Reading #3
“The Future of Libraries: Beginning the Great Transformation”
Thomas Frey
http://www.davinciinstitute.com/page.php?ID=120
Beginning with the turbulent story of how DaVinci’s works have come down to us through time, Frey gives credit to libraries for preserving as much as they did. He then goes on to tell how the book evolved from a precious asset to be guarded to something that was widely available with the advent of Gutenberg’s printing press in 1455. Finally he marks the time between 1883 and 1929 as “the turning point” in the development of libraries we see today. However those libraries and what they stand for are beginning to change in definition as information is made more ready on the internet to those who seek it. To expand on this Frey lists ten trends that are “affecting the development of the next generation of library”. The first trend has to do with communication and the way people get their information. In this point he states that all technology has a life span and that with the birth of the internet (along with search engines like Google) perhaps books and writing have reached their end. This leads into his second point that with the end of one technology (in this case the book) the beginning of a second arises. In essence this is a cycle without end. Third Frey suggests that it is only a matter (pun intended) of time until we discovery the smallest particle in which we can store information in. Finding said particle is important because it will literally shape the libraries of the future and how people interact with it. His fourth trend is that with the increasing complexity of technology, the role of the librarian in helping people to find what they need will also increase in importance. Fifth he writes that as people become busier their needs will change, and the libraries of tomorrow will have to change along with them. For instance keyboards will become obsolete as they take too long to use. Next is the trend that we will become a verbal society with computers that have human characteristics. The seventh trend he writes of is a growing need to know about the rest of the world and its other cultures. We will need this information, he claims, in order to be apart of the international community. Hand-in-hand with this is the concept that we will become a homogeneous world; with laws and customs that stretch across the board. His ninth point is that we are switching from a “product-based economy” to one that is founded on experience. In other words the new economy will be founded on feedback from its patrons. Finally Frey states that libraries will change from places of information to places of culture. These new libraries will monitor the needs of the community and address them accordingly. He closes with the thought that libraries and their services are changing even now towards the above end. In the spirit of this change he gives a list of recommendations aimed at libraries so that they will be able to do what is best for them. Among these suggestion are that they “embrace new technologies” and play around with physically arranging the library to meet the new needs of the community (i.e. pod casting rooms, blogging stations, etc).
As I am a student of history I found that the beginning of this article very interesting. However I found that my attention waning as the article went on. It is not that I was disinterested, just that it seemed that much of what Frey wrote of has already taken place; or at the least is well on its way to that end. While I cannot say for sure when this article was written, it seem to be fairly recent; at least within the past half decade. As such it seems that much of this article need not have been written. Also it gives not real concrete hint as to what physical manifestation this library of tomorrow will take (not even an Orson Scott Card shot in the dark), and that lack of speculation is frustrating. Or perhaps he did venture a guess and I missed it? Either way it was a good article for the most part even if it did reiterate concepts that are somewhat commonplace.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
News Report #3
News Report #3
“Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Their Information
Brian Stelter, NY Times
2/16/09
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/technology/internet/17facebook.html?_r=1&ref=technology
Due to a recent change in Facebook’s terms of service, a good many frequenters of the site are growing suspicious and uncomfortable; this comes in spite of being assured recently by the site higher-ups that the users are the ones who own their material. This sense of unease came about in part due to an independent blogger who shone an “an unflattering light onto the pages of legal language that many users accept without reading”. The reason Facebook users are in such a state of excitement over the new terms of service has to do with an older part of the terms being deleted and a new part added. More specifically what was removed was a proviso saying that people could remove their content at anytime. What this was replaced with was a condition that even when you cancel your account, Facebook still retains their license to the content of your account. When the site users reacted to this the president, while regretful of their unease, did not make any indication that they would revise the language. While Facebook stresses that they make no claim to own their users materials the evidence is all to the contrary.
I can easily see why people would be unhappy with this turn of events. Not too long ago I heard story about a girl whose picture was taken from her MySpace account to be used in a virgin mobile ad campaign. She said they took it without her remission and is suing, but the terms of service of that site do not seem to protect her. I can only imagine how she (and others) feel; knowing that people who are already rich beyond imagining are getting more so from her while she sees not a dime. It is getting to the point that so much personal information is just put out the on the web without any substantial laws to protect the people it belongs to. Overall I find it unnerving and infuriating that these sites are able to take advantage of people in that way and we have no real protection from them.
“Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Their Information
Brian Stelter, NY Times
2/16/09
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/technology/internet/17facebook.html?_r=1&ref=technology
Due to a recent change in Facebook’s terms of service, a good many frequenters of the site are growing suspicious and uncomfortable; this comes in spite of being assured recently by the site higher-ups that the users are the ones who own their material. This sense of unease came about in part due to an independent blogger who shone an “an unflattering light onto the pages of legal language that many users accept without reading”. The reason Facebook users are in such a state of excitement over the new terms of service has to do with an older part of the terms being deleted and a new part added. More specifically what was removed was a proviso saying that people could remove their content at anytime. What this was replaced with was a condition that even when you cancel your account, Facebook still retains their license to the content of your account. When the site users reacted to this the president, while regretful of their unease, did not make any indication that they would revise the language. While Facebook stresses that they make no claim to own their users materials the evidence is all to the contrary.
I can easily see why people would be unhappy with this turn of events. Not too long ago I heard story about a girl whose picture was taken from her MySpace account to be used in a virgin mobile ad campaign. She said they took it without her remission and is suing, but the terms of service of that site do not seem to protect her. I can only imagine how she (and others) feel; knowing that people who are already rich beyond imagining are getting more so from her while she sees not a dime. It is getting to the point that so much personal information is just put out the on the web without any substantial laws to protect the people it belongs to. Overall I find it unnerving and infuriating that these sites are able to take advantage of people in that way and we have no real protection from them.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Blog #1: News Assignment #2
"Sweep of Myspace Nets 90,000 Sexual Predators; Legislators Working to Limit Site Access for Kids"
Kerry Cavanaugh WBAL-TV
2/4/09
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29007464/
Last year when the social networking sites of Mspace and Facebook agreed to use stricter safety standerds concerning the safeguarding of their younger users, they anticipated to find less than half the number of sex offenders that was discovered. Since a good percentage of the users ( an estimated 170 million people) of these sites are children or young teenagers this is a fairly shocking number. Many, including the Attorney General of Maryland Doug Gansler are pushing for even more stringent restrictions regarding who is allowed on these sites. While it is all well and good that Myspace and Face book employes software that "takes the names, physical traits and other distinctive characteristics of sex offenders and compares them to MySpace members", it may not be enough in the opinion of many concened parents. Like in most things people find a way around the restictions the world thorws up infront of them. In this instance sexual predators may simply setup a false account with bogus information and someone else's picture (or no picture at all). Mr. Gansler echos this disturbing thought by stating outright that any child under the age of fourteen years should be restricted from the two sites altogether. In his opinion if you "reduce the supply, you'll reduce the demand". Others, primarily children under said fourteen years of age, argue that they can set there profiles to private and accept only people they know to become "fiends"; all others they can mark as spam or delete. For the time being owever, Myspace and Facebook are making due with the better age verification software already in place and banning known sex offenders.
I personally applaude the measures that legislators have taken in making these social networking sites a safer place for all. However I have to look at the whole thing in a slightly pesimestic view. As stated before people find ways around the barriers that the world throws in their way, and this is true be their desires are for good or ill. If laws are passed that ban children under the age of fourteen from making accounts on these sites, all they have to do is lie about their age to get around that. Or say that in the future that Myspace requires a vadild credit card number or some such verification of adulthood all they need to do is to lift one out of mom's purse or dad's wallet and slip it back again. My point is simply this: while I am all for the better policing of these sites the limiting of access will accomplish little or nothing in the long run. Instead we should concentrate more on instilling the common sense in our children that will keep them safe on the net. Take the time to talk to them about what could happen and don't sugarcoat things. Also periodicall check with them as to whom they are talking to online so that you are kept in the loop. Finally encourage them to get involved in activities in the real world with their friends, their school, or your religous institution. In my own mind these safegards are far better than can be provided by any software...thus far.
Kerry Cavanaugh WBAL-TV
2/4/09
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29007464/
Last year when the social networking sites of Mspace and Facebook agreed to use stricter safety standerds concerning the safeguarding of their younger users, they anticipated to find less than half the number of sex offenders that was discovered. Since a good percentage of the users ( an estimated 170 million people) of these sites are children or young teenagers this is a fairly shocking number. Many, including the Attorney General of Maryland Doug Gansler are pushing for even more stringent restrictions regarding who is allowed on these sites. While it is all well and good that Myspace and Face book employes software that "takes the names, physical traits and other distinctive characteristics of sex offenders and compares them to MySpace members", it may not be enough in the opinion of many concened parents. Like in most things people find a way around the restictions the world thorws up infront of them. In this instance sexual predators may simply setup a false account with bogus information and someone else's picture (or no picture at all). Mr. Gansler echos this disturbing thought by stating outright that any child under the age of fourteen years should be restricted from the two sites altogether. In his opinion if you "reduce the supply, you'll reduce the demand". Others, primarily children under said fourteen years of age, argue that they can set there profiles to private and accept only people they know to become "fiends"; all others they can mark as spam or delete. For the time being owever, Myspace and Facebook are making due with the better age verification software already in place and banning known sex offenders.
I personally applaude the measures that legislators have taken in making these social networking sites a safer place for all. However I have to look at the whole thing in a slightly pesimestic view. As stated before people find ways around the barriers that the world throws in their way, and this is true be their desires are for good or ill. If laws are passed that ban children under the age of fourteen from making accounts on these sites, all they have to do is lie about their age to get around that. Or say that in the future that Myspace requires a vadild credit card number or some such verification of adulthood all they need to do is to lift one out of mom's purse or dad's wallet and slip it back again. My point is simply this: while I am all for the better policing of these sites the limiting of access will accomplish little or nothing in the long run. Instead we should concentrate more on instilling the common sense in our children that will keep them safe on the net. Take the time to talk to them about what could happen and don't sugarcoat things. Also periodicall check with them as to whom they are talking to online so that you are kept in the loop. Finally encourage them to get involved in activities in the real world with their friends, their school, or your religous institution. In my own mind these safegards are far better than can be provided by any software...thus far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)