LIBR 203 - Lesson 9 Readings Passwords and APA

I suppose it should come as no surprise by now that much of the content on this blog is shaped by whatever I am required to produce for my classes. That should, however, be no excuse for a bad quality posting. While I may have low standards, especially if you ask about my many many mistakes in life, I do have them. As such, I shall attempt to make this post as entertaining as possible given the subject matter...which would be about as successful as squeezing blood from a turnip, but I digress.

As I've discussed before, the internet and it's social networking components have a definite impact on the world and it would be foolish of us as the keepers of the world's knowledge to ignore it's potential to reach people. This fact is most certainly not lost on Stevens, who discusses the issue at length in his first chapter of Library Technology Reports (boring name, but what do you expect from us librarians?) The possibility for customers to be able to more easily access a librarian and get user feedback about various collection materials could allow patrons to literally shape their own library experience as they see fit. While some traditional librarians may see that as ridiculous, I cannot help but see that as a huge potential to not only change, but radically improve the quality of library services by reaching out to our customers.

Unfortunately, it is an opportunity that we have been remiss in taking advantage. Most retail businesses have already implemented such technology on their own websites to improve the customer experience, and have reaped the benefits of such efforts. Hearing that the private sector is ahead of us in that respect is in many ways to be expected. Finding out that apparently militant groups and Pakistani terrorists have been using facebook and twitter to reach potential recruits; far ahead of our own efforts to reach our customers, is rather sobering, however.

A recent article by WAT Media reported that members of Pakistani militant movements have already, and possibly successfully begun recruiting people into their ranks through social networking technology. More disturbing is the fact that these efforts have dated as far back as the mid 90s; with early online forums and websites. Keeping this in mind, I'd have to say that we librarians are really behind the times. I mean, come on, people; if TERRORISTS are actually using this kind of technology ahead of us, that doesn't exactly speak well of our efforts in integrating new technology into librarianship. Below is a APA citation of the aforementioned article:

Militant groups joining Facebook, Twitter increase - cause for concern. (Aug 2010). WAT Media. Retrieved August 31, 2010, from URL

(

Personal Skills Assignment: Self Initiative and Teamwork

LIBR 203 assignment: If you're not interested, feel free to avoid this one. If you're currently on an internet course, it could be handy to look at though.

Looking back on the course of my life and my education experience, it occurred to me that much of the decisions I made, and many of the behaviors I exhibit in my own life stem from my general hatred of being told what to do. That is not to say that I grew up with a disrespect for authority; in fact, I was on good terms with most of my teachers and employers, in fact. For me, I associate being given orders with being condescended to. Something about having to follow the orders of someone who acted like and believed that they were right made me want to swallow my own tongue. Didn't matter if it was a teacher, a parent, a friend; being given an order only made me dig my heels in deeper. And believe me folks - most, if not all people who give orders display that attitude. I've done it, you've done it; we're all guilty of it. Live with it and accept that you aren't an exception to this rule.

And why is this the case? Because the general attitude of someone who gives orders is that the person being ordered doesn't know what they're doing. Or at least that's how I felt about it. My general view was "Leave me alone; I know how to do this and I'll do it when I'm good and ready!" Needless to say for me, the idea of an internet class was pretty appealing. Accomplish my academic goals with minimal interaction with an authority figure while also working at my own pace; perfect!

Looked through a laundry list of various skills in terms of online student skill requirements recently; pretty basic stuff if you ask me. Self management skills, computer skills, comfort with computers, adaptability to trying situations; all stuff I think most functional people possess in this day and age. I think I'll be ok in that sense. Long as I don't let Facebook, video games, You Tube, and various other things get in my way, I'll be fine.

Ok, ok...never said I was perfect, but you get the idea. Figure long as I don't have to worry about any major catastrophes happening in my life I should be alright. It's hard to be motivated when the world's crashing down on you.

Now, personal issues and neuroses aside, I think I'm good for the most part. The other the drops when we're talking about teamwork though. Ah yes, that lovely experience we all go through when we're in school and life that makes us hate the rest of the human race. Ken Haycock raised a few good points on this issue in his Colloquium presentation back in 2007. Right when I finished my undergrad. I could've used that information about four years before, but I digress.

Haycock noted that the concept of teamwork we possess is generally known as horizontal teamwork; everyone's equal, everyone does things together and pitches in for a final product. Essentially communism. Whoever came up with this one probably grew up on either a commune or a kibutz. As a former high school teacher I can with confidence tell you that this approach doesn't work.

Equality and fair division of work doesn't exist in the human mind; or high school for that matter. Some can do more, some can only do less. The idea of everyone getting their "fair share" doesn't make sense in most cases. It's applying a seven-year-old's idea of fairness to a situation where everyone is supposed to act like adults. Just because one person does more or less does not mean its unfair; it means they're doing the most of what they can. Anyone who doesn't get that, grow up. Fairness is about making sure everyone has what they individually need. Fairness is not about everyone getting the same thing. For example I'm fairly certain most of you don't need an asthma inhaler, now do you?

So then, where's that leave our little idea of teamwork? It's called doing your job people. Putting aside what guys like Haycock and Irwin are talking about with trust, conflict resolution and all that, the only thing one needs to know about teamwork is doing your job. That's a two-fold part; you do what's expected of you, and then you do more. Doing more though doesn't necessarily mean doing everything yourself; it means supporting your teammates. A team is only a strong as its weakest member, so help the poor shlub out! It might not be because he's a lazy ass. Maybe he's got two jobs, kids, and who knows what else. But, you'll never know till you ask and actually give a damn. Who knows, maybe that guy will owe you one and bail you out of a jam later; you never know.

Now me, can I work in a team; sure, if it's a real team. I've got no problem with the slacker on the group; if I'm actually good at teamwork, I'd have already accounted for that. Give him what he can do relatively easy within his limits. Like I said before, the dude probably has a lot on his plate; I don't know any more than that, and don't see a point in making his life hell over a little assignment. Life's bigger than a grade people. Only one I'd be worried about is the drama queen and the grade grubber. Both really don't give a damn about anyone but themselves, and both make the work longer and harder than it needs to be. Going back to my issue with orders, I'd say this is where I'd have some difficulty.

The solution? I don't really have one. My hunch though would be to simply keep things in perspective. Again, life's bigger than a grade: for me anyway; can't say the same for them. And that, folks, is where you find that lovely think called leverage. Now they have to come to the table and negotiate. They can either work with me and everyone gets some of what they want, or they can work against me and I take them all down with me. A callous view of the situation, but I do have to say it pays off well. My only advice on this? If you have to pull this kind of gambit, do it early and well before the assignment is due.

The Future, My Destination

This particular post is for the purposes of LIBR 203 - Lesson 2. Feel free to comment even if you're not in this class, however.

As a library employee, it's hard not to wonder these days where we'll all fit into things in the future. The times are changing, and libraries have no choice but to change with it. More and more people everyday rely upon computers and electronic mediums to get their information now. Search engines provide people with the ability to do for themselves what used to require a trained librarian. Some say that libraries are fading; obsolete artifacts of an age soon to be forgotten.

It comes as no surprise that many older, established librarians feel threatened by this change in technology and society as a whole. And, speaking frankly, who wouldn't? In the face of a significant technological and social paradigm change, it's hard not to feel intimidated and frustrated. The big question on the minds of librarians the world over is "what's going to happen next?" Will print die out? Will libraries be closed down and replaced by Google and others like it?

Yes and no. Will print die out? No. Will it change and perhaps be less prominent than it used to be? Yes. Will libraries finally be regarded as obsolete and shut down? No. Will internet technologies and entities like Google play a roll in the future of librarianship? Yes.

It is important to consider that the fundamental function of librarianship is not the storing and cataloging of books and print materials. We are not in the storage business. At the same time we are not simply there to horde away information on servers for future posterity. We are not in the information business either. The ultimate function of a librarian is to provide access and improve accessibility of information to the patrons. Consider that point for a second. We librarians are in the people business; not the information business. If the people are unable to get the information they need, in the way that is intelligible to them and in an effective and efficient manner, then we aren't doing our job.

Now, theory is all well and good, but how does one apply that to the real world? It starts by recognizing opportunities where we normally see threats and challenges. The biggest asset librarians have at their disposal is one that many of the older generation sees as their worst enemy: the internet. However, the strength of the internet has nothing to do with the information found on it; one never knows about the quality of the material or if the material will even be there when a librarian tries to find it. Instead consider using the internet to do what it was originally designed to do back in 1958 (yes, it really has been around that long): COMMUNICATION.

The internet can be used to change the way we communicate with our patrons. We've already seen that people already have changed the way they communicate with their friends, and colleagues, and the library services should be no different. One of the biggest things is that we can change the pace of how we help our customers. Let's face it, by and large, the search questions our customers have for use are largely fairly simple and at worst semi-complex. They don't take a lot of time to find. But what does take time is the actual customer interaction. When people have to ask questions to a person face to face, they feel uncomfortable; awkward; vulnerable even. Getting the customer to confirm or clarify what they want takes the most time.

Now let's say we can change the pace of that interaction instead. Let's say that the library we work interacts with its customers through facebook. Scary thought for some of you, but it's a lot better than you think. A person can take their time to write down their search request and post it on a librarian's wall, and then the librarian can pace themselves in regards to actually answering the question. Maybe the request is really simple; then do it now. Maybe the request is a bit complex; take care of the other smaller requests first and then get back to that one later in the day. The customer may need that information, but they don't always need it immediately. The advantage of a facebook or a twitter or any other social networking site is that people who use it understand and don't expect anyone to answer them right away.

So, we've covered social interaction for library use with customers; let's see how we can actually work on the information aspect. To be sure, print books and physical libraries will always be around; people like books and physical product. But, people like that sort of thing when it's NEW. Customers enjoy browsing new and recent material; books that have been sitting around for about ten years; not so much. This is where we can consider the idea of having two halves for libraries; the physical front and the digital front. Much like in any war, you can't just dominate on one front and neglect the other. Just ask Adolf Hitler back in WWII.

The physical front; the actual library building should be stocked with newer materials for the most part. That, and any materials that people like to browse or look for all the time (newspapers, magazines and those required reading books that schools assign all the time come to mind). Largely the physical front doesn't need to have a lot of material; about half to one-third of what we already have in a local library branch should be more than enough. That cuts down on manpower costs and also provides space for library activities and community events.

The digital front is where the heavy lifting is going; the Stalingrad of libraries, so to speak. Why do I call it such a thing; because everyone is afraid to go there. I contend, that this front can be won; we can thrive here. All we need to do is be smart about it. A new breed of librarian will be needed to win the day here. They will need to be able to use all of the skills of traditional librarians while at the same time learning valuable skills like database programming and best web design practices to make this material accessible. I believe that it won't be long before you find a lot of these librarians cranking out mySQL and php code as often as they are helping a customer find a Curious George book.

Regarding the actual material online, I think that books that are older than 10 years, or materials that are highly specialized can be stored in servers in digital form. Set it up so that the materials can be read from a browser based reader as well. In that case, you avoid making the customer download the material and then go through the mess of having DRM issues and complaints.

If the customer needs to read the material; hop online, read it through Firefox, Safari, or whatever browser they've got. This also makes it possible to read the material on devices like smartphones and the iPad. Each item in the online archives should have its own unique internet link, accessible to any patron with a compatible library card. That way when a patron asks for say, Lord of the Flies through twitter, a librarian can simply send them a link to the material online, and have them log in to read it.

Having that online option could even potentially save libraries money as well. Rather than even paying for in-house servers and regular maintenance, libraries can potentially enter into access and license deals with google or any other company with a online book archive. Libraries pay for online access, just like paying for any other database, and customers are able to access it via a customized library front end page. Relatively cheap, effective, and less hassle whenever a system goes down.

Ultimately, all of these thoughts are simply hypothesis and suppositions from me; a guy who isn't even a librarian yet. Most of this writing has been stream of consciousness from someone who reads more science fiction, than say science journals. That doesn't change the facts that like it or not, a lot of these things will happen in librarianship before long, and that we have to be ready for it. Much of the technology I've been talking about has existed for decades - only no one really knew what to do with it yet. In the coming years we all have a big chance to not only change librarianship for a new generation, but also close the knowledge gap for our public. The people have a right to know and to learn, and we must be willing to take bold steps to uphold and strengthen that right; lest we miss that chance and truly become obsolete.

East vs. West: A Sucker's Game

Over the years an increasing divide has developed in the world of video gaming. Unlike in previous years, this conflict is markedly different from the schisms that so bitterly divided the video gaming communities of the past. This conflict is not crouched in the fanboy-fueled "system wars" of old, nor are they centered in the controversial issues of gender identity that arose with the increasing prominence of "girl gamers" over the last few years. No, the hot button issue being debated and raged over across the internet and the gaming media is a matter of culture; of differences in the approach to game design; a fitting issue for our increasingly global society. It is a question of which style is better: Eastern game design, represented primarily by Japanese game companies such as Square Enix, Nintendo, Capcom and many others; or, Western game design, as represented by developers like Bioware, EA, and Activision.

No doubt you've seen the insults thrown back and forth by both fans and even developers themselves; it has become headline news on the internet's many gaming news sites the world over. No doubt you've seen the assertions of superiority on both sides, the derision of both sides' approach, and the countless pages of debate on forums across the internet. It is often a vitriolic and hateful tone that is taken in the debate, nay, war.

I am here to tell you this debate is false.

There is no East vs. West; there is not right way and no wrong way. No Japanese way, no American way. The only way that you're really seeing, is the way of your money flow into the pockets of publishers and game journalists. Like some of the most pernicious wars of the past, this conflict is entirely fabricated; designed to enflame one's biases and drive a person to extremes for the sake of profit. William Randolph Hearst would be proud.

But who is to blame for this? Who is responsible for this infantile and hateful debate? Who fanned the flames; who threw the napalm on the campfire?

You're reading it. The gaming media. It's me, it's the bloggers, the reporters, and the corporate shills. Unlike the professional news media who report on events and provide the public with at least some measure of insight and context to the issues of our times, the gaming media serves as merely a mouthpiece for the opinions and greed of the gaming industry. Rather than acting as the independent watchdogs of the video game industry, we serve as their cheerleaders and press release secretaries, all the while the consumer, the gaming public hangs on their every word. Yellow journalism at its finest.

A few months ago, a controversy sprang up around comments made by Bioware's Co-Founder Greg Zeschuk regarding the failures of the Japanese RPG genre. http://www.destructoid.com/bioware-co-founder-jrpgs-suffer-from-lack-of-evolution--155782.phtml

The comments, while perhaps valid, reflected a mostly disdainful attitude regarding the genre, all the while adding that their own products were superior. Controversial comments AND a sales plug? One has to wonder if it wasn't calculated to push sales for the game. Barely two months after the statement, Bioware released an announcement that the game had sold 3.2 million copies. http://www.destructoid.com/surprise-dragon-age-origins-sold-well-162984.phtml

Again, it must be kept in mind that these could all be coincidence. Dragon Age could have already sold that well even without any of the controversies surrounding Zeschuk's comments, but without hard numbers we'll never know. As for me, my gut tells me that there is rarely such a thing as coincidence when money can be made.