WebJunction

Libraries do not exist in a vacuum. Here's a place to talk about how social and technological trends/events will effect tomorrow's libraries.





(Fixed a glaring typo several days later.)

Bob, this is a great idea (the future trends discussion) and an excellent first thread. I've made it the [url http://www.webjunction.org/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=7513]Question of the Week[/url] to see if we can get some more traffic here. I'll also blog it this week on BlogJunction.

What do _you_ think folks? Is Google making us stupid (I kind of think so)? Is reading likely to become the "medicine"? I'm thinking it's good medicine, and am heartened by at least the one tech-bloggers prescription, but wonder if it will become a trend. It seems like we are in the middle of a serious, momentum-gaining move toward even more micro attention spans.

Please post your thoughts here. In the meantime, I'm going to go home and do some reading! ;-)

I just got back from attending the Special Libraries Association annual conference and the idea of librarians as gatekeepers came up during the closing session speech by [url http://sethgodin.typepad.com/]Seth Godin[/url]. I had to go back to [url http://twitter.com/emnica] my twitter feed[/url] from the event, but this is what I typed into my tweet:

"if everyone in your company waited breathlessly for a 4 line email from you, than you win. gatekeepers are over. "

It had something to do with permission marketing vs. interruption marketing and it all seems kind of fuzzy now. I think what he was saying is that with searching becoming easier for the average joe schmoe, the librarian as the gatekeeper is fading. Librarian as value-added knowledge provider might be a new role that emerges.

Thoughts?

At that same Seth Godin presentation, I heard him say that librarians need to work really hard to communicate what they do in the digital era. We have the capacity to spread ideas and tell great stories, which is the essence of marketing, but we need to be in the conversation and avoid being relegated to obscurity.

As for the "is Google making us stoopid" question: I don't think so. There is certainly a big cultural shift going on in which something is inevitably lost, but something is also gained. There has been a flood of comment on the topic on [url http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/search/index.cgi?query=Is+Google+Making+Us+Stupid&submit=Search%21&metaname=swishdefault&DateRanges_date_option=All&DateRanges_start_mon=6&DateRanges_start_day=19&DateRanges_start_year=2008&DateRanges_end_mon=6&DateRanges_end_day=19&DateRanges_end_year=2008&sort=swishrank ]Web4Lib[/url] and [url http://lists.webjunction.org/publib/search.cgi?query=Is+Google+making+us+stupid&submit=Search%21&metaname=swishdefault&sort=swishrank ]PubLib[/url]. Some have noted Plato's lament at the invention of writing ---that "If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls ..."

I wouldn't say "stupid" but I might allow for "ignorant" IF quick and constant searching leads to people (well, certain people anyway) unable to follow into the depths of information ... whether it be in book, graph, or other form.

That said, there are losses wherever there are gains. I think the library profession may be well positioned to take advantage of this.

(Heck, *I* was the one who mentioned Plato on Publib. :-) )

I didn't quote from <i>Phaedrus</i>, though ... that was someone with a better memory!

I think that's true.

My take on it is that the broad field of librarianship has two foci ... but we're primarily trained in only one (for various historical reasons).

We're trained (and note that I'm not using the word "educated") in the tools and techniques needed to "create" or "maintain" a library. That's why Dewey used the phrase "library economy" and the generation after him preferred "library science" (with science = technology in late 19th century and early 20th century usage).

This is the realm of cataloging and subject selection ... what we generally call "technical services." We can, today, add most of what would otherwise be considered database management or even IT services.

The other focus is on *using* the library (or a database). Aside from a few profesional skill issues such as high level database structure and selection ... or the proper book to use ... the issue is *not* what one has learned in library school, but rather what one has learned outside of library school that can be put to use in asking questions (of the library user) or in probing the content of the various databases one has at hand (in which I include books).

Here's something interesting from the tech world:

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2221522/flash-chip-long-life-created

The title is: "Japanese boffins develop long-life Flash"

Some text:

<i>Flash memory chips with a potential lifetime of hundreds of years have been developed by Japanese scientists.

The new chips also work at lower voltages than conventional chips, according to the scientists from the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology and the University of Tokyo.

Flash memory chips are widely used in products such as Apple's iPhone, mini notebooks like the Asus Eee PC, video games consoles such as the Nintendo Wii, flash memory cards, digital cameras and Flash-based SSD hard disk drives.

Current Flash chips are estimated to have a useful lifetime of around a decade for most applications.

However, some applications that require repeated writing and rewriting of data can theoretically cause cells to wear out much faster, sometimes rendering a Flash device useless within a few years.

This can happen when a large area of Flash memory is used as a swap file or virtual memory, or to store constantly updated log files.

The continuing miniaturisation of conventional Flash memory chips also threatens to reduce their lifetime.

This and other factors make conventional high-density Flash cells unworkable at circuit sizes below 20 nanometres, the scientists claim.

The new ferroelectric Nand Flash memory cell developed by the Japanese scientists can be scaled down to at least 10 nanometres. The next generation of conventional flash cells will use a 30 nanometre circuit density.

The ferroelectric Flash memory cell can be rewritten more than 100 million times, compared to a conventional cells lifetime of around 10,000, its inventors claim.</i>

* * *

This is getting close to archival in nature. Moreover, if the read speed is sufficiently high it would be a *very* likely replacement for DVDs and far better than the audio chips now available.

I'd reported on Cha Cha (online/text service which answers questions, for free) above and questioned its business model. I couldn't figure out its financing.

Anyway, I've most recently read that the people providing answers haven't been paid for quite a while.