News Report #2

David Abel, The Boston Globe
09.04.09
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/04/a_library_without_the_books/?page=1

Later this year, Cushing Academy, a New England prep school, will become the first school in the country to abandon books completely. Campus officials have decided that after 144 years of accumilating a collection of more than 20,000 books, the school no longer needs a "traditional library." Instead, the academy will spend $500,000 to create (tentatively named) a "learning center." This "learning center" will include: three large flat-screen televisions, laptop-friendly study carrels/desks, a coffee shop (where the reference desk once was), and 18 electronic readers (Amazon Kindles and Sony Readers). James Tracy, headmaster and chief promoter of this drastic change, feels that books are an "outdated technology," deeming them the "scrolls" of this generation. However, he does not feel that this action will discourage students to read, moreover "a natural way to shape emerging trends and optimize technology." The headmaster feels that with these technologies, students will have access to millions of books, as opposed to being limited to what the library carries. He also feels that his "learning center" will be "a model for the 21st-century school." However, there are concerns that students will have more trouble focusing with the constant distractions that technologies, more specifically the Internet, are known to have (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.) There are also concerns about the durability of these electronic readers, and what that will cost down the road when students find out that books can withstand a lot more rough handling. Regardless, teachers at the school have already planned on having their students to all their class reading on electronic books next curriculum.



Okay, so, I like to think of myself as pretty technology-savvy and pretty encouraging/open-minded of new technology replacing the old, making things easier, more efficient, etc. But I found my inner old man becoming irritated as I read this article and found that Cushing Academy's bookless library being praised as "...the start of a new era" and "model for the 21st-century school." Of course, the logical side of me says "hey, you know they may be right... This could be a break-through for academia," because, to be honest, I really can't come up with any proof that Cushing's "learning center" won't spawn any more knowledge than a traditional library. However, I am all for the traditional library. The article had a quote that sums up how I feel best: "...Alexander Coyle, chairman of the history department, is a self-described 'gadget freak' who enjoys reading on Amazon’s Kindle, but he has always seen libraries and their hallowed content as 'secular cathedrals.'" I still remember the joy of having my very own library card (for school and the public.) I prided myself on keeping it in mint condition and there were hour-long periods dedicated to browsing our school's library searching for a book we wanted to take home. I even remember visiting a friend a few years ago at NC State University and sitting in a certain section of its library looking around and only seeing endless rows of computer screens, large flat-screen TVs (the kids were playing Xbox on them) and it all felt very sterile to me... like, there was no warmness of published ink. To quote the article, it was "a world where sweat-stained literature is deemed as perishable as all the glib posts on Facebook or Twitter." I don't fear that this will happen to all libraries, because I am sure it will in time, but I feel sorry for the future generations who will look at his/her parents' old books like our generation did with their vinyl records -- on second thought, I don't, because they will be sipping coffee from $12,000 cappuccino machines (seriously? wtf.)

Reading #2

"Can Wikipedia Ever Make The Grade?," by Brock Read, discusses the accuracy of the popular online encyclopedia, which can virtually be edited by anyone, and if academics should embrace it or ignore it. Read begins the article with an anecdote about a skeptical assistant professor from Quinnipiac College, who intentionally placed false, credible-looking information into 13 obscure articles. Fortunately, the Wikipedia editors constantly check over recently updated articles, so they fact-checked and reversed the assistant professor's misinformation. As a matter of fact, several scholars are wary of the Internet's new hottest information site, but are slowly becoming less hostile because of it's general appeal. Of course, their wariness is not unwarranted; the website is consistently in flux, mistakes sometimes linger in the lesser-trafficked subjects, and misinformation sometimes reaches other (reputable) websites. Leaders of Wikipedia have acknowledged this problem, as they hold an annual three-day meeting at Harvard where they discuss the policies to prevent editorial vandalism and erasing seedy entries. Nature journal recently published a study comparing the accuracy of scientific articles from Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, which found that while the average Britannica article usually had three errors, while Wikipedia usually had four. A history professor from George Mason University did the same, except with historic articles, and found they were almost as factually accurate as one another. Scholars have found that art and law are usually the weaker articles in Wikipedia, compared to history or science. Among its' 40, 000 active contributors (1, 100 of them being graduate students) professors and scholars are writing articles on their expertise, only to have them immediately deleted by Wikipedia. This probably contributes to the hostility I mentioned earlier, as professors think it is disrespectful, but the real reason is that their lengthy articles are not concise - which is pretty much the charm of Wikipedia.

Although I'm aware of the taboo of praising Wikipedia, I personally enjoy it very much and will sometimes use it up to 10 times a day - but usually it is not for anything scholarly, mainly just looking up things to ease my curiosity (countries, foods, authors, etc.) I feel that it is so appealing, regardless of it's lack of factual credibility, it probably just due to its accessible layout and vast knowledge. I think the reason that makes it so popular amongst college students is the fact that it is open to any one's input and is not as concrete or rigid as opening up an Encyclopedia. Like the professor that Brock Read mentioned, I also tried to put false information in an article which lasted for probably five seconds before it was deleted/corrected by the Wikipedia editors - something that has comforted me, as I have used Wikipedia for powerpoints, note cards, and brushing up on topics for college courses. To me, Wikipedia is nearly on the same level as Google, as a source for information, but should really be absorbed with a grain of salt (as should any result from any search engine, really)- if you can do this, you can definitely benefit from the website.

Post #2

The article "Web Hoaxes, Counterfeit Sites, and Other Spurious Information on the Internet", by Paul S. Piper, discusses websites found on the internet that you need to be wary of. These include: counterfeit, malicious, product, fictitious, parodies/spoofs/entertainment, hacks, and disinformation. A counterfeit website will usually look pretty official, as it probably has based itself off the template/style of the real website it is skewing. Piper writes that the counterfeit website is the most troublesome of the bunch, because it may not always be trying to achieve humor, and either way, they are often misconstrued. For example, it could be an official-looking website dealing with a historic figure that passes off lies as facts, aimed towards a younger crowd which would spread its false ideas quite diversely, if they were researching said person. Product sites, though legitimate, are still an advertisement to try to sell you something, which should always be taken with a grain of salt. Fictitious sites can deal with anything from a made-up city to an imaginary animal and are not usually very harmful (unless you are very gullible). Parody/spoof sites are mainly for entertainment, and although its content could be satirizing politics, current events, etc., their "misinformation" should be obvious in its' ridiculousness and lack of sources. Hacked websites are when legit or official websites are modified in any which way by "hackers" and can usually be corrected. However, this is least likely to occur in government sponsored websites because they would be harder to "hack." Disinformation websites usually consist of opinions over facts that steer bias' to a certain agenda or stance and can potentially be very misleading, thus harmful.

The internet is becoming the number 1 source to get information, whether it be for a school-issued paper, getting your daily news, researching a topic of interest, whatever. I know personally I've researched thousands of topics using the internet and have run into several of the websites that Piper described in his article, which is why its very important to be able to recognize these kinds of sites that could potentially lead you to believe false information or develop a bias unwillingly, etc. Of course, even before the internet, there were always "those magazines" or "those television programs" that you were taught, or just learned through experience, to be wary of - such as magazines that may advertise that Michael Jackson had aliens living with him on Neverland Ranch or bias television programs like FOX News pundits'. I feel that everything in this article I've learned already through several years' experience online and plain intuition, but there may be those whose perception would not pick up on these kinds of hoaxes, etc. and I would strongly urge them to read this article.

News Report #1

Library Groups Voice Concerns About Google Books

Wendy Davis, MediaPost News Online

5/7/09

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=105460

The American Library Association, Association of College and Research Libraries and Association of Research Libraries - which represent 139,000 U.S. libraries - are concerned over Google's new "digital books," which I'm guessing are very comparable to the more-known Kindle (by Amazon). Their concerns lie with a potential settlement in a lawsuit against Google, by authors and publishers, that could leave Google in a very powerful position in the up-and-coming digital books market - a market in which they plan on collecting personal information from buyers while they are not obligated to keep confidential. Authors are also worried about this settlement, because they feel that their readers won't want to purchase books without assurances of confidentiality, especially if those books deal with more risqué topics (e.g. sex, drugs). The library groups feel that Google's stance could "stifle intellectual freedom" because they would only have to make 85% of the in-copyright books it has scanned searchable and would most likely censor the books that deal with non-government-approved books (e.g. alternative lifestyle-esque, evolution, etc.) However, Google feels that this movement would benefit authors, publishers and readers, as it will yield a vast accessibility to books.

While I am completely for a higher accessibility to books, I do not feel that a single enormous company, such as Google, should really be in control of the whole digital book market. I can definitely see why the libraries are concerned over the whole privacy aspect, especially since I'm aware that libraries have always strived for private book browsing/reading/etc. And of course I can see why the more alternative authors are worried that their readers may feel that they are under surveillance while they contemplate buying a digital copy of their next book. The whole situation is unnerving, but personally I feel a bit detached from the whole ordeal, probably because I'm not really tapped into the whole digital book market. I borrowed a Kindle from my friend's aunt one time, while we were vacationing in Hilton Head Island, SC, and I just felt uncomfortable with it and my initial excitement over the new technology slowly evaporated. I'd be interested in hearing how the settlement turns out and I at least hope that any "Google book" buyers are aware of their (lack of) privacy when they purchase the product.