blogmarch

As I’ve been writing my final paper, I’ve been thinking about how much easier it is to do this in 2008 than it was 20 years ago.   After writing everything in blog form this semester, I’ve been frustrated writing in Word.  I want to add links and photos for explanation, clarification and expansion (I know I can do this in Word, but it isn’t as instantaneous or as cool).  20 years ago I would have killed for Word.  Or a computer.  Or the ability to edit as I write.  You “digital natives” might not know that all of us old people used to have to write everything out by hand.  Take notes, make an outline, write the paper, work on rewrites, and then type it.  On a typewriter, electric if you were lucky. Often you had to retype whole pages after realizing that an  entire sentence was all wrong, and a whole sentence was too much to white out.  Suffice it to say that it sucked.

So if anyone is in a position to appreciate the new technology, it’s me.  And appreciate it I do.  Love it, even.   But I don’t love easily.  Anything I love, anything I take seriously, I question.  I wonder what it means, if the good outweighs the bad, if it is going to make life better or worse, if it is going to irreparably change the way I think and feel.

I recently read an article about dreams.  It said that people under 25 dream in color, while many people in the 55 and over crowd dream in black and white.  It all depends on the kind of television you watched as a child.  In its early days, the merits of television were as hotly debated as is the technology of today.   If that particular technology had and has the power to color our dreams, then what will the ubiquitous technology of today do to our psyches?  My point throughout all of this has been that if something is going to have that big of an impact, well then, it had better be excellent.  Technology in and of itself is value free.  It’s a tool, that’s all.  It’s the human element, what we do with technology that I have questioned and will continue to question.

Jaron Lanier is a computer guy who writes for Edge and Discover Magazine.  One of his areas of expertise, and yes, I would call him an expert, is Artificial Intelligence.  Lanier wrote a few pieces for Edge a few years ago questioning the rise and trust in Wikipedia and what he refers to as the online collective.  He believes that there is a parallel between promoters of A.I and promoters of online collectivism, with a corresponding belief that the collective dulls the creativity and humanness of individual voices.  Just as  the A.I. people are “willing to bend over backwards and make themselves stupid in order to make an AI interface appear smart (as happens when someone can interact with the notorious Microsoft paper clip),”  Lanier feels that the internet culture is willing to accept online dullness and mediocrity in the name of democracy.

This has been the crux of my concern–accepting without questioning.  It is easy to see all of the benefits of the online collective–connectivity, conversation, linking, expansion of ideas.  I just wonder why there isn’t more wondering. About the things that might not be so good–like dullness, and mediocrity and inane entries that we are supposed to take as seriously as excellent intelligence or wickedly funny wit.  About the fact that originality is sometimes harder to find now in the midst of the cacaphony.  About the fact that lots of stuff that is on the internet is there for somebody to make money, even if it is presented in the package of a free exchange of ideas.

This class has been a good place for me to do my questioning.  I tried a lot of the tools that have been on my list–Facebook, Flickr, Ning, Twitter (I still don’t get the love of Twitter, by the way).  In the trying, I got to answer some of my questions (Is Facebook dumb?  Yes, but in the best possible and most fun way.)  I also got to dispell some of my own wrong ideas.  (Does Facebook turn people evil?  Not really, only if the person posting is already evil.)  And I have new questions.  What does having access to all the people from your present and past do to the idea of personal memory?  With universal access to long tail items, how do people in their teens and twenties make themselves feel hip and cool and different from everyone else?  And most importantly for this class, where do I and my MLIS degree fit into this chaotic sea of information?  I don’t have answers to any of these questions.  But as for the latter, I will always question information.  I will always wonder how something I read or hear or see fits into the bigger picture.  I will wonder if it is worthy of my precious time and even more precious affection.  I will always look for the smartest or the funniest or the most clever.  Hopefully doing all of this will help me to order the chaos and to make a career out of helping others to do the same.

I was a part of the Ning group project, and I have to say that I don’t know how our project could have worked without social software tools, as well as group members (initially, not me–better now) who were so comfortable using the various tools.   We never had to meet in person, yet we were able to communicate, confer, address problems and make suggestions, all through the the wiki that Lindsay set up during our first discussion.  As a stay-at-home mom, I do my homework in little increments, during naps, between scheduled activities for the kids, etc., so being able to not only do the work at home, but to confer with my group members on the wiki proved to be invaluable.   Meeting in person is near impossible for me, but I never felt that we missed out by not being able to do so.  I feel like the wiki was such a good place to gather our thoughts and to keep a record of our progress.

Our subject matter could never have been possible without social software, since the subject was a type of social software.  It was fun to explore the world of nings.  At first, I had trouble finding one that I wanted to join.  As is often the case with user-created tags or titles, unless you know the tags or the exact title used for the ning you are  looking for, it can be daunting to try and find an exact match to your interests.  I settled at first on Babble Ning, a ning for parents.  While it was active and well-populated, it even had a separate Twin Cities forum, I realized that I am not that interested anymore in reading parenting stuff, at least not that kind.  I don’t care anymore about how to get your kids to sleep, the best way to potty train or why you shouldn’t let them watch too much t.v.  I mean, I care, but I’m over the needing-advice part of it all.

Then I found the Law Libraries and Librarians ning.  This was a great ning.   It has 411 members, and is very active, with many subgroups, a good mix of experts and novices, good discussions.  Some of the forum topics included:  legal issues, legal research, library applications, and innovation and change.  A couple of the users were very helpful when I started a discussion asking for feedback on how they use the ning.

It was also great for our group to be able to work on our powerpoint together using Google documents.  While there were a few glitches trying to get around Google docs being blocked for Erin, Lindsay found a way around it.  I had never used Google documents before, so this part was another learning experience for me.  It is amazing to me to be able to do all of this from the comfort of my home computer.   Even just a few semesters ago, I don’t think I would have thought it possible to finish an entire group project without meeting or calling each other, especially not constructing a powerpoint.  I suppose you could have done much of it all through email, but that would have entailed a lot of “which email did she say that in?”  and “whoops, I deleted that, could you resend me your information?”

In her post about our project, Lindsay talks about participatory culture, where there is often some type of informal mentorship, in which the more experienced members often teach the novices.  I definitely felt this in our group, with me as the techno-novice.  In our first meeting together, while we were talking, Lindsay set up our wiki, and Beth set up our initial ning, both within the first five minutes of our sitting down together.  They both had also worked with Google documents before, so they not only set it up, but also explained how to use it.  I usually dread having to work in groups, mostly because I feel like I am more interested in doing good work than others tend to be.  Not so in this group.  Everyone was respectful of varied opinions, open to suggestion, and quick to take on whatever work was necessary.  Instead of feeling like I was doing all of the work, at one point I felt the opposite, and had to say “Hey, what can I do to equitably participate?”  This was a fun, seamless and informative group project, and I really appreciate the technical prowess and hard work of my group members.

This week, we were supposed to explore various social networking sites.  I have said in some of my posts that I don’t really get the “social” aspect of social networks, and that I use most 2.0 tools as just another way to get more information.  I have also gone as record as a 2.0 “lurker”–listening to other people’s music streams, getting movies recommended on Netflix, using Wikipedia.   I never contributed before.  So I challenged myself this week to actually participate.  I went to Jango, my music-sharing source of choice, and I finally uploaded a picture for my profile, and I started to rate the music I was listening to.  Small step, but I only have so much time.  I also joined a Ning for St. Paul parents, as well as the Ning for our group project.  I kind of had to do this for the group, but it fit in nicely to this week’s assignment.  I realized with the Nings how really easy it is to do things on most of these sites.  I had always thought that it would take lots of time to figure it all out, but it really is easy to do pretty much anything–add pictures and video, start a new discussion, etc.  My final task was to join Facebook.  It’s fun!  The best part has been trying to make my husband laugh, which was an unexpected aspect of Facebook for me–it lets me just be me, as I was before I had kids.  I can cuss, and say inappropriate things that crack my best friend and my husband up, without having to think about my own or anybody else’s kids listening.  Actually, I guess lots of other people and other people’s kids can read what I write, depending upon their connection to me.  That has been the weirdest part of the experience, realizing that not only my husband and friends can read what I leave for them, but so can their “friends.”  This aspect is mentioned in the “7 Things to Know about Facebook” article that we read for this week, the fact that some people get into trouble because they post very private things, because it feels private, in a very public space.  It takes some getting used to–the publicly private conversations.  It also is very tempting to puff yourself up, make your day more interesting than it really is, make yourself funnier than you really feel.  I can better understand how people get caught up in the narcissistic side of all of this.

I am definitely a linker/consumer when it comes to virtual communities.  If forced, I have been known to delve into the commentor/lurker mode (usually for class wikis or blogs like this one).   I don’t know if it’s that I don’t have the time, which, as a stay-at-home-mom with toddlers, I don’t, or if I’m just not  interested in moving to the leader/contributor/commentator level.   I link and consume a lot.  I selfishly eat up what other people have taken the time and energy to create.  I am an avid fan of Wikipedia, I get recipes from good food blogs, I look at reviews and ratings on Netflix and Amazon, I learn how to do all kinds of useful and useless stuff on WikiHow, I look up obscure TV show clips from my youth on YouTube, I listen to other people’s music streams on Jango.  I just don’t ever contribute.

I never thought about why I do a lot of online taking but no giving until this assignment.  I am busy, but I am also very committed to the idea of community.  I already have a really big, close community  of people I talk to and see on a daily basis.   I have time for that.  I just don’t have time for more.  I’m full up when it comes to personal connections.  Mostly what I get from virtual communities and social networks is what I have always gotten from the internet:  information.  I am not looking to connect on any sort of friendly or intimate level.  I guess what I enjoy about sites like Wikipedia and cooking blogs and You Tube is getting bits of information from people who have more time, passion and energy to put into a subject that I might have a passing, but not pressing interest in.

As for the social side of virtual communities, I will admit that my qualms about joining Facebook or MySpace come from a mixture of no time, lack of interest, and a little bit of mistrust.   I wonder what kinds of relationships people can have based upon each participant composing a personality, editing out the bad parts, embellishing the good, making stuff up.    I know that we always do these things in relationships, but when you have a face-to-face interaction, it is harder to hide, edit or embellish.  Other people can read your body language, catch a weird tone in your voice.  They can talk back, in the moment, without forethought.  The written, edited, self-composed me is much more interesting than the the one you would find by talking to me face-to-face.  Bolder, wittier, sexier.  I wonder what it would be like to have relationships where that is the only me that people know.  It might be fun, but is it real?

A book I am reading, Against the Machine:  Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob, by Lee Siegal, addresses how online relationships are changing the way we think about  the world.  Siegal asks: ”What kind of idea do we have of the world when, day after day, we sit in front of our screens and enter further and further into the illusion that we ourselves are actually creating our own external reality out of our own internal desires?”  Siegal explores the affects of virtual communities on our relationships to others and the world around us, claiming that we become impatient with people and situations that don’t “gratify our impulses” or “satisfy our pictures of reality.”  I am fascinated by Siegal’s take, as he eloquently puts into words some of the vague discomfort I have had about virtual relationships.  I have talked about the rudeness factor that I find in this world of continuous computing, and I think that is why Siegal’s book resonates with me.  I haven’t put it into the right words yet, but when I am talking to someone and they answer a phone call, or text somebody, or check something while they are talking to me, it gives me this feeling of not being important enough to fit into their world, like I don’t “satisfy their picture of reality.”

Questions from this first part of class have to do with wondering how libraries and librarians fit into all of this.

Here are the things that appeal to me about Web 2.0 :

• I love the wisdom of the crowd idea.  Open, decentralized participation makes it feel like the possibilities for collaborative exploration are endless.  I do believe, as Michael said in class, that when you are working with the collective intelligence, you get so many answers and ideas that one of them is bound to resonate.
• I love, love, love the Long Tail idea of the sum of esoteric interests being greater than the sum of interest in the hits.  Social networks have shown just how interesting and odd most people’s tastes can be if they are given limitless access.
• There is nothing better than having infinite information available at your fingertips.   I find that I will look things up on Wikipedia at the drop of a hat.  It used to be I would put questions on my to do list and never get around to them.  Now, when my six year old asks me about tornadoes, we can look up information,  immediately go to YouTube to see live footage of tornadoes, which leads us to live footage of tsunamis, which brings us to surfers in Hawaii.  Which brings me to…
• Serendipity.  There is no serendipity like the kind that happens when you share information with like-minded people.  Social software makes anyone with any particular taste, hobby, fetish, or interest able to find others with that same predilection.  And the nature of unlimited, clickable links to other kind-of-related/kind-of-not-related material that cohorts are interested in makes the serendipity factor of social networks huge.

Here are the things that cause me concern about Web 2.0:

• The Continuous Partial Attention referred to in the Social Machines article by Wade Roush.  C.P.A is a “state of mental blurriness thought to be induced when information is constantly pouring in from multiple sources.”  I have noticed a few recent articles mentioning how to manage huge amounts of information , much of it having to do with devising some sort of categorization system– “read now,” “read later, if there is time,” and “discard without reading.”  It seems that people are recognizing this mental blurriness, as well as experiencing the inability to focus on any one subject for very long, and the stress that comes from feeling that there will never be enough time to read it all.  It is hard to determine what is good and important when there is no “down time” to process information.  Sometimes it all seems like amorphous data, it comes in, then goes out without very much processing, then the next bit of information comes in, etc.
• The same article mentions the fact that aggregators (and, I would add, other types of social software) allow us to filter out news and ideas that don’t mesh with our own ideas.  Janelle mentions something like this in her posting for this week.  I do wonder what happens when you surround yourself with people who are too much like you.  There can be serendipity from opposing views, too.
• I agree with Janelle, again, when she wonders about the reality of the “wisdom of the crowd” thing, saying that it seems more like mob mentality to her.  To me, even though I do find the value in colletive intelligence, I think that  the social web, which is still young, is full of lots of people pouring out a bunch of the inane, just because they can.
• The rudeness factor.  The newness may be to blame again, but I am astonished at texting one person while conversing with another, intimate phone conversations in crowds, two people sitting and having dinner together, both on the phone, “news reporters “Twittering” at a 3 year-old’s funeral, (http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/13/colorado-newspaper-twitters-three-year-olds-funeral/) etc.  I think that somebody needs to come up with some sort of continuous computing etiquette.  The Social Machines article mentions the idea that a constant information stream draws attention away from the here and now.   I think this ties in to the rudeness factor.

The Buckland article asks what happens to the idea of “value” with digitization and access to huge amounts of information?   This is where librarians come in, or where I would like to come in.  Buckland goes on to say that the “privileging of the better” remains a significant and needed service, and that while all information should be accessible, maybe it shouldn’t be equally accessible.   While it neccessarily implies “judgement” and making choices about what is useful, helpful and good, this might be the ways libraries can help (or continue to help) in tempering some of the overstressed, muddled confusion that comes with limitless information.  We have always been the gatekeepers of information, and this may be a necessary role now more than ever.  People need to know how important this part of the librarian’s job description is.

I would also like to see the Library 2.0 concept of user participation and input in this process.  In an effort to be hip and current, libraries seem to have focused on making users friends.  This is good, but I think it could also be great to tap into them as other kinds of  resources.  There is some of this going on–user book reviews and lists appear on many library websites.  As I mentioned in class, I think we could go further with this–patrons could do online reference wikis, they could form their own Long Tail and have book, movie and music swapping services,  create their own subject guides….

Looking forward to more….