Blogger, How I Love Thee...

It has been a long hiatus. A much needed hiatus. I needed time. I needed space. I needed an all-expense paid trip to Barcelona, but I didn't get that. If you're looking to do someone a good turn, keep me in mind. I prefer first class if possible.

At any rate, I need to get started on revamping my web presence. I had grand plans to do that, but somehow they got away from me. Plus, I'm still waiting on colors. My cousin, that is, the artist in the family, was supposed to help me pick out some colors. Colors that say I'm professional yet fun and spanky at the same time. You know, branding. The George brand. She's supposed to work on that for me. Somehow this has yet to happen.

Lo and behold, however, I've been thrown a curveball. I enrolled in Digital Collections with Dr. Betsy Van der Veer Martens ("Doc Martens") and find that, I' m required to have a blog for that class. OK, well and fine. But, *gasp*, it HAS to be a -- watch your ears, children -- W*rdPr*ss blog.

So I guess I'm going to give it a go. I feel like I'm cheating on Blogger. I've been a Blogger blogger for... well, since 2005? That's not even counting the gazillion blogs that now clutter the blogosphere where I created a blog, wrote a post and then promptly forgot about it.

All of which leaves me wondering... are blogs still a thing? I mean I feel like there was a little blog heyday and everybody was excited -- blogs, blogs, blogs -- but I feel like the hype has kinda died. I mean they're there, that's great. Now what? Or is that just me? Was I the one who got all blog happy and then blogged out.

I just wish Web 2.0 did a better job of naming things something more appealing... That's how this era in history will be remembered, you know. The era of the ickily named TechnoTrends. "What were the 2000s like grandpa?"

"Oh, it was awful. People invented new words all the time that grated upon the ear. Words like 'blog' and 'mashup.' Why, when I was your age I had to walk 10 miles uphill both ways in the snow just to hear words that didn't sound like bodily functions gone bad!"

All right. I'm off to another corner of the blogosphere waiting to collect my digital clutter. The more I blog the more I realize that this hype about how to preserve such formats for future investigation is kind of overwrought. Why do I say this? Because there are something like 99999 gazillion trillion billion blogs in the world. And all but like.... 200 of those are stuff nobody ever wants to read ever. I know because I wrote like 99998 gazillion trillion billion of those blogs and the vast majority of them -- like 99997 gazillion trillion billion of them have one post. And that one post probably says something like "This is a test post."

So don't fret your little heads, those of you headed into digital preservation. I predict that when all is said and done we will find ourselves really only needing to preserve about... Like... let's say... 20 printed pages of material from the blogosphere.

It's Here!

The best bookmarking site in the world, www.diigo.com, just got better!

Informal Network for New Professionals - American Indian/First Nations

Hello: For those of you following this on the AILA list (or anyone else who's interested), we're seeking to establish an informal network for new professionals interested in American Indian/First Nations library services -- tribal libraries or other services relevant to American Indians/First Nations populations -- for, by and about all included!

Please take this opportunity to vote on the means most convenient for you to participate in an informal network of new professionals. This informal network is not meant to replace AILA. This informal network is geared towards new professionals networking with other new professionals but all interested parties are welcomed. Finally, "new professional" does not necessarily mean you have to be in library school or have a library degree. If you feel like you're a new professional then you qualify!

Also feel free to leave any feedback in the comments section.

Otherwise, let the voting begin!

Byte Me: Memoirs of Technological Deviant

OK, so you remember I was having my technological crisis? I think I've resolved my technological identity. Problem is, I'm a technological deviant. In a world of PCs and Macs, I'm an Internet fiend. Now this doesn't sound that different than everyone else. In fact, I'm convinced we're all Internet fiends at heart -- those of us that use computers, anyway. That is -- if given a choice would you own a PC? A Mac? Or a subscription service that contained anything and everything your little heart could desire online?

Now, hear me out. In the midst of this PC/Mac (and desktop/laptop) identity crisis I realized that neither can really satisfy my needs. I want something that the world doesn't have to offer me just yet: I want a keyboard, a mouse, a display and an internet connection. I want nothing more. I want to connect to the internet and logon to www.GeorgesSoftwareStation.com and sign up for a subscription. I want ALL my files online. I want ALL my software choices online. I want to pay either monthly OR yearly for those things I use all the time, and then I want a pay-as-you-play option for everything else.

Who needs mail merge? I'll be happy to pay a dime a minute to use it when (and IF) I ever need it. Companies need mail merge. People usually don't.

If I'm bored and want to play a game I want to have the option of paying for 30 days of unlimited access and then no more -- all for a fixed fee. Hard core gamers can pay the yearly subscription if they want. I just want to play until I get tired of it, and then not have to worry about it anymore.

I don't want to download anything. I don't want to install anything. I don't want to upgrade anything. I just want to connect to any terminal anywhere in the world and access *my* online desktop and files.

To paraphrase Mary Chapin Carpenter: Is it too much to ask? I want a dumb terminal; not a PC or Mac! Shouldn't I have this? Shouldn't I have this? Shouldn't I have ALL of this and -- Total Online Technology Management! Total Online Technology Management! Whoa-o-oa.

OK, so that was a horrible rendering of "Passionate Kisses." But seriously! Why can't I have that?

OK, OK. I know what you're thinking. Loretta Lynn. D-I-V-I-D-E. Well, it doesn't really work as well, does it? Funny thing is I'm not even a big country fan, really.

Anyway, yes, the digital divide. If we have digital divide issues now, imagine what they would be like if everyone had to have internet access AND pay subscriptions. Yes, I know. This is a kink in my plans to transform the technological landscape. Yet, maybe it's a solution. The problem is we just don't know. Nothing like this currently exists. Oh, you can use Google docs online and what have you. You can sign up for remote desktop access. There are even online storage options. But we haven't reached a point, yet, where we can simply access our entire technological lives by simply connecting to the Internet. Hardware and software upgrades are currently a problem as it is. Would things really be different? Ideally it would cost the same or slightly less, it would just shift the money a little. Still, I admit this bears some serious thinking in terms of its impact on the digital divide.

All right, it's time to go to bed. May visions of internet-based software solutions dance in my head.

RANDOM BITS

I'm stealing an idea from David Pogue who has been known to piece together content from nothing more than the post-it notes

_________________________

Someone came knocking to let me know about a post entitled "25 Useful Social Networking Tools for Librarians." I've linked to it here.

There are some usual suspects, but there are a couple on there I had not heard of. Footnote, for example, is interesting.

I'm not entirely sure who this is that e-mailed me. BUT, it is an item, so I'm posting it.

________________________

OK, I'm deeply embroiled in some of the most profound soul-searching I've ever done. I'm in the midst of my greatest identity crisis to date. Things haven't been this chaotic in my life since I transitioned away from AOL. Yes, that's right -- I'm thinking of taking the Mac plunge.

Anyone have any advice on this? I'll listen to anyone's thoughts. I lie awake at night worrying about this. It's not a decision I have to make until the fall, but it plagues my every waking moment.

Here are the issues:

Desktop AND laptop? Or laptop to replace desktop? Oooh.... Scary, that last one, isn't it? Am I ready to move away from the desktop altogether? Bear in mind I have to date never owned a laptop.

And the big one: Macbook or Dell laptop?

Whole paradigms and philosophical outlooks are at stake here. A whole new way of living. This is transformative. This is big! HUGE! This is like changing your religion big or changing your gender big! Am I ready to do the whole laptop thing? AND the whole Mac thing? AND both at once?

_______________________

Another item of interest that came my way -- this post: http://www.plos.org/cms/node/204

It concerns me. Now, I love this whole Open Access revolution. And if you know anything about me, you should know I am not one to diminish the social impact of such things as Open Access.

However...

Slavery? Do we really profit by comparing publishers to slave owners? I'm more than a little dismayed by a comparison to slavery and trying to parallel Open Access advocates with abolitionists.

First of all, Open Access should be addressed on its own merits. It does have its own merits, and very strong ones as indicated in the PLoS article. So why do we need to cheapen the travesty of slavery by diminishing it to the level of inflated journal costs?

Now, this article is a year old. However, someone sent it out on one of the ALA listservs earlier this very day.

Fortunately some research turned up this post by K. Matthew Dames whose views I must heartily endorse.

I was looking for something indicating that Richard Smith realized his error and apologized. Does anyone know if this ever happened?

OK, I think that's it for now.

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know...

...about Information and Knowledge but Were Afraid to Ask.

OK, I've got this all figured out. A series of intellectual dominoes all fell perfectly into place over this past week to create a stunning mental framework that makes sense. Here it is.

In one of my courses which is essentially Information Behavior (though it's got a much longer, high-falutin' sounding name) we've been talking about a whole slew of frameworks, etc. for information seeking and what have you. OK, blah, blah, blah. I'll spare you the litany of names and I'll definitely spare you the playbook of goofy diagrams. What I've figured out is this:

The key distinction really *is* between information and knowledge. Wisdom is something rarefied and is best left to philosophers, poets and theologians. Data is important, but it's kind of a precursor to information. What's important, though, is this information/knowledge split. Now mind you I thought all that was a bunch of hooey for the longest time, but now it's all fitting together.

Information = static
Knowledge = dynamic

Ideas fit in the knowledge category because they are also dynamic products of the mind.

Let's do this again for clarity:

Information is static.
Knowledge is dynamic.

A paper index is static. It contains information.
A searchable database is a dynamic system that contains static products. Well, databases of journal articles and the like. So I see why databases can be considered a knowledge management product. But they're not quite information products and not quite knowledge products. They're hybrids if you will -- they fit in between indexes AND....

People. People are dynamic systems. People are the most dynamic systems of all. That is why people will go to other people time and time again before they go to a database and they will go to a database or search engine before they go to a paper index (i.e. Google versus The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature or what have you).

As a rule people seek information to generate knowledge. Thus, it only makes sense to seek out the most dynamic knowledge-based systems in the world (i.e. other people).

OK, let me think a minute. I'm trying to spare you tedious citations and references. However, being a good librarian, I don't want to plagiarize. So I need a moment...

People will go to Google if they need to know the current temperature, because that is static, that is information and Google -- while a semi-dynamic system -- will get them that information more quickly than most other means. But when people have true complex problems with multiple variables and a dash of vagueness, they will turn to other people. I have been doing this myself in my formulation of a thesis project.

I need to generate a lot of knowledge very quickly. Thus, I need to go to people (i.e. faculty members, classmates) to work with dynamic systems that can return knowledge products for me. Later, when I go to conduct my literature search I will be able to turn to information to embroider my knowledge so I can then resort to databases. At that point I will be looking for static information products to fill in a more direct need. Currently, though, non-people systems cannot return dynamic knowledge products, so it is premature to use databases or indexes.

I'm sure there's more to this, but this is a good starting point. Let's all take some time and ponder, shall we? Let's gather again sometime soon and see what else we've come up with in our dynamic knowledge-producing minds.

Implications: We owe it to our patrons, clients, users, etc. to formulate a strategy for connecting them with us, information professionals, dynamic knowledge systems first. Then we can point them to the information they need. If they know their information need they can fulfill it without us. That's when we can be simple facilitators "Here's how you conduct a proper search." But we should seek to encourage them to come to us initially as the dynamic system that will point the way to the static resources once they've processed some dynamic knowledge products and know what their static needs are.

It's probably a cycle, really. Dynamic knowledge systems which point to static information products, which lead back to dynamic knowledge systems to process the static information products. But that is my belief for the moment...

More on this later. I should have been in bed hours ago.

Goodnight, but remember:

Information is static.
Knowledge is dynamic.

Caution...

I highly recommend you leave your "safe search" on when using Google images for anything library and librarian related.

I'm just sayin'...

Let's Do the Mash! The Monster Mash-(Up)!

Now that I'm on this Librarian 2.0 kick I have all kinds of ideas. One of my ambitions is to organize an event mash-up. What's an event mash-up? Same idea as a regular mash-up, only with events.

My specific idea is that I want to do a Librarian 2.0 Event Mash-Up that combines a fashion show with a panel discussion. The first portion of the event would be a showcase of hip and trendy professional fashions. I actually believe this could be useful to people. Librarians need to polish their image and sometimes it's hard to figure out what constitutes "professional attire." Should we dress to impress or tone it down a little? Should we aspire to fit in on the golf course at Palm Beach or at a gallery opening in Soho?

Since I think that the new librarian's fashion is only an outward symbol of the transformation of the profession I would like to follow up with a panel discussion on the role of Librarian 2.0. I've already spoken to the point about Librarian 2.0 versus Library 2.0, but even if you disagree surely you admit that a librarian's role within Library 2.0 is a topic worth exploring.

So who's with me? Remember, if you're not with me, you're against me. And if you're against me, you're probably wearing polyester. And not in a cool retro way, either.

Librarian 2.0

Polyester librarians are no longer the norm.

At ALA Midwinter I saw a breed of librarian that looks nothing like the polyester librarians that we all conjure up in our minds. I saw hip, trendy and relatively young librarians, librarians of color, librarians who were dressed to impress and were full of energy and vitality.

This is important. It's exceedingly important. It's not important because it shattered my prejudices about what a librarian looks like or acts like. Rather, it's important because it shattered my prejudices about how librarians think about themselves, their roles and their profession.

This new look of librarians is telling and compelling. It's symbolically important. What's true in an exterior sense is especially true in an interior sense as well -- these librarians also think in a younger, more diverse, fresher way than ever before.

Discussions of Library 2.0 often miss the point, it seems to me. I also believe that if we are going to talk about Library 2.0 we have to also talk about the people behind this movement, the Librarians 2.0. I believe that it is the Librarians 2.0 that are going to drive the paradigms and principles of Library 2.0 and transform what librarianship is and what it means as a profession.

Part of the problem I've had with Library 2.0 is that I've misunderstood its governing principles and paradigms up until ALA Midwinter. Granted, I also blame Library 2.0 advocates who fail to clearly articulate those principles and paradigms, but I accept some blame myself. ALA Midwinter changed all of that, though, and now I believe I have a vested interest in advocating for Library 2.0 by doing what everyone else needs to be doing -- stop focusing on the tools and start focusing on the principles and paradigms.

One of my professors has said over and over that libraries in terms of purpose and function have never been simply warehouses of books. The books have only been packages, containers, tools. To focus on the tools is to miss the point. Well, it occurs to me the same is true of Library 2.0. Blogs, wikis, social networking -- these are great, but they're tools. Only tools. Books are technology and blogs and wikis and social networks are technology. That is all they are. They are not paradigms that drive purpose and function.

What I propose is that I will begin to articulate what I believe are the underlying paradigms and principles governing Library 2.0 (and Libraries in general) and I invite anyone who reads this to do the same. The first such paradigm -- and what I believe may be the most significant -- finally dawned on me this past week. Simply put the paradigm is this:

People can connect people with the information they need and want more efficiently than any other process, system, technology, etc.

When Library 2.0 advocates state that Library 2.0 is user-centric, this is essentially what they mean. People connect people with information more efficiently than anything else.

What this means is that blogs and wikis and social networks are great as technologies. However, they're only technologies. What makes them so exciting is that they allow for more dynamic interaction between participants -- i.e. users and librarians. The new technologies are so great not in and of themselves but because they strip away obstacles and barriers to access -- not access to information, but access to other people who can act as efficient information brokers both officially and unofficially, both for the long term and for the singular, momentary interaction.

People connecting people. That is the most fundamental underlying paradigm of Library 2.0. I finally get it. And now that I get it, I believe in it and can advocate for it.

I'll have more to say on this topic of Librarian 2.0 and the new roles we'll be playing going forward. For now I wanted to introduce this fundamental paradigm and state that if it truly is the case that people connect people with information more efficiently than by any other means, then we have to shift our focus -- we should not be focused on Libraries in Library 2.0; we should be focused on Librarians in Librarian 2.0. To do so makes Librarian 2.0 no less user-centric, but rather more user-centric. If user-centric means a focus on the user, then it will be people who focus on users not technology. Technology can't focus. Only people can focus.

A Librarian's New Year's Resolutions

1. Become a "copyright activist" (per Duane Webster)
2. Become an advocate on behalf of libraries within society
3. Become an advocate for diversity within librarianship
4. Learn how to become involved in professional associations
5. Become involved in professional associations
6. Attend at least one professional conference in 2008
7. Advocate for more dynamic interaction between faculty/staff and students at OU SLIS
8. Promote scholarships, fellowships and involvement in professional conferences by students of OU SLIS
9. Become an advocate for the principles and paradigms of Library 2.0 (and not just an advocate for the tools of Library 2.0)
10. Continue to refine a vision of what I want my contribution to the profession to be over the course of my career