Christina's LIS Rant
Too many places....
pointed out John T.
's most excellent recent posts on expertise location
. (of course they've been sitting in my aggregator waiting to be read but anyway)
One of the things he mentions in passing is Ziki
-- it's kind of a way to aggregate all your personal information feeds. Examples are: bookmarks, comments, your blog, your pictures, your videos. Then you can tag yourself. It's actually pretty cool.
I do have the problem about where to put things: furl, del.icio.us, cocomment, connotea, my blog, an internal tagging bookmark tool, an internal blog, a RefWorks database (hm, I wonder if that has a feed?), flickr vs. snapfish (will I want to print the picture or share it?)... I have desktop search, of course, at this point and an intranet search, but how do I find things across various blogs, etc.? I think I might start bookmarking my listserv posts, too.
I'm playing with it now so tag me :)
Finally, long awaited updates from Blogger
I've been playing with a beta account because I don't have the link yet on my dashboard... but check this out: http://christinasdemo.blogspot.com
- easy template updating
- more feeds (like for comments) and also RSS 2.0 as well as atom.
v. v. cool.
Walt Crawford's look at liblogs up
Walt Crawford did a study of the middle ground of the biblioblogosphere - a few subscribers, but not a-listers.
Update: spelling, sigh. I guess I'm too cool to be in the middle or something. At least that's the way I see it :) Interesting stuff, though.
DOPA links for reference
Once again, any opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent anyone I have ever worked for, known, seen on the street, been in school with... etc. Any links included and opinions expressed therein belong to the authors of the document and are provided here for reference.
DOPA is 2006 H.R. 5319
as of this posting its status is:
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
(Bill summary & status
danah boyd and Harry Jenkins did an e-mail interview about DOPA. The text of this interview is available at http://www.danah.org/papers/MySpaceDOPA.html
Jenkins has an extended post on MySpace
on his blog.
A recent article from CQ Researcher: Clemmitt, M. (2006, July 28). Cyber socializing. CQ Researcher, 16, 625-648. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from CQ Researcher Online, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2006072800
ALA provides background information at http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/techinttele/dopa/DOPA.htm
(includes ALA testimony and letters)
Update : typo fix, duplicate post removed
A funny thing in the WorldCat.org license...
I wanted to add a "search WorldCat" box to my already full sidebar... Has anyone else noticed this little bit in the license:
You may not:...(4) use any other downloadable search box to provide searches in WorldCat
In other words, you can't use like Rollyo or something to search WorldCat and have a box on your site for that? Or maybe a Google api box? Huh? This seems exceedingly strange. I have now a gigablast box and a google box for this blog and they get different results.
Am I mis-reading?
AOL Research made a big, big mistake
Also read Danny Sullivan's discussion of "Private Searches Versus Personally Identifiable Searches
Update 8/9: Article in NYT
(free reg. req. or find it @ your library using Barbaro, M. and Zeller, Jr., T. (2006, August 9) A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749, NY Times Technology).
Asked about Ms. Arnold, an AOL spokesman, Andrew Weinstein, reiterated the company's position that the data release was a mistake. "We apologize specifically to her," he said. "There is not a whole lot we can do."
Mr. Weinstein said he knew of no other cases thus far where users had been identified as a result of the search data, but he was not surprised. "We acknowledged that there was information that could potentially lead to people being identified, which is why we were so angry."
Seems to me that people doing research at organizations like AOL would have to sign off on understanding how to deal with data -- for proprietary information as well as for privacy. It's hard to believe that thtruly truely not authorized. I think normally when you do research with a dataset you're required to sign a bunch of stuff. Maybe heads should roll for this.
JCMC: The Internet at Play: Child Users of Public Internet Connections
Sandvig, C. (2006). The Internet at play: Child users of public Internet connections. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), article 3. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue4/sandvig.html
This article reports an ethnographic study of a subsidized computer center for children in an inner-city library. Unsurprisingly, young children play with the Internet. Surprisingly, this creates conflict with the justifications given for such centers by adults and public policy, leading to an atmosphere of tension between differing understandings of the Internet's purpose: as a place for ritual and play vs. as a place for the transmission of information and for work (Carey, 1989). Theories of play based on Huizinga (1950) and Gadamer (1989) are used to explain Internet play. The study finds that the narrowly instrumental rationales of public policy about the digital divide are rehearsed and repeated in everyday conversation at the center, even to the extent that child's play is denaturalized and seen as a problem that must be corrected.
Good reading for public library staff. There's an ongoing battle in some public libraries between adult visitors who want to use the limited resources for job or house hunting and the kids who want to play. Frequently adults visitors feel that their work is more important than the children's play.
Also, this idea of "ritual" communication where "it is not the exchange of information that is relevant, but the cultural understandings developed through an interaction" may be useful in the DOPA discussion. In fact this article in general might inform that discussion.
I have to laugh at the observations of how the children use the computers -- they seem pretty much on. Unfortunately, this study was actually conducted in 1998-9. I wonder what has changed? Maybe nothing.
Updated for yucky formatting.