What I think Canada is.

Happy Canada Day, everyone!  For those of you who don't know, I'm a Canadian and have lived in Canada all my life but for a handful of years living in NJ and working in NYC.  As is typical, I'm, by default, proud of my country but I've hardly experienced the rest of the world so I can hardly compare really.  And, as all Canadians do, I have experienced a pile o' American culture (through TV, movies, books, music, etc.) so I'm heavily influenced by all that despite being part of that culture.

From the Canadian Heritage site on the "History of Canada Day", you can see that Canada Day was originally called Dominion Day, based on the day of the 'creation' of the "Dominion of Canada" by the British North America Act on July 1, 1867.  In a way, Canada Day is Canada's birthday so happy 147th birthday, Canada!

So what does Canada 'mean'?  Well, according to that vignette that Canadians saw on TV (in, what, the eighties?) the word "Canada" comes from a misunderstanding of the Iroquois word, "kanata" or village.  (You can also look here and here.)  But what does the country named Canada mean?  What is different about it?  Well, not much, at least in comparison with the United States.  I would say that, at least in southern Ontario, Canadian culture is much the same as American culture, particularly the US east coast and the midwest.  We're pretty white, quite materialistic, like our franchised restaurants, based primarily on European culture and Britain in particular, reasonably well-off compared to much of the rest of the world, youngish (only 147 years old), and individualistic.  I get the feeling that we're a little more European, socialist, and calm when compared to the US, and we certainly aren't as militaristic or politically active as Americans.  We have plenty and enjoy plenty of British imports like our chocolate/candy bars and TV like Coronation Street.  It's hard for me to compare Canada and Canadians with the rest of the world other than saying we're similar to the US so I'm not going to even try.

The other regions of Canada have some other unique cultures that, although I haven't experienced directly, I am aware of the basics and the stereotypes.  Quebec is francophone which brings with it cultural behaviours related to France, Catholocism, and a feeling of independence when defending against the encroaching anglophone culture from the States and the rest of Canada.  Eastern Canada borrows more from Irish and Scottish culture (as opposed to the English cultural background in Ontario), and IMHO is a little more safe from American influence.  The Prairie Provinces have a lot of similarity with the American Midwest in that they tend to be more rural and conservative.  I would suspect that much of BC is the same except for the more urban Vancouver area which I've been told is similar to the American West Coast.  Vancouver is like Canada's California...  damn hippies.  lol  And the northern territories are also very rural in terms of culture by necessity but also quite influenced by native culture.

(Of course, much of what I've included here is based on very little direct experience of the people or living in the area so please correct me if I've painted incorrect or overly broad strokes on the different regions of Canada.)

I like living in Ontario, Canada.  Weather is a nice mix between snow and cold in the winter (down to about -30 to degrees Celsius, though it does regularly get down to -40 in northern Ontario and probably lower) and pretty hot in the summer (upwards of maybe 30 degrees Celsius).  And we don't tend to have extreme and dangerous weather like tornadoes (although there was a bit of tornado damage a couple months ago in Toronto), hurricanes, floods, tidal waves (we're well inland expect for four of the five largest lakes in the world), landslides, etc.  Cold tends to be the worst weather extreme that we have and that can certainly take its toll in terms of hypothermia, damage to power lines and roads, difficulty in travelling, etc.  But I'd rather have too much cold than, say, earthquakes.

What is Canada to you?  Or, at least, what is YOUR part of Canada to you?

Law and logic

I just heard of a new case of a publisher (actually several) threatening another librarian with a defamation and libel suit.  See http://www.yousendit.com/download/UW13SU5OUnF0TW5FdzhUQw

The very first paragraph of meaning (after all the preamble of introductions), they claim:

By placing all four of our client's companies on your "list", you have published facts about these companies, by claiming that each and every company is a potential, possible or probable predatory scholarly open-access publisher.  These statements are false, in that our client's companies are not, in fact, predatory publishers.

 Is it me, or are they trying to claim that the four companies in question are BY DEFINITION not predatory?  In essence  that's what these words say to me.  They are saying that it is false that each company is a possible predatory publisher, among other things.  By saying this, they are saying that it is not possible that they are, meaning that, in all possible worlds, Redfame Publishing, for example, is never predatory.  They are claiming logical necessity or an analytical truth, or that these companies are, by definition, not predatory.  I would love to watch the legal proceedings in that case.

Now I know that legal terms are not always to be understood by their proper non-legal definitions, and lawyers are certainly not philosophers or logicians.  But at some point, "The Law" needs to follow some basic logical rules.  You can say that things are not possible simply because the current incarnation is so, unless you're talking about one plus one equaling two, or all bachelors being unmarried.  What I think they really should be calling foul on is the SUGGESTION that these claimed possibilities are indeed facts.  If my name gets put on a list of possible ax murderers, I'm not going to say that couldn't possibly be an ax murderer (although I do not own an ax) since I may go completely insane tomorrow and visit Canadian Tire's ax aisle.  What I will complain is that such a list may make people think that there's some good reason for being afraid of my ax-wielding future endeavours because of this list.

If such a case is allowed to be successfully argued, can we even use the term "possible" anymore?  Everything lies in the realm of possibility to some degree until certainty is achieved.  What we usually mean by "possible" is that we have some reason to believe that this might be the case BUT there are not enough facts to even be practically and publicly certain.  The argument against even the common understanding of "possibility" needs to be on the criteria for making such a judgement.  (Of course, the letter barely mentions these criteria, only arguing that the number suggests lack of justification.  And nowhere does it take to task these criteria specifically.)

(Here's the Scholarly Open Access site itself, complete with blog and the offending lists.  Arm yourself with knowledge.)

Teach by NOT teaching

According to a relatively recent article in the "Journal of Learning Sciences" (learned of from Time magazine via Lifehacker), we are doing a disservice to our students and workers when we 'making learning easy'.  Kapur and Bielaczyc found that, in comparing students with and without direct teacher-involved instruction, those without consistently outperformed those with in post-tests.  On the one hand this is counter-intuitive:  when I'm building a barn, it's probably going to take me longer and I'm probably going to do a poorer job if I'm all alone than if my friends and neighbours come and help me.  It's easier to climb stairs than a rocky cliff.    But on the other hand, we tend to place more importance (and therefore internal resources such as attention, confidence, memory, etc.) on things that were difficult to achieve if for no other reason than we don't want to feel like we've wasted our time or, worse, looked foolish wasting our time.  Here is the summary of how to use this nugget of info in practice (from the Time magazine article):

First, choose problems to work on that “challenge but do not frustrate.” Second, provide learners with opportunities to explain and elaborate on what they’re doing. Third, give learners the chance to compare and contrast good and bad solutions to the problems.

Sounds like good advice.  As a parent, this suggests that I should back off a bit from helping my kids figure out homework or difficult new concepts.  As a librarian, this suggests that we should do our best to find that middle ground between challenging and frustrating info searchers and that perhaps we be more involved in the learning review steps, perhaps by providing venues and/or tools support such review.

[ Read Lifehacker's "The More You Struggle with New Information the More Likely You Are to Learn It" then Time magazine's "Why Floundering Is Good" then, if you have time and access Journal of Learning Sciences' "Designing for Productive Failure" ]

Yeah, I'm looking at you, Single Search Box.

I'm torn about developments in search functionality these days.

Yes, the one-search-box interface is here to stay and if libraries and information resource developers don't get on the band-wagon, we will all miss the boat.  Users want simplicity and nothing's simpler than one box you can type whatever you want into and results and thrown back at you.  But, given current technology, the single search box can NOT provide better results than a more functional interface with more options.  Searching is about communication:  the user is trying to tell the system what he/she wants and the system responds with what it thinks is appropriate.  Too little information and the system either doesn't know what to do or simply guesses.  And, too often, too little information means the user is assuming a whole bunch of information.  The system doesn't (or more accurately, the system designers don't) necessarily have those same assumptions.

One objection to this might be, "But what are 'good' or 'bad' results? Can you make that kind of judgment?  Aren't all results either useful or not?  And isn't it just the user that must decide this in the end?"  This is all valid.  Usefulness IS the value in results.  It's what makes them good or bad.  This is not a case of moral value but utility of the results.  And yes of course it's the user that must decide in the end but, by definition, the user cannot perfectly judge results.  They're searching because they don't have the answer.  Hopefully, while putting pieces together, they can make a more knowledgeable assessment of the results but in some cases the user may just be judging them on whether they LOOK like their good.  So there are limits to how much the user is able to be the final judge.  But there must be a judge otherwise what are we doing by providing search results (or any kind of library resources for that matter)?  There must be some kind of assumption that results can be objectively determined as useful or not based on user input otherwise there's no point in developing a computer system to take such input and spit out results.

The other objection is that the library is not here to make things purposely difficult.  If there is an easier way of doing something, why shouldn't we provide it?  Those against the single search box may describe providing one as 'pandering' but aren't all efforts to make things easier a kind of pandering?  Where's the line beyond which such developments become a negative thing?  And again, this is basically true.  We should be making things easier.  Particularly in this age where putting up barriers may serve only to scare users off.  But there are plenty of cases where simply giving the users what they want, even giving your paying customers what they want is inappropriate.  In education, students consciously want a perfect grade.  We may suppose that what they want in the end is an effective education but if you gave every student the choice between a free A+ and an well-earned B-, the vast majority would choose the former.  I have no doubt about this.  Wouldn't you?  Especially in this increasingly competitive education and job market.  But educators do not simply hand over perfect grades despite this desire because that would defeat the purpose of teaching.  On a similar note, we cannot simply hand over free search results when it's clear that this is not the best way of searching.  This results in more garbage and less quality and, in my opinion, leads either to a misuse and misunderstanding of the information found, or more work on the part of the patron.

What single searching should do when used properly is simply backload the work farther down the line, which may work better in the long run (i.e. the novice user gets an idea of the info available early on which can then inform the search strategy) but unfortunately gives the impression that what pops up first at the top is what they were looking for all along.  A savvy user should recognize that more work is necessary but wouldn't the savvy user be fine with a more advanced search interface to begin with? If they know enough to recognize good and bad results, they should know enough to aim toward good results in the beginning.

I guess my point is that single search box interfaces are necessary but imperfect as we now use them.  Perhaps this is not really an argument with anyone serious about the topic at all.

What goes around comes around.

/ Listening to today's episode of Spark about proto-versions of today's online and often "2.0" technology:

1. Pirate radio (e.g. "Pump up the Volume") as proto-blogging/file-sharing;
2. Removal of toll booths (e.g. "Roads to Power: Britain Invents the Infrastructure State") as proto-net-neutrality;
3. Prince's song titles (e.g. "U Got The Look") as proto-texting slang;
4. Ham and CB radio (e.g. "Ham Radio's Technical Culture (Inside Technology)" or "Smokey and the Bandit - Special Edition") as proto-social networking tools; and
5. Eighteenth century coffee house communication (e.g. "Flesh and Stone: The Sociology of Richard Sennett") as proto-status-updates and the explosion in Renaissance Europe of letter writing (e.g. "") as proto-information-overload.

This is an interesting concept and one that speaks to me personally.  When faced with many criticisms of modern tools (facebook, Wikipedia, ereaders, etc.) my response often includes something about how what we have now is not completely unique and has connections to things we've done in the past (why and how).

The criticism of facebook and Twitter in the style of "I don't want to know about what you had for lunch and when you go to the bathroom," earns the response "So why do you talk about similar things over coffee with your friends?"  Social communication in person is often (and has often been) trivial and inane.

The criticism of Wikipedia that "Anyone and their uncle can fiddle with an entry at will," is met with "Yes, that's the strength of the tool."  That's why there's a rather extensive entry about my home town when there will probably never be one in a more traditional encyclopedia.  We have often valued socially generated and grounded information over more objective sources.  In studies about information seeking behaviour, we tend to start with our friends and family before going to the library or other potentially authoritative sources.

And I just read a thought-provoking article about how reading digitally may result in lower retention than print reading (I'm not convinced that it's an important point given such early days).  My immediate response is, as the author agrees, the benefits outweigh these possible negatives.  The reasons why print might allow greater retention than digital apply even more to say pre-printing-press material compared to the "sanitized" and "stream-lined" movable type versions.  And, to make a huge generalization, you have to pay for progress with some loss.

[ Listen to the complete broadcast and the full interviews at CBC Spark. ]

It's simply misconceivable!

I had a bit of a chuckle reading through the List of common misconceptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions) on Wikipedia the other day.

I recently read something about someone trying to correct something in a Wikipedia entry based on his current research who then had his correction removed and a good finger-wagging explanation of the Wikipedia rules given to him.  Their point is that Wikipedia is not the place for cutting edge fact and that only commonly held and therefore well documented information.  The direct quote was something like "Wikipedia is not about what's true.  Wikipedia is about what's verifiable."  Now I can understand their point (although I'm not sure this is the best strategy especially if they do not let users know this in even a subtle way) but it seems to conflict a little with their having a page listing common misconceptions, doesn't it?  If these are truly common, then they represent the popular opinion and until they become the UNpopular opinion, wouldn't the truth be considered a bit too cutting edge?  I'm afraid that Wikipedia rules cannot reasonably contain both the cake and the eating of this particular cake.

The other odd thing is that many of these "common misconceptions", to my mind, aren't really misconceptions but rather misunderstandings of the words being used.  Take for example, the page's second point under Astronomy:

Black holes, contrary to their common image, do not necessarily suck up all the matter in the vicinity.

It's explained that black holes do have a specific mass and therefore can have less that other stars making them less "sucky" in terms of gravitational pull.  Perhaps they think that most people have this image of black holes just continually sucking in all matter from everywhere regardless of how far away it is.  Perhaps that IS what most people think but the crucial "truthiness" in this hinges around the word "vicinity".  I think the point about black holes (and I am no physicist) is that there IS a vicinity (i.e. the space inside the event horizon) in which black holes suck up all matter.

There's also the fact that "The United States Supreme Court did not actually rule that tomatoes are a vegetable, instead of fruit, in the botanical sense" despite some thinking that it did.  Or that "The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity" while certainly many people like to pull that one in anti-evolution arguments.  These are, at base, problems with the public misunderstanding the meanings of words, not the concepts.

This would all be fine if this was it.  I could mentally translate "list of common misconceptions" to "list of common faulty word usage" but for a line that stands out in this list:

"Irregardless" is a word.

And for proof, someone has basically given the fact that it's in the dictionary.  It's used commonly enough to qualify as a word.  I'm not sure I like that idea, that there's a number of times said or people saying it beyond which any given configuration of sounds becomes a word.  In that case "um" has been a word for a long time.  Ok, even granting that, I guess what most people SHOULD say instead of "it's not a word" is that "it shouldn't be a word".  That's what I'm thinking when I hear it used.  "Why are you saying that?  If you stopped for just a second and listened to what you're saying, you'd realize that there's no point in saying 'irregardless'!  So just stop!"  Ok, fine it's a word.  That doesn't mean that it means what you think it means. Please stop saying things like that before some reasonably intelligent lifeform passes over Earth because words like that disqualified us from being labelled 'advanced'.  That and 'orientate'.  /shudder

The truth... with no salt.

From a Lifehacker "Ask the Readers" column entitled "When Is It Appropriate to Fake a Phone Call?":

Sometimes we want to be ignored, and our phones do a great job at isolating us from the world. But is it appropriate to fake a phone call just to ignore someone, or should we approach that confrontation head on?

 I was a little disappointed (yet not surprised) when I first read this.  My immediate reaction to this is never-even-though-I-may-do-it-myself.  Appropriateness is only one of the reasons why we do things and although my opinion is that it is not really appropriate to do it, I may find myself resorting to such measures occasionally.

It's basically lying, right?  We all know lying is wrong.  I think most of us think that lying is wrong "just because".  It almost is.  There's not much more to the wrongness of lying beyond the lying part.  Lying is wrong because it's an untruth.  Truth is valuable is untruths are not.  Untruths in the place of truths, i.e. lying when someone thinks you are telling the truth, is harmful.

We all live our lives based on information:  information we take to be true.  When driving through the city, you assume that it is true that the traffic lights are going to be helping you, the other drivers and the pedestrians take turns moving through the same space.  You assume that the information your teachers and/or parents tell you is true.  If you read a non-fiction book or article, you assume the information is correct and true.  In all these cases, you can see quite clearly that, if the assumption of truth was misplaced, obvious harm could be done to you or the ones around you.  There would be traffic accidents, wasted time and money, broken trust, embarrassment, and more incorrect assumptions that could lead to further harm.

But maybe we don't need to worry about minor "white lies"?  Perhaps not.  There's no obvious immediate harm done when telling someone that "those pants don't make you look fat" or in pretending to be in a conversation on the phone to avoid an unpleasant situation.  In fact, there are immediate rewards for doing so:  compliments always make people feel good, and it's great to avoid discomfort, particularly social discomfort.

However, white lies build up.  The more people dishonestly tell you that those pants look good on you, the more likely you are to wear them in situations in which looking good is your goal.  If actually looking good is required in these situations (and not merely thinking that you look good), then you will not only fail but perhaps do so without being able to understand the reason why afterward, increasing your chances of failing again in the future.

I'm certainly not advocating complete universal honesty.  And I'm not going to stop telling you your pants look amazing.  But suggesting that such socially necessary lying might be appropriate because of practical concerns is certainly inappropriate.  If we are going to lie to others, the least we can do is be honest with ourselves when we do it.  It's a lie.  It might lead to harm.  It might be contributing to a greater harm than we think.  Take responsibility for your choice.

The Law vs. Looking Stuff Up

From Slaw's "English Court Jails Juror Who Used Internet Search":

"English news sources reported yesterday that a three-judge panel of the High Court found Theodora Dallas, until recently a university lecturer in psychology, guilty of contempt of court and sentenced her to six months imprisonment. ... Dallas was on a jury trying a case of grievous bodily harm. The trial judge had given jurors clear instructions not to look up matters connected to the trial. At home, she searched the term "grievous bodily harm" and then put it in conjunction with "Luton," producing a result that showed the defendant had once been charged with (and acquitted of) rape. Dallas told other jurors during their deliberation what she had found in this way, with the consequence that, when this breach was reported to the trial judge, the trial was stopped."

I'm torn about this. On the one very obvious hand is the attempt by the courts to guide the process down hopefully more objective and legal pathways. We all know that what we read, especially in the media, affects how we perceive and judge future information. The requirement seemed pretty clear what they were expected to do, or rather NOT do.

But then again, isn't this a little like asking someone NOT to think about a purple elephant? The request cannot help but encourage the behaviour. Internet access is everywhere: at work, at home, in our coffee shops, on our phones, etc. I personally use it every single day. Without Internet access, I don't have a job. And that's true for more of us as time goes by. Although I can understand the legal motivation to continue trying to restrict people in this way, I'm not sure it's sustainable. It will eventually be impossible to securely control the information access any one person has except by pretty extreme means.

Perhaps the best way to combat "bad information" tainting a process is to provide good information instead of NO information.  We would have less motivation to seek out that which we don't think we need.

Algorithmic culture is just culture

Interesting Spark interview from Ted Striphas, associate professor in the department of Communication & Culture at Indiana University. (It's only about 16 minutes so go ahead and listen to it.) He's talking about our algorithmic culture and the danger and issues surrounding the use of our technologies that are so often at the foundation of our current cultural activities: recommendation algorithms, search engines, etc. Unfortunately, I think a lot of what he says fall into some typical traps in the fields of technology versus society.

There's the usual fallacy of treating human culture and ability as somehow magical and valuable and resulting in quality always if not always obviously. I get the feeling that Ted and Nora (the interviewer) both think that injecting "the machine" into the cultural process flattens the results, makes it die a little inside (to be a little overly dramatic in my description). There's the assumption that technology is somehow going to control everything, that using these algorithmic tools will keep us from something we don't like. We've always avoided what we don't like and we've always had to face what we don't like because those efforts fail. Technology has ALWAYS limited our use of culture and experience with others. Because of how the printing press spat out the words, how the horse-and-carriage distribution network could reach people, how roads were laid out (due ultimately to limitations of technology and workload) and so on, news could only travel in so many ways to so many people in so many formats.

Practices like SEO (search engine optimization) is seen as somehow changing the authenticity of the results, making things popular which are not REALLY popular. I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. What's the difference between what the numbers say are popular due to usage and what is REALLY popular. Perhaps, if things were different, other patterns of popularity would arise. But that's always been true. What rises to the top has always been biased. We just understand that bias a little better because we are intentionally controlling the tools that these biases are flowing through.

And finally, there seems to be a narrow definition of "culture" being used; as something governed by or enjoyed by a minority. Culture is created and experienced by everyone. It's the average of all our tastes and activities, it's the successful memes that have survived society. Often "high culture" are those aspects of culture that are enjoyed by the minority and/or had been enjoyed by the majority in times past, but culture as a whole is a description of entire social groups. What we're doing is affecting culture. What gets remembered as culture has typically been those parts of culture that have been lucky enough to have been recorded somehow: in print, on records, as oral tradition, etc. But sitting in the middle of present day society, looking around, anyone can see how much more complex culture is while being experienced.

Sure, algorithms are affecting culture more and more, but it's always been the case that non-cultural tools and processes have affect culture. Don't worry about it. Don't run from it. Understand it.

Just Google It

Just like all librarians, I'm on the fence about Google and other search engines. Very useful - irreplaceable in some situations - but not always used appropriately and certainly not understood well enough to properly judge appropriate use.

I just came across another specific disadvantage of the "just google it" phenomenon. People in institutions with large websites seems to think that it's ok not to organize their site well since you can just site-Google what you want anyway. Even those who are invested in a specific area of an institution think it's just fine to have the primary (pronounced "easiest") access to their pages be through the Google search engine limited to the site's pages.

By itself, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It DOES provide quick and easy access to what users want without having to find their way through a long and complicated site structure, particularly for complex issues that aren't important enough to warrant front page real estate.

The problem is that it relieves us of the job of having to think about our desired information goal on a broader level. But is this a problem? Thinking is hard. It takes effort. And when we want information yesterday, we don't want to waste time thinking about something only tangentially related to our want/need. Having to think about, say, what KIND of thing is the thing we want to find, or WHY would the institution be providing this information and therefore where would they have made it available, is complicated and requires effort. But I think it's important in almost all situations.

Actually, I think there are only two situations: either it's easy to do this since the answer is obvious, or it's not so obvious and therefore is going to take some time and energy to figure out. The first case is not a problem. Finding information about "Dogs" should be in a book about "Animals" or in the "D" section or in the area related to "Pets". No problem. Find that section/chapter/link/section and go there. Problem solved. However, what about something like "Student Initiatives"? What is that exactly? The searcher themselves may not understand what exactly they are looking for. In fact, that may be WHY they're looking for information in the first place, because they don't know what that phrase really means. And without that information how will they be able to find what they are looking for if (a) the site is not using that phrase exactly, or (b) the phrase is being used in two or more different ways? Spending some time before searching to think about what the topic being searched for actually means, or even just COULD mean, would ensure that the searcher will be able to find the information faster and, when finding it, more quickly identify it as the information being searched for. Mere "phrase recognition" can lead to dead ends or mistakes.

Of course, all this relies on the pile o' information being searched is well organized in the first place, which, I guess, is the intitial stumbling block. This too is hard work and requires a lot of time and effort. This is certainly why it doesn't always get done in anything but those "piles" for which information searching is the primary purpose of the pile (e.g. journal article indexes). Web sites are not usually primarily about find each piece of information they contain. They are usually marketing tools to some degree. Communication of pieces of information chosen by the owners is the focus. But if the owners of this information want it all to be found, not just the pieces they want, then IMHO then need to ensure more finding tools that Google Site Search.

My 2.0 cents.

The unethical treatment of news event information

We like violence. We like stories that shock and scare us. It is interesting to us. And unfortunately, this is what drives the "news" industry. It's not the fault of CEOs. It's OUR fault. We tell them that this is what we want and they deliver.

Do we really want this? We certainly act as though we do. It is what we talk about with our friends, our coworkers around the water cooler. "Did you see the news last night? Horrifying, wasn't it?" But when you speak with individuals, most people profess to find that same thing distasteful. "They only show bad news. It's all murder and mayhem." When we stop and thinking about it, considering our actual information wants and needs and how we want to be seen by others, we cry out for truth not entertainment. This is the difference between conscious and unconscious behaviour. When we reflect on our actions, we remain civilized. When we stop reflecting, due to fatigue, distractions, and misunderstanding, we act barbaric. At least in terms of our information-related behaviour.

We need to make more of an effort to stay conscious of our actions: think about what we are watching on the news, consider how it makes us feel and act, reflect on what it makes us think about and share with the people around us, and, most importantly, how it affects our actions and beliefs that, in turn, affect our media choices that are used to determine what gets communicated to us in the first place. The advice most appropriate given the video above is that we need to be the change we want to see in our environment. We exist in an echo chamber: what we do changes what happens to us which changes what we do. Recognizing that allows us to take a little control back.

"Little Fool"

Foolish little thoughts,
Rolling in my head.
Thoughts of you and I,
Despite what we have said.

Foolish little feelings,
Burning through my heart.
Feelings I have for you
Every moment we're apart.

Foolish little plans,
For things that we could do.
Like taking in a movie,
Or walks around the zoo.

Foolish little daydreams,
Plays plucked out of time.
Our future lives look bright to me,
Together, partners in crime.

Foolish little memories,
Selecting piece by piece.
This mystery plot will be solved yet,
Adventures never cease.

Foolish little images,
I see them in my mind.
A reflection of my love I seek,
But yours I'll never find.

[ Written by me just now. ]

"Comforts"

Created 14 August 2011.  Digitally altered photograph.

Audacity of Hope 2.0

The Audacity of Hope 2.0. This is an article about how a young gay high school student has been standing up against Republicans against homosexuality, or at least same sex marriage, in Minnesota, and Michelle Bachmann in particular.

It's not clear what the 2.0 refers to in this article immediately. Is it youth? Is in the boy's desire to become involved in the political process and have some sort of an effect? But searching under the phrase "audacity of hope" brings up Obama's pre-presidential autobiography, "The Audacity of Hope". The phrase conjures the image and the commendability of someone who, in the face of incredible odds, still fights to be heard, to make a difference. This suggests that the 2.0 in the article in question is being used merely as a second part, another instance, a real life sequel to the first "Audacity of Hope" story.

[ The Audacity of Hope 2.0 from The Vital Voice ]

Here we 2.0 again

Good, brief article about how the hesitation seen surrounding Web 2.0 movements mirrors that of the hesitation presented at Web 1.0 stuff.

I have to admit, although I am not the most regular blogger, Tweeter, or user of facebook, I find myself having to defend of them on a regular basis. "I don't need to know what people are having for lunch or when they go to the bathroom." Really? That's what you think people post? Yes, there's a lot of mindless chit-chat online wherever you go, but you find the same or worse in person, when you have to feign interest. At least when it's online you can turn it off, turn the page, scroll away, ignore it, or block it out forever.

Despite what so many people say, this mindless chatter about trivial things is what so many people LOVE. It's called socialization. We love learning about what other people are doing even if we disagree. Hell, for some people they like the "disagreeable" stuff the most. And we certainly like sharing our own anecdotes with others. So it's a little foolish to claim that you don't want to hear about it. I know you like it. I've listened in on your silly conversations on weather, trips to the bank, and the price of lettuce.

But perhaps that what this is all part of... Complaining about Web 2.0 is just like complaining about the weather. It IS the small talk itself. In fact, it's more like complaining about gossip. Even those who take part in it complain about it and complaining about it is just as much "fun" as taking part.

[ Web 2.0 déjà vu reveals human traits from Troy Media Corporation ]

Collapse of societies... and the library?

As I watched this TED presentation, as usual, I thought about it's application to the library world. Many within and without feel that librarianship is in danger of losing ground, of becoming less relevant, of "collapsing" and "dying out". While I'm not sure whether this can or will happen, I certainly think that the potential is there despite the harm that might result if it does come to pass. Just as the Easter Islanders had to have reached a point when they were chopping down the last tree despite the apparently obvious death sentence that went along with it, society may reach a point where we are closing the last library despite any damage that may do. And even if this could never happen, for any industry it is valuable to at least imagine the coming obsolescence and take steps to avoid it.

Planking 2.0

Came across this gem:

Planking 2.0: "Owling" is Now Trendy, and More Awkward [SLIDESHOW]

...

As "Planking 2.0," owling is gaining its fans. On Facebook, dozens of "owling" communities were created, and thousands of photos were posted.

Here is a slideshow of selected photos of people owling and planking, with the third trend hinted at the end.

Will you join the flock?

Ok.  So I've seen all of these but this is the first I've heard of it being 2.0-worthy.  I guess planking, owling, and leisure diving have all made it...  to wherever 2.0 is anyway.

Woah, defensive much?

Defensive Dice by M Hillier

Just read "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" from Get Rich Slowly. This is a personal finance blog that I follow mostly for the headlines since they are enormously long articles and have nicely descriptive titles. This entry was about how comments like how biking instead of driving can save money are met with complaints about being judged like the following:

I must say that articles like these bruise my ego a bit. I WANT to do everything possible to minimize my impact on my financial health and the health of the environment, so it bothers me somewhat to continually hear about biking, when it’s just not realistic to my life.

I read the article and many of the comments and it frustrates me how obvious the message is, i.e. chill people, it wasn't meant to be taken as a commandment, and how stuck in their defensiveness many of the readers are.  I'm not sure that the "I just can't do it" people really understand how suggestions work.  There's nothing constructive about saying that some people can't use a given suggestion.  Isn't that obvious?  Not everyone can do everything.  Not everyone will do everything.  Not everyone should do everything.  Perhaps it's not possible to bike to work.  Perhaps it is.  The point of the suggestion is that it's something important enough in the suggester's mind to be considered.

Even the comments about how there are still people, beyond the completely incapable, that are not so much incapable due to some unchangeable status but have made choices that have led them into a state in which they are incapable.  To those people, I would hope that they could realize the role they had in getting them to where they are.  Not that they are at fault or to blame but that they were captains of their ship and made their own bed, for better or for worse.  We are much less helpless than we think we are.  Sometimes, when we think we can't, we actually can.  The only barrier is the "can't" itself.

Bubble 2.0, that's ok

Just read Here Comes Bubble 2.0, Which Is Just What The Economy Needs, another article about the second bubble since the Dot com bubble. But unlike most that I've read, this is relatively positive about the affair. It will stimulate the economy, if only in the U.S. Silicon Valley at first, but that should spread. And it won't be a bad when it pops. Hopefully the value it brings will last.

I'm not an expert in economics or business so I'm never sure what these "bubbles" are exactly beyond economic upswings. I guess large systems like economics are often seen as coming in cycles, even if the cycles aren't exactly cyclical, symmetrical, or predictable. But it interests me to see the acceptance of purely technological, and some would say frivolous, endeavours in the economy and in society in such a large scale. It suggests to me, perhaps obviously, that we are truly becoming an information-based society, at least in part. But how will this manifest itself? Will we learn to use information and the tools that we use to manage information better? More wisely? More effectively? Or will we simply play more games and transfer a lot of the stupid mindless things that we do over to the new techno-platform? I'm not saying games and whatnot are useless. I just wish that there was some sign that the general public was getting the idea that reading, learning, preserving, thinking, and creativity are all even more important in an information-filled world than ever before. Stop being sucked in by nicely packaged lies, stop jumping to conclusions because it's easier, and stop dismissing the exact things that are supposed to be helping us: schools, libraries, research, etc.

[ Inspired by Here Comes Bubble 2.0, Which Is Just What The Economy Needs from Forbes ]

Review of "Good Dog. Stay." by Anna Quidlen

Good dog. Stay. by Anna Quindlen [View on Amazon]

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Not a bad little book. I was just looking for something short in non-fiction and came across this in my small local library branch.

Maybe 40 pages in total (a lot of pictures of random dogs), this book is an extremely short read, and the message is quite simple. But it's a good "pick me up" for anyone who likes dogs to even the slightest degree. It tells of the acquisition of various dogs by the author, their relationships (with each other and with the family), and the end of life for one of them. As the author says, it is really about the people since dog-ownership involves a lot of anthropomorphism and projection of one's self onto the animals.

View all my reviews