I haven't had time to read these in depth yet:
http://tametheweb.com/2007/11/a_bill_of_rights_for_users_of.html
http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/index.php/2007/11/13/library-software-manifesto/
Friday, November 30, 2007
Give them what they want, but with a side order of what they need.
My response to an interesting post by Rudibrarian about confidentiality, Library 2.0, and our responsiblities to our users.
---------------------
I think these are all good questions. I really believe that the only way libraries will solve this problem is if they ally with other groups who are committed to keeping personal information private. Because the thing is... if a tool is compelling enough and makes a person's life significantly easier, most will continue to use it despite privacy concerns. I mean, I certainly won't be giving Google the entire contents of my hard drive if they ever implement their "G: Drive" backup service, but the convenience of a one-stop high-quality provider for my email, calendar, and feed reader is something I'd be hard put to give up. And something like LibraryThing just makes public library catalogs better, and once users have seen that they're not going to want to go back.
And if libraries keep withholding features that users want due to privacy concerns, most users won't see that their privacy is being protected; they'll just see that the library can't keep up with Google, Amazon, or whatever other tool helps them get what they want faster and better.
So I think the only solution is for libraries to partner with companies/universities/organizations/whatever that can help them stay current technologically while still being firmly committed to privacy. When the partnership is with a company this becomes difficult, though. I mean, Google is still nominally guided by the "Don't Be Evil" ethos, but what that actually means in practice changes based on their bottom line. A company like LibraryThing is doing everything right so far, but since it *is* a company there's no guarantee that it won't change or be sold to people who would change it. So maybe it's time for libraries to do some coalition building and become the masters of their technological fate, instead of letting others lead the charge.
---------------------
I think these are all good questions. I really believe that the only way libraries will solve this problem is if they ally with other groups who are committed to keeping personal information private. Because the thing is... if a tool is compelling enough and makes a person's life significantly easier, most will continue to use it despite privacy concerns. I mean, I certainly won't be giving Google the entire contents of my hard drive if they ever implement their "G: Drive" backup service, but the convenience of a one-stop high-quality provider for my email, calendar, and feed reader is something I'd be hard put to give up. And something like LibraryThing just makes public library catalogs better, and once users have seen that they're not going to want to go back.
And if libraries keep withholding features that users want due to privacy concerns, most users won't see that their privacy is being protected; they'll just see that the library can't keep up with Google, Amazon, or whatever other tool helps them get what they want faster and better.
So I think the only solution is for libraries to partner with companies/universities/organizations/whatever that can help them stay current technologically while still being firmly committed to privacy. When the partnership is with a company this becomes difficult, though. I mean, Google is still nominally guided by the "Don't Be Evil" ethos, but what that actually means in practice changes based on their bottom line. A company like LibraryThing is doing everything right so far, but since it *is* a company there's no guarantee that it won't change or be sold to people who would change it. So maybe it's time for libraries to do some coalition building and become the masters of their technological fate, instead of letting others lead the charge.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Thinking about the big picture
An interesting interview with Brewster Kahle in Library Journal.
In libraries, materials are preserved in original form, uncensored. The alternative is that the materials people learn from are forever mediated by a relatively small number of commercial companies in terms of selection and presentation. This is one of the biggest issues facing libraries in the future: what services will they perform, and what services will be performed by companies or by nonprofits acting like companies. If all content is moderated by a few companies in the digital world, we'll have a giant bookstore rather than a library system.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
March of the Librarians
Twice a year they gather to "learn, network, collect free stuff, and possibly to mate."
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Copyright and Related Issues
A handbook on copyright and related issues for libraries. I wonder how it stacks up against The Library's Legal Answer Book?
[Edited to add:] Well, and here's the author of that book's take on the handbook, so it looks good.
[Edited to add:] Well, and here's the author of that book's take on the handbook, so it looks good.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Read all about it
Looks like Wyoming is preserving newspapers too. They're doing digital, though, while the project I'm working for here in Illinois is doing microfilm.
Once they finish I'll be able to look and see if my Dad or grandparents were ever in the news. I wonder if Bair Oil even had a newspaper. (Also, I think that it's awesome that that website I just linked to is called epodunk.com!)
Once they finish I'll be able to look and see if my Dad or grandparents were ever in the news. I wonder if Bair Oil even had a newspaper. (Also, I think that it's awesome that that website I just linked to is called epodunk.com!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
