsoft Office Live, PayPal.
Sounds about right. Though, i think PayPal ranks a little higher than DEAD LAST if you ask me. Craigslist is nice but... beating out ebay? Wow. We live in tumultuous times. Google Adwords i can understand, and Google Docs i can accept (without understanding ) but Google Calendar?! Umm... i am standing behind my theory of randomly generated votes.
" Publishing - Tools for producing your own site: Blogging and Web content services"
And the winners are: Adobe Flash, Blogger, Drupal CMS, FeedBurner, Google Analytics, PollDaddy, Silverlight, TypePad, Vox, and WordPress.
W3Schools didn't even rank. It seems like they are only going for sites that offer widgets. Speaking of widgets, seems to me Google ranked a little low this time. i guess you never know who'll come out on top with net tools. WordPress came in dead last. No surprise there. Adobe Flash...
... ADOBE Flash...?
...
i hate my life.
and last but not least, the one that actually maybe pertains to Library 2.0:
"Reference - Fonts of knowledge--from history to movies to maps."
And the winners are: Answers.com, Ask.com, Geni, Google Maps, IMDB, Microsoft Virtual Earth, WebMD, Wikipedia, Wikia, Yahoo! Maps.*shakes head in disgust* Yet another example of throwing your vote away. It's apart to me now that they must have used chimpanzees in their demographic. This truly hurts my head.
Answers.com? How could that actually yield any valid research?
Ask.com - hahaha
Geni - no comment
Google Maps - should be number 2 in the list if it were to only encompass these 10.
IMDB - lol. You call that research?
MS Virtual Earth - ahem. Excuse me? i'm sorry i don't think i heard you correctly. Did you say Google Earth? Yeah... that's what i thought you said. Idiots.
WebMD - sigh
Wikipedia - how could this not take first place?
Wikia - no comment
Yahoo! Maps - remember what i was saying about those chimpanzees? i take it back, single celled protoplasmic life forms would know to vote for a better web resource.
All in all, i'd say i want to throw out this survey. The fact that Yahoo! made it to so many categories only reinforces the fact that internet users are prone to sitting too close to the monitor and subsequently irradiating themselves. Yahoo! doesn't seem to me to be the sort of dynamic company that's going to lead us into the new millennium. i myself stopped using Yahoo! when i was 15 years old. Obviosly that's about the age-level mentality of the people who voted on this survey.
The only thing that makes me feel like the internet isn't doomed is that AOL only ranked once. Unfortunately, that was only because of the age old bandwagon advertizing slogan which persists to date amongst the unthinking masses: "But all my friends use it..." ^^;;
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Do We Pesticide the Arphids?
i am so upset at myself i could just spit for getting my laptop and digital SLR stolen last night. Ironically, they stole it out of my car while my brother and i were at the cinema watching Ocean's 13. Nothing like a little poetic justice to raise your spirits. ^^;;
In other new, Woody Evans, in the June/July 2007 edition of American Libraries wrote an article entitled Arphids in Ascendance which i found of particular interest. Arphids, as he describes them, are the artists (though i believe it would be more accurate to say "architects") of the RFID phenomenon. As Evans sees it, “In the 90s, we dreamed of an RFID future in which we would no longer shelve books—we’d just cram them into shelves and use a mobile gizmo to tell us the location and condition of any volume.” Yet this, seemingly lofty goal, has been plagued by the constant threat of malfeasance from patron hacking, virus susceptibility and the use of library technology to loan themselves to attacking retail computer systems.
Evans would contest these threats by bringing the hackers themselves into the fold and i can only applaud such a solution. Technology systems are constantly improving library service, but they have always had the sinister impetus for doing more harm than good. Although library systems could be the launching point for some insidious malware attack through RFID, like with stem-cell research, many would purport the benefits out way the risks. New technologies are spawning every time we turn around, “keitai [denwa], PDAs, Blackberries, laptops, Semacode Thinglink, arphids” and all seem to have the potential to connect patrons with libraries and information more readily than past systems. Though, if our RFID tags are already being hacked as Evans suggests, it gives us cause to pause. Could we survive without VeriChipped thumbprint IDing and “fulfill our geek dream of knowing where all our stuff is” (props to Warren Ellis)? Probably. Should we hesitate to enact more technology in our libraries simply in fear that it could be abused? i posit that throughout libraries existence, services have been abused: it has happened, it will happen. Let’s encourage those hackers to help better our systems and become invested in a future, rather than having them sing “I wanna be, an anarchy!”
In other new, Woody Evans, in the June/July 2007 edition of American Libraries wrote an article entitled Arphids in Ascendance which i found of particular interest. Arphids, as he describes them, are the artists (though i believe it would be more accurate to say "architects") of the RFID phenomenon. As Evans sees it, “In the 90s, we dreamed of an RFID future in which we would no longer shelve books—we’d just cram them into shelves and use a mobile gizmo to tell us the location and condition of any volume.” Yet this, seemingly lofty goal, has been plagued by the constant threat of malfeasance from patron hacking, virus susceptibility and the use of library technology to loan themselves to attacking retail computer systems.
Evans would contest these threats by bringing the hackers themselves into the fold and i can only applaud such a solution. Technology systems are constantly improving library service, but they have always had the sinister impetus for doing more harm than good. Although library systems could be the launching point for some insidious malware attack through RFID, like with stem-cell research, many would purport the benefits out way the risks. New technologies are spawning every time we turn around, “keitai [denwa], PDAs, Blackberries, laptops, Semacode Thinglink, arphids” and all seem to have the potential to connect patrons with libraries and information more readily than past systems. Though, if our RFID tags are already being hacked as Evans suggests, it gives us cause to pause. Could we survive without VeriChipped thumbprint IDing and “fulfill our geek dream of knowing where all our stuff is” (props to Warren Ellis)? Probably. Should we hesitate to enact more technology in our libraries simply in fear that it could be abused? i posit that throughout libraries existence, services have been abused: it has happened, it will happen. Let’s encourage those hackers to help better our systems and become invested in a future, rather than having them sing “I wanna be, an anarchy!”
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Wiki Wonder
In a May 2007 article in American Libraries entitled Subject Guide 2.0, Meredith Farkas extols the virtues of wikis for the library world. She notes two major wikis that have been successful in the past, the Ohio University Business Librarian's Biz Wiki @ www.library.ohiou.edu/subjects/bizwiki and St. Joseph County Public Library Subject Guide. Both have been successful in using Wikis to impart information to their patrons. Staff members are allowed to add and edit information while patrons are allowed to make comments.
i really enjoy wikis as they offer a standardized, intelligent format for browsing. Yet, as Farkas points out, "Many libraries would worry about people adding inappropriate content, but wikis do not have to be open to everyone." The irony is that, many, like Wikipedia, are available for anyone to edit. This allows for anyone and everyone to add content, without being prejudice against people based on age, race, etc. i consider this strategy to be a very enlightened philosophy. The really amusing part is that so few people actually consult those resources, most people wouldn't even consider editing them. Those odd people who do somehow manage to feel important enough to edit a wiki usually are only interested in correcting information they totally cannot live with. Obviously for network security issues, one should use a firewall and the same goes for net traffic on a server. You wouldn't want to inspire a DDOS by making your site less secure. It's also a good idea to have a "write the random letters in the box to confirm" to avoid getting spam bots from destroying your blog.
In the same vein, allowing only registered users to post and edit a wiki can quickly alleviate spamming. Farkas seems to worry about people posting inappropriate or irrelevant material, but if one is worried about registered users posting that sort of thing it means that staff members and Board members can't string two sentences together... obviously that's not happening. So the point is: why not use a real website? What makes this different from putting files on a network drive? If you can't trust your Board and staff to post professional, accurate information, than just don't use a wiki.
i really enjoy wikis as they offer a standardized, intelligent format for browsing. Yet, as Farkas points out, "Many libraries would worry about people adding inappropriate content, but wikis do not have to be open to everyone." The irony is that, many, like Wikipedia, are available for anyone to edit. This allows for anyone and everyone to add content, without being prejudice against people based on age, race, etc. i consider this strategy to be a very enlightened philosophy. The really amusing part is that so few people actually consult those resources, most people wouldn't even consider editing them. Those odd people who do somehow manage to feel important enough to edit a wiki usually are only interested in correcting information they totally cannot live with. Obviously for network security issues, one should use a firewall and the same goes for net traffic on a server. You wouldn't want to inspire a DDOS by making your site less secure. It's also a good idea to have a "write the random letters in the box to confirm" to avoid getting spam bots from destroying your blog.
In the same vein, allowing only registered users to post and edit a wiki can quickly alleviate spamming. Farkas seems to worry about people posting inappropriate or irrelevant material, but if one is worried about registered users posting that sort of thing it means that staff members and Board members can't string two sentences together... obviously that's not happening. So the point is: why not use a real website? What makes this different from putting files on a network drive? If you can't trust your Board and staff to post professional, accurate information, than just don't use a wiki.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)