Tons of pixels have been spilled recently by people trying to figure out how publishing is going to adapt its profit model to the Web. The New York Times has finally abandoned its ill-conceived plan to charge people to access its opinion columnists online; the Wall Street Journal (newly purchased by Rupert Murdoch)—pretty much the only major popular-press publication out there that's managed to succeed with a subscription-only model for online access—is also rumored to be considering putting its content online for free. Why? In both cases, because they think that there is more profit to be made in attracting more eyeballs and in charging advertisers for access to those eyeballs, than in charging the owners of the eyeballs directly for access. People in the Web age have gotten used to the idea that information is supposed to be free, and freely linkable and Googleable, so that free discussions can take place around that information. (See: most political blogs.) And information that is not freely linkable and Googleable will be ignored, as both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have discovered.
So . . . what are the implications of that for libraries? For the amount of information that will be produced by organizations resembling traditional publishers? For the ratio of information-on-the-Web (that can be searched, indexed, mashed up, Semantic-Webbed, etc.) to information-only-on-dead-trees (that can't be)? I'm not sure that anybody really knows yet. But the people who write at the following links are thinking about it.
Representatives from the California Digital Library, Google, and Microsoft discuss publication and academic libraries in the digital age.
Dani Rodrik (professor of political economy at Harvard) asks, “Why publish in a journal if you can disseminate online?”
The Ithaka Report on University Publishing in a Digital Age. (Yes, it's several months old now. But I've been a little busy of late, so it's still sitting in a Firefox tab waiting for me to find time to read it.)
How Google Killed Web Subscriptions, which links to lots of other information about the death of TimesSelect and the rumored death of the Wall Street Journal paywall.
What will AdBlock Plus do to the advertising-supported free online content model?
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Trust and Folksonomies
In a job interview two weeks ago, I was asked a question about the potential for malicious tagging if libraries opened up their catalogs and allowed users to tag books as they pleased. At the time, I answered by saying that most tagging systems handled malicious tags by ignoring them: if only one person tags an item with a malicious tag in a system like LibraryThing that has thousands of taggers, then that tag will sink to the bottom and the more common (and therefore more useful) tags will rise to the top. But after chewing on the question for awhile, I think I want to take that answer back.
Oh, it's a perfectly accurate answer, don't get me wrong, but I want to contest the very premise of the question. Why don't we as librarians trust our users to act responsibly in the library catalog? Consider all of the trust that we already put in our patrons. We let them wander around largely unsupervised in buildings containing millions of dollars worth of books that people have spent hundreds of hours painstakingly shelving in the proper order. We let them check out hundreds of dollars worth of books and DVDs at a time and take those books out into the world, where we have no control whatsoever over what they do with those items. And, really, how often do our users do anything truly catastrophic when given this trust? Yes, there are accidents sometimes, and coffee gets spilled on books or dogs them chew up, but I'm talking about really large-scale, intentional attemps to be destructive or malicious. Have you ever had a group of users, say, decide to re-shelve a section of books by color? (If I was a bored freshman looking for some sort of mildly amusing prank to pull, that's the kind of thing I'd consider. Think how pretty a rainbow of books would be!) How often do bored students pull the keys off the keyboards on the library computers and put them back on in alphabetical order? (Personally, I don't understand the amusement value of that one, but it was popular with kids in my computer programming classes in high school.) Often enough that you would call it a problem and consider taking some sort of step to cut down on it? If not, then why do you think your users would be any more likely to vandalize the catalog than they are to vandalize your physical facilities?
Oh, it's a perfectly accurate answer, don't get me wrong, but I want to contest the very premise of the question. Why don't we as librarians trust our users to act responsibly in the library catalog? Consider all of the trust that we already put in our patrons. We let them wander around largely unsupervised in buildings containing millions of dollars worth of books that people have spent hundreds of hours painstakingly shelving in the proper order. We let them check out hundreds of dollars worth of books and DVDs at a time and take those books out into the world, where we have no control whatsoever over what they do with those items. And, really, how often do our users do anything truly catastrophic when given this trust? Yes, there are accidents sometimes, and coffee gets spilled on books or dogs them chew up, but I'm talking about really large-scale, intentional attemps to be destructive or malicious. Have you ever had a group of users, say, decide to re-shelve a section of books by color? (If I was a bored freshman looking for some sort of mildly amusing prank to pull, that's the kind of thing I'd consider. Think how pretty a rainbow of books would be!) How often do bored students pull the keys off the keyboards on the library computers and put them back on in alphabetical order? (Personally, I don't understand the amusement value of that one, but it was popular with kids in my computer programming classes in high school.) Often enough that you would call it a problem and consider taking some sort of step to cut down on it? If not, then why do you think your users would be any more likely to vandalize the catalog than they are to vandalize your physical facilities?
Friday, September 28, 2007
A New Use for Wikis
I haven't decided yet if this is sheer brilliance or absolutely insane. On the one hand, bringing more transparency to the process of drafting laws, and increasing the ability of non-lobbyists to have an influence on that process, are unquestionably good things. Heck, forget for a minute about the ability of common people to suggest edits to a draft law—can you just imagine all of the voters being able to look at the "edit history" of a law and see what parts were inserted by which people when?
On the other hand, a big part of what makes Wikipedia work is that is has a dedicated core of editors who are interested in truth and balance over any partisan viewpoint, and those editors out-number and out-clout the partisans. This situation is much less likely to hold in a sphere that is partisan by definition, such as drafting laws. As Michael Mussa (a former economist with the International Monetary Fund at a level where even the economists have to be politicians) once commented, "In Washington, truth is just another special interest, and one that is not particularly well financed."
On the other hand, a big part of what makes Wikipedia work is that is has a dedicated core of editors who are interested in truth and balance over any partisan viewpoint, and those editors out-number and out-clout the partisans. This situation is much less likely to hold in a sphere that is partisan by definition, such as drafting laws. As Michael Mussa (a former economist with the International Monetary Fund at a level where even the economists have to be politicians) once commented, "In Washington, truth is just another special interest, and one that is not particularly well financed."
New and Notable Digital Collections
Three new initiatives to digitize information and put it online have been in the news lately.
1) The Boston Library Consortium, which includes most of the major New England colleges and universities (Brandeis, Brown, MIT, Tufts, and quite a few more) is working with the Open Content Alliance to digitize public domain materials in their libraries.
2) The papers of former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun are being digitized and put online. (Hat tip: Volokh Conspiracy.)
3) Robert Heinlein's papers are being digitized and put online (although, unfortunately, you have to pay to get access to them). (Hat tip: Slashdot.)
1) The Boston Library Consortium, which includes most of the major New England colleges and universities (Brandeis, Brown, MIT, Tufts, and quite a few more) is working with the Open Content Alliance to digitize public domain materials in their libraries.
2) The papers of former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun are being digitized and put online. (Hat tip: Volokh Conspiracy.)
3) Robert Heinlein's papers are being digitized and put online (although, unfortunately, you have to pay to get access to them). (Hat tip: Slashdot.)
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Link Roundup
A New Approach to the Semantic Web
More about why most published studies are wrong, and problems with the theory.
Some Library Journal love for tagging.
Measuring the Success of a Classification System
More about why most published studies are wrong, and problems with the theory.
Some Library Journal love for tagging.
Measuring the Success of a Classification System
Monday, September 24, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Google Strikes Again!
I can only assume that they're planning to launch a U.S. version of this sometime before the campaigning for 2008 really gears up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
