Friday, November 28, 2008
Muddiest Point #9
How much security do Pitt students have using university software? How and why is it better (or worse) than the average user's?
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Reading Notes, Week 13
No Place to Hide
This week's readings are of great interest to me. While the technological advances in information retrieval have been a blessing, they've also become quite burdensome because of security issues. These advancements work to our benefit for the most part, I think. But there are, of course, people out there who use their empowerment for criminal purposes, sometimes under the guise of "what's best for us."
The No Place to Hide website helps play more into the second part, in my opinion. Whether or not you disagree with motives for the PATRIOT Act, there's no doubt our privacy has been affected in adverse ways. Is it worth it? No in my opinion. I think this investigative website shows why.
TIA and Data Mining
This website run by the Electronic Privacy Information Center is concerned by the problems that No Place to Hide is, although I think it's less alarmist. The vast majority of the site is informational with less emphasis commentary, and, I think, allows the people more of an option make their own minds on the privacy issue.
You Tube Video
Apparently, this video has been removed because of copyright issues, so I can't review it.
In any case, I think this week's issues aren't just interesting, but important, relevant topics for anyone going into an information science career.
This week's readings are of great interest to me. While the technological advances in information retrieval have been a blessing, they've also become quite burdensome because of security issues. These advancements work to our benefit for the most part, I think. But there are, of course, people out there who use their empowerment for criminal purposes, sometimes under the guise of "what's best for us."
The No Place to Hide website helps play more into the second part, in my opinion. Whether or not you disagree with motives for the PATRIOT Act, there's no doubt our privacy has been affected in adverse ways. Is it worth it? No in my opinion. I think this investigative website shows why.
TIA and Data Mining
This website run by the Electronic Privacy Information Center is concerned by the problems that No Place to Hide is, although I think it's less alarmist. The vast majority of the site is informational with less emphasis commentary, and, I think, allows the people more of an option make their own minds on the privacy issue.
You Tube Video
Apparently, this video has been removed because of copyright issues, so I can't review it.
In any case, I think this week's issues aren't just interesting, but important, relevant topics for anyone going into an information science career.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Reading Notes, Week 12
Weblogs: Their Use and Application in Science and Technology Libraries
The article helpfully begins its description of a weblog, which is, simply, a blog. This makes me think, though, how much more confusing upcoming technology really is. Without clear and definite terminology, it only serves to be more difficult to educate the public about new technology. Sometimes I think those "in the know" forget about that.
Anyway, much of the article was common knowledge for a lot of us, I'm sure, at least since we've begun blogging. For example, most of us know by now that a blog works as something of a personal journal and that our entries, if we desire, can be archived (106). We also know that they can have great success (106). What isn't so clear is the history (107). A lot of us may have been keeping up with the advances in blogging for the past decade, but I've only been blogging since about 2004 or so, although I have been using involved in online communites prior to that.
Basically, this was a good introduction for those who have only an elementary knowledge of computers, blogging and blogging software. There are some terms referred to that I was unaware of, but it took very little time or effort understand them. Most of the meanings could be inferred. I do wish some of the prior articles we have read were only this challenging.
Using a Wiki to Manage a Library Instruction Program: Sharing Knowledge to Better Serve Patrons
The explanation of the wiki was pretty straightforward and there was little confusion as to what the author meant, mainly because I, along with everyone else in class, has used one. If it's not Wikipedia, then it's likely the course wiki for LIS 2000 or another specialized wiki. For instance, I like to read Thomas Pynchon, and I often have to consult a wiki (given the nature of his work) run by fans and Pynchon scholars in order to understand the references and context of his novels
What I really liked to read, since I've never bothered to try and set up my own wiki, is section on "making your own wiki." Maybe I'll try it now.
Creating the Academic Library Folksonomy: Put Social Tagging to Work at Your Institution
Arch is correct with the assumption that most of current literature on the interest is, in fact, now on the internet. The reasons are obvious, I suspect, because 1) if you're discussing the internet, then the internet would be the obvious place to publish your finding and 2) the development of the internet is increasing so quickly that by the time literature is published on paper, it's already become dated.
Social tagging is a good method for people to reach what they want, but everyone has to contribute in order or it to work. While we've all agreed on the language we using (more or less), some users will have slight discrepancies on a meaning. Others might try a more specific search, while some will begin their searches on a broader level. So, it's important that a large population contributes so as to cut down on these problems. There is, however, a risk to open contributions. Says Arch, "[t]here are, of course, a few risks and issues to consider when implementing social tagging in your library, especially if the site is open for all library patrons to update. One is the wonderfully named spagging, or spam tagging. Users with bad intentions can tag unsuitable sites for their own profit or simply to create havoc." It'll be interesting to observe what direction social tagging goes in.
How a Ragtag Band Created Wikipedia
This 11 minute recording (I listened to the audio; didn't watch the video) was pretty interesting. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, gives a talk about how he and some developers made the website into a reality. As a frequent user (and, by the way, well-aware of both it's faults and benefits), I held a special fascination Wales's presentation.
Wikipedia runs on donations from the public; important, I think, since it is also open source. This is truly a public collaboration and illustrates the appeal of the website. Wales points out the common surprise, and it was a surprise to me, that only 1/3 of the traffic is to the English version, which comprises 600,000 articles out of the 2,000,000 total. It is a truly global website and one of the top fifty in use. This is particularly fascinating because, as Wales points out again, it runs on comparatively very little money to, say, the New York Times, which is a huge corporate organization, and, yet, has less users.
Of course, there's the question of "how good is it?" Wales claims that it's pretty good but, of course, not perfect given its chaotic system. Part of the reason it works is that most people understand the need for neutrality, which Wales insisted upon from the beginning, and, as he points out, that doesn't necessarily equate to the truth, which, of course, can differ from person to person depending on the entry or idea. "Right v Left" problems are not that big of an issues, probably because of the fact that those engaging in that debate are asked to leave the community. The vast majority of the "community" is comprised of 600-1,000 dedicated members, not the controversial anonymous users, who only make up about 18% of all edits. In my opinion, most of the erroneous claims are probably edited by the dedicated members or members like me, those with a username and who care about Wikipedia's veracity but infrequent with their edits.
Overall, I think Wales did a decent job in clearing up the issues or problems with Wikipedia, particularly with idea of neutrality, but I wanted a little more detail in some areas and wished the talk could have been longer. Hopefully, most people would come away believing that Wikipedia is usually reliable, impressively so, but also understand why it isn't appropriate to use it as a source.
Postscript: Earlier I could not access the second and third articles via the online syllabus, and so I I did not post any notes (but mentioned my efforts). Thanks to Jake's comment, I was able to access them via Course Documents on Blackboard today, 11/22. Keep in mind, though, that my original notes were posted on Thursday.
The article helpfully begins its description of a weblog, which is, simply, a blog. This makes me think, though, how much more confusing upcoming technology really is. Without clear and definite terminology, it only serves to be more difficult to educate the public about new technology. Sometimes I think those "in the know" forget about that.
Anyway, much of the article was common knowledge for a lot of us, I'm sure, at least since we've begun blogging. For example, most of us know by now that a blog works as something of a personal journal and that our entries, if we desire, can be archived (106). We also know that they can have great success (106). What isn't so clear is the history (107). A lot of us may have been keeping up with the advances in blogging for the past decade, but I've only been blogging since about 2004 or so, although I have been using involved in online communites prior to that.
Basically, this was a good introduction for those who have only an elementary knowledge of computers, blogging and blogging software. There are some terms referred to that I was unaware of, but it took very little time or effort understand them. Most of the meanings could be inferred. I do wish some of the prior articles we have read were only this challenging.
Using a Wiki to Manage a Library Instruction Program: Sharing Knowledge to Better Serve Patrons
The explanation of the wiki was pretty straightforward and there was little confusion as to what the author meant, mainly because I, along with everyone else in class, has used one. If it's not Wikipedia, then it's likely the course wiki for LIS 2000 or another specialized wiki. For instance, I like to read Thomas Pynchon, and I often have to consult a wiki (given the nature of his work) run by fans and Pynchon scholars in order to understand the references and context of his novels
What I really liked to read, since I've never bothered to try and set up my own wiki, is section on "making your own wiki." Maybe I'll try it now.
Creating the Academic Library Folksonomy: Put Social Tagging to Work at Your Institution
Arch is correct with the assumption that most of current literature on the interest is, in fact, now on the internet. The reasons are obvious, I suspect, because 1) if you're discussing the internet, then the internet would be the obvious place to publish your finding and 2) the development of the internet is increasing so quickly that by the time literature is published on paper, it's already become dated.
Social tagging is a good method for people to reach what they want, but everyone has to contribute in order or it to work. While we've all agreed on the language we using (more or less), some users will have slight discrepancies on a meaning. Others might try a more specific search, while some will begin their searches on a broader level. So, it's important that a large population contributes so as to cut down on these problems. There is, however, a risk to open contributions. Says Arch, "[t]here are, of course, a few risks and issues to consider when implementing social tagging in your library, especially if the site is open for all library patrons to update. One is the wonderfully named spagging, or spam tagging. Users with bad intentions can tag unsuitable sites for their own profit or simply to create havoc." It'll be interesting to observe what direction social tagging goes in.
How a Ragtag Band Created Wikipedia
This 11 minute recording (I listened to the audio; didn't watch the video) was pretty interesting. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, gives a talk about how he and some developers made the website into a reality. As a frequent user (and, by the way, well-aware of both it's faults and benefits), I held a special fascination Wales's presentation.
Wikipedia runs on donations from the public; important, I think, since it is also open source. This is truly a public collaboration and illustrates the appeal of the website. Wales points out the common surprise, and it was a surprise to me, that only 1/3 of the traffic is to the English version, which comprises 600,000 articles out of the 2,000,000 total. It is a truly global website and one of the top fifty in use. This is particularly fascinating because, as Wales points out again, it runs on comparatively very little money to, say, the New York Times, which is a huge corporate organization, and, yet, has less users.
Of course, there's the question of "how good is it?" Wales claims that it's pretty good but, of course, not perfect given its chaotic system. Part of the reason it works is that most people understand the need for neutrality, which Wales insisted upon from the beginning, and, as he points out, that doesn't necessarily equate to the truth, which, of course, can differ from person to person depending on the entry or idea. "Right v Left" problems are not that big of an issues, probably because of the fact that those engaging in that debate are asked to leave the community. The vast majority of the "community" is comprised of 600-1,000 dedicated members, not the controversial anonymous users, who only make up about 18% of all edits. In my opinion, most of the erroneous claims are probably edited by the dedicated members or members like me, those with a username and who care about Wikipedia's veracity but infrequent with their edits.
Overall, I think Wales did a decent job in clearing up the issues or problems with Wikipedia, particularly with idea of neutrality, but I wanted a little more detail in some areas and wished the talk could have been longer. Hopefully, most people would come away believing that Wikipedia is usually reliable, impressively so, but also understand why it isn't appropriate to use it as a source.
Postscript: Earlier I could not access the second and third articles via the online syllabus, and so I I did not post any notes (but mentioned my efforts). Thanks to Jake's comment, I was able to access them via Course Documents on Blackboard today, 11/22. Keep in mind, though, that my original notes were posted on Thursday.
Muddiest Point #8
This is for my T.A., Zhen, or anybody who knows the answer -
Apparently we need 11 blog entries instead of 10 to get full credit for the blogs. However, in my case, I have 7 entries so far, which means I need four more to get full credit. The problem is that there are only 3 weeks left in the course, and I was counting on blogging for the remaining weeks of the course to get full credit. Being as how we were just informed of this development today and the fact that some of us inevitably used the reading response statistics to keep count of our scores, is it possible for those of us who are one short (and, therefore, probably, used to reading response statistics to keep count of our scores) to blog about a prior week's readings?
Apparently we need 11 blog entries instead of 10 to get full credit for the blogs. However, in my case, I have 7 entries so far, which means I need four more to get full credit. The problem is that there are only 3 weeks left in the course, and I was counting on blogging for the remaining weeks of the course to get full credit. Being as how we were just informed of this development today and the fact that some of us inevitably used the reading response statistics to keep count of our scores, is it possible for those of us who are one short (and, therefore, probably, used to reading response statistics to keep count of our scores) to blog about a prior week's readings?
Monday, November 17, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Muddiest Point #7
I assume (since I wasn't in class last week and haven't viewed the class taping yet) that the week 10 and week 11 readings were switched...or did miss something from more than a week back?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Muddiest Point #6
Before DSpace was created in 2003, what were other institutional repositories, digital or otherwise, available on a mass scale to those working in academia, or was DSpace the first?
Reading Notes, Week 11
Digital Libraries: Challenges and Influential Work
I think the Federated Search Diagram made the article easier to understand right from the beginning. Usually, my eyes glaze over the text trying to fully understand this material, so it was nice to have a visual to help guide me along.
I found Lynch's statement, "there is a huge difference between providing access to discrete sets of digital collections and providing digital library services," to be insightful, as well as accurate. Anyone can provide access to a collection (limited, at that), but it doesn't count as library access unless full library services are provided, or at least something resembling that.
Following that issue, the article was able to address funding issues and how to expand digital library services. This was helpful because it allowed me to understand just how we can and must go in providing full service.
Dewey Meets Turing: Librarians, Computer Scientists, and the Digitial Libraries Initiative
After reading this introduction, I first thought about how our IS program covers those divided between librarianship/archivists and computer scientists. Without the DLI and programs similar to it, what would our educations be like now? Is it likely that both fields would be under the same tent of information science, or would it have an inevitable marriage anyway as a result of computer systems to automatically expand information access? According the article, yes. "The scientists had been trained to use libraries since their years of secondary education. They could see, or at least imagine how current library functions would be moved forward by an injection of computing insight." However, I think it's just as true that those of us on the library side were able to recognize the value of computer science (And the article acknowleges this). Still, I'm not sure if it's an important to wonder who met who, or if both sides met halfway.
I felt that the last section of this article, "Mutual (Mis?)Conceptions" really highlighted what is possible in the future of this ever-evolving union, and this quote really sums up frustration (at least among aspiring librarians): "[I]n any union both sides need something that recalls their old identity."
Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in the Digital Age
First off, it never ceases to amaze me just how much funding, or lack thereof, drives innovation. Technology is already advancing at fast rate, but it's simply an understatement to say that innovative ideas are a result of those cut off from either access to information or funding, which is frustrating, but encourages creativity all the same.
Anyway, while I think I understand the concept of an instituational repository, I'm not sure I can visualize an actual repository of colloaborative student/faculty work that Lynch discusses (aside from the MIT example - dspace.org), mainly because he tends to write in abstractions and generic terms. Obviously the web and the advancement of computer science in general has given people, specifically faculty, the ability to disseminate information, but I don't really have an idea of what the ideal digital repository (although there is large list of them here) is or how to create it, let alone how to engage in, as Lynch puts it, stewardship. The closest I can get to visualizing this idea, is to think about library vendors such as JSTOR. So, I guess what I can take away from this idea is the creation of an open source project, similar to a wiki, only privy, for example, to the students and faculty at Pitt - with more rules, mostly relating to control of content.
If institutional repositories become an accepted and common reality, should it be a requirement that every students' and faculty members' academic work be submitted to the repository?
Note: This was orginally sorted under "Reading Notes, Week 10" until I realized that everyone but me had the above readings under Week 11, and the syllabus's Week 11 readings under Week 10 on the blogs
I think the Federated Search Diagram made the article easier to understand right from the beginning. Usually, my eyes glaze over the text trying to fully understand this material, so it was nice to have a visual to help guide me along.
I found Lynch's statement, "there is a huge difference between providing access to discrete sets of digital collections and providing digital library services," to be insightful, as well as accurate. Anyone can provide access to a collection (limited, at that), but it doesn't count as library access unless full library services are provided, or at least something resembling that.
Following that issue, the article was able to address funding issues and how to expand digital library services. This was helpful because it allowed me to understand just how we can and must go in providing full service.
Dewey Meets Turing: Librarians, Computer Scientists, and the Digitial Libraries Initiative
After reading this introduction, I first thought about how our IS program covers those divided between librarianship/archivists and computer scientists. Without the DLI and programs similar to it, what would our educations be like now? Is it likely that both fields would be under the same tent of information science, or would it have an inevitable marriage anyway as a result of computer systems to automatically expand information access? According the article, yes. "The scientists had been trained to use libraries since their years of secondary education. They could see, or at least imagine how current library functions would be moved forward by an injection of computing insight." However, I think it's just as true that those of us on the library side were able to recognize the value of computer science (And the article acknowleges this). Still, I'm not sure if it's an important to wonder who met who, or if both sides met halfway.
I felt that the last section of this article, "Mutual (Mis?)Conceptions" really highlighted what is possible in the future of this ever-evolving union, and this quote really sums up frustration (at least among aspiring librarians): "[I]n any union both sides need something that recalls their old identity."
Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in the Digital Age
First off, it never ceases to amaze me just how much funding, or lack thereof, drives innovation. Technology is already advancing at fast rate, but it's simply an understatement to say that innovative ideas are a result of those cut off from either access to information or funding, which is frustrating, but encourages creativity all the same.
Anyway, while I think I understand the concept of an instituational repository, I'm not sure I can visualize an actual repository of colloaborative student/faculty work that Lynch discusses (aside from the MIT example - dspace.org), mainly because he tends to write in abstractions and generic terms. Obviously the web and the advancement of computer science in general has given people, specifically faculty, the ability to disseminate information, but I don't really have an idea of what the ideal digital repository (although there is large list of them here) is or how to create it, let alone how to engage in, as Lynch puts it, stewardship. The closest I can get to visualizing this idea, is to think about library vendors such as JSTOR. So, I guess what I can take away from this idea is the creation of an open source project, similar to a wiki, only privy, for example, to the students and faculty at Pitt - with more rules, mostly relating to control of content.
If institutional repositories become an accepted and common reality, should it be a requirement that every students' and faculty members' academic work be submitted to the repository?
Note: This was orginally sorted under "Reading Notes, Week 10" until I realized that everyone but me had the above readings under Week 11, and the syllabus's Week 11 readings under Week 10 on the blogs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)