Personal computer hardware (Wikipedia entry)
It's helpful to read about the components of computers. I've never had formal training in the use of computers; everything I know is self-taught. I can get by, but I welcome the opportunity to learn more about computers in a formal setting.
Moore's Law (Wikipedia entry)
This entry explains the concepts of Moore's Law, which relates to the speed of technological advancement. Given the current limitations of technology, it's nice to contemplate the idea that things can only get better. This can only benefit the library science field, which has come to depend so thoroughly on technology.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
8-31-10 Reading Notes
Digitization: Is It Worth It? - by Stuart D. Lee
The author has spent years digitizing documents, yet still feels compelled to ask if it is a worthwhile task. Considering the high cost of digitization, it's a question worth asking. The obvious benefits of digitizing materials is that it makes them more accessible and easy to distribute. But since digitization is so expensive, it means that less funding is available for traditional acquisition of new monographs and journals, as the author points out. In an ideal world, a library would have enough funding for both digitization and purchase of new content. As someone who uses both online materials and print books and journals, I can't say that I support one over the other. I find them both equally valuable. It really comes down to each individual library's mission statement -- what will they choose to fund? Digitization or new content? Libraries are finding it harder and harder to commit to both. Libraries have long collaborated on collection development. It would make sense to collaborate with regard to digital content as well.
European Libraries Face Problems In Digitizing - by Doreen Carvajal
This article also refers to the massive cost of digitizing materials. The author points out that there simply isn't enough funding for large digitization projects to accomplish their goals. I wonder to what extent we are collectively too attached to the notion of preserving everything from the past. Is a culture that spends vast resources preserving past artifacts at risk of ignoring the relevant issues of the present? Since libraries fail to purchase new content in order to make copies of existing content, this is a valid question. Other questions that come to mind: Is it possible to save everything? Is it necessary? We have the capacity to save for posterity more information than ever before, but should we save it all? In psychology, excessive hoarding is a sign of mental illness. I'm not suggesting that history be discarded. I'm merely contemplating the difference between what is wanted by the keepers of culture versus what is realistically possible.
A Few Thoughts on Google Books Library Project - by Charles Edward Smith
The author supports making the past accessible online. He suggests that the less effort it takes to access history, the more likely people will be to conduct research. Presumably, this can only lead to a more intelligent and information-rich society, which is a good thing. The author also points out that many books will "reach obsolesence" if not digitized and that society's methods of accessing the past have changed. I agree that we risk losing a lot if we don't digitize materials. However, once again, I think the sheer amount of information makes mass-digitization difficult. I dislike the idea of an archivist filtering information for others, given that it results in inevitable bias, but I don't see any other way.
The author has spent years digitizing documents, yet still feels compelled to ask if it is a worthwhile task. Considering the high cost of digitization, it's a question worth asking. The obvious benefits of digitizing materials is that it makes them more accessible and easy to distribute. But since digitization is so expensive, it means that less funding is available for traditional acquisition of new monographs and journals, as the author points out. In an ideal world, a library would have enough funding for both digitization and purchase of new content. As someone who uses both online materials and print books and journals, I can't say that I support one over the other. I find them both equally valuable. It really comes down to each individual library's mission statement -- what will they choose to fund? Digitization or new content? Libraries are finding it harder and harder to commit to both. Libraries have long collaborated on collection development. It would make sense to collaborate with regard to digital content as well.
European Libraries Face Problems In Digitizing - by Doreen Carvajal
This article also refers to the massive cost of digitizing materials. The author points out that there simply isn't enough funding for large digitization projects to accomplish their goals. I wonder to what extent we are collectively too attached to the notion of preserving everything from the past. Is a culture that spends vast resources preserving past artifacts at risk of ignoring the relevant issues of the present? Since libraries fail to purchase new content in order to make copies of existing content, this is a valid question. Other questions that come to mind: Is it possible to save everything? Is it necessary? We have the capacity to save for posterity more information than ever before, but should we save it all? In psychology, excessive hoarding is a sign of mental illness. I'm not suggesting that history be discarded. I'm merely contemplating the difference between what is wanted by the keepers of culture versus what is realistically possible.
A Few Thoughts on Google Books Library Project - by Charles Edward Smith
The author supports making the past accessible online. He suggests that the less effort it takes to access history, the more likely people will be to conduct research. Presumably, this can only lead to a more intelligent and information-rich society, which is a good thing. The author also points out that many books will "reach obsolesence" if not digitized and that society's methods of accessing the past have changed. I agree that we risk losing a lot if we don't digitize materials. However, once again, I think the sheer amount of information makes mass-digitization difficult. I dislike the idea of an archivist filtering information for others, given that it results in inevitable bias, but I don't see any other way.
Monday, August 30, 2010
8-30-10 Muddiest Point Questions
Considering the fallibility of technology, what can libraries do to ensure content access and services during a system crash? Books don't disappear or self-destruct. They are still accessible when the power goes out. But computers can fail. It seems that an overdependence on technology leaves content vulnerable, especially for public libraries that lack the funding for adequate IT support.
This raises two questions:
1. What is the IT field doing to address this problem?
2. Is it reasonable to expect libraries to continue to supply print materials (which have functioned well for hundreds of years) in addition to online content access?
This raises two questions:
1. What is the IT field doing to address this problem?
2. Is it reasonable to expect libraries to continue to supply print materials (which have functioned well for hundreds of years) in addition to online content access?
8-30-2010 Reading Notes
OCLC Report: Content, Not Containers
Libraries must adapt to changes in content formats. It used to be that libraries acquired content for "just-in-case" use by patrons. However, now libraries must provide content on an "as-needed" basis. This includes content in multiple formats, and the various formats are accessed through a variety of technologies. Since technology is always changing, libraries must be constantly changing as well. The most important skill for librarians, therefore, will be adaptability.
Information Literacy and Information Technology Literacy, by Clifford Lynch
It's interesting to note the importance of information literacy and information technology literacy as interrelated skills. The two forms of literacy are often portrayed in the news as being at odds. For example, I've occasionally seen reports in the nightly news that suggest the increase in texting by young people is inhibiting their ability to write well and to read and comprehend anything not shortened and abbreviated in the extreme. It's refreshing in contrast to be presented with a view that counters those reports. Lynch notes that these two forms of literacy are vital in the information age, and librarians must be prepared to embrace literacy as necessary components of their profession.
Lied Library, by Jason Vaughan
This article reveals how challenging it is for libraries to keep pace with constantly changing technology. Librarians must have both information literacy and information technology literacy, to borrow from Lynch's article. Librarians in essence must become lifelong learners since their profession constantly changes. Library budgets are also significantly affected by changes in technology. The purchase, installation, and maintenance of up-to-date technology is very expensive and time-consuming. Libraries used to guard books and card catalogs; now, libaries must maintain a vast number of resources, both in book and online form.
Libraries must adapt to changes in content formats. It used to be that libraries acquired content for "just-in-case" use by patrons. However, now libraries must provide content on an "as-needed" basis. This includes content in multiple formats, and the various formats are accessed through a variety of technologies. Since technology is always changing, libraries must be constantly changing as well. The most important skill for librarians, therefore, will be adaptability.
Information Literacy and Information Technology Literacy, by Clifford Lynch
It's interesting to note the importance of information literacy and information technology literacy as interrelated skills. The two forms of literacy are often portrayed in the news as being at odds. For example, I've occasionally seen reports in the nightly news that suggest the increase in texting by young people is inhibiting their ability to write well and to read and comprehend anything not shortened and abbreviated in the extreme. It's refreshing in contrast to be presented with a view that counters those reports. Lynch notes that these two forms of literacy are vital in the information age, and librarians must be prepared to embrace literacy as necessary components of their profession.
Lied Library, by Jason Vaughan
This article reveals how challenging it is for libraries to keep pace with constantly changing technology. Librarians must have both information literacy and information technology literacy, to borrow from Lynch's article. Librarians in essence must become lifelong learners since their profession constantly changes. Library budgets are also significantly affected by changes in technology. The purchase, installation, and maintenance of up-to-date technology is very expensive and time-consuming. Libraries used to guard books and card catalogs; now, libaries must maintain a vast number of resources, both in book and online form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)