"This is how countries that have freedom and democracy get it," said the woman, who asked that her name not be published. "They have to fight and die for it." - from LA Times 6/20/09
For this week's Intellectual Freedom blog post, the subject seemed obvious to me. The major news story of the week is the recent presidential election in Iran. For those who haven't followed too closely, the Iranian President is not the highest ranking official in the country. Neither is he the Commander in Chief of the Iranian military. The position is more of an international spokesperson for the national policies. The Supreme Leader position (held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) was not up for election. Nevertheless, this was an important election as the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very Anti-West instigator who causes tense relations with Israel and Europe. The challenger was Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a more moderate politician who many believed by improve the relations between Iran and America/the West.
The election, which many believed would be very close, provided a surprise result, as officials declared Ahmadinejad a run-away winner carrying two-thirds of the votes. This prompted many calls for more election transparency, as many suggested there was foul play or voter fraud involved to help Ahmadinejad keep the Presidency.
There have been many protests by supporters of Mousavi, and counter protests by supporters of Ahmadinejad. Reports have indicated that military and militia forces have also been involved and violence has ensued. I would not feel right blaming the violence, or even the instigation, on one side, but I believe both sides have overstepped peaceful protest.
Most recently, the Supreme Leader made a public speach validating the election results and declaring Ahmadinejad the winner. He also suggest that no more protest would be acceptable and no challenge can be made to the election results. While some Pro-West Iranians believe the Sea Change they were hoping for is lost, others believe they should continue the protests as it is the only way to (eventually) achieve the goals of transparency and Freedom (see quote from LA Times Article, above).
As an American, with democratic transparency and the Freedom to assemble and speak freely already established and protected, it is hard for me to imagine how those Iranians who feel betrayed and misled can cope at this time. Questions I ask myself: Would I be ready to continue to protest, even at risk of violence? How long can "Hope for Change" last without any evidence? What would I do now, as an Iranian who feels lied to by the Government?
What do you think?
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Quick, claim your name! (S640 #4)
In class last week we discussed social networking and other web 2.0 tools in the library and as they pertain to intellectual freedom. This week, interesting news about just these things has emerged.
Facebook, the most used social network on the web, has announced that they will allow users to create their own username (starting 12:01am Saturday June 13), instead of using the randomly assigned number that users have now. That means instead of being www.facebook.com/546787639820 or however it is written now, you can be www.facebook.com/Jamesbell. They claim that this will make it easier to "find and connect with" people. This doesn't translate into easier searching however. There can only be one www.facebook.com/JohnSmith, and there are 50,000 people in the USA named John Smith (to find out how unique your name is, check out http://howmanyofme.com/).
If you are already friends with someone, you can tell them, see me at www.facebook.com/JohnSmith1234, but if you are already friends, shouldn't you just "request" their facebook-friendship? That leaves just one reason to make this change to usernames: non-facebook related advertising. Now, on your business card, resume, personal ads, whatever, you can add www.Facebook.com/John.Smith.Is.The.Man right underneath phone, fax and email. This will make facebook something that can be advertised in areas off the web.
I am not sure if I like this, one of the best things about Facebook is the ability to not be found by people who you don't want to find you. You have to be connected or invite someone to be your friend. But now, if putting your FB username on contact forms and other things, it will become more public. Myspace did this a while back, but I have never told anyone, "hey, look at my myspace page at www.myspace.com/Imnottellingyou". Myspace was always designed as a place to meet new people, not a place to connect with people you already know or knew before, like Facebook was originally. so usernames just help make everything more public.
And this is what brings us to "Intellectual Freedom": Privacy. Yes, there are privacy settings in searches. But what about the privacy from people who do know you? What about how to block being "Friended" by your Mother, because let me tell you, there is no good way out of that pickle! You either Friend her, or you hear about it next holiday. What about keeping the "Networks" you are a part of private from someone Googling your username? I am a private person generally. I like to think that Facebook is just an amplifier for the personality you already have (annoying people in real life are annoying times ten on Facebook, or people who make inappropriate comments in real life now have a venue to make inappropriate comments that ten times as many people will notice). One thing it cant amplify, however, anonymity. Unless of course, I go and cancel my account.
Links:
The Facebook Announcement
Opinion Piece by Douglas Rushkoff
Side Note: Isn't it funny that Blogger (Google owned) refuses to acknowledge that the word Facebook is not a typo for Face book, casebook, passbook, or forsook. Sometimes it isn't just about recognizing the word is correct, but also sticking it to your competitor.
Facebook, the most used social network on the web, has announced that they will allow users to create their own username (starting 12:01am Saturday June 13), instead of using the randomly assigned number that users have now. That means instead of being www.facebook.com/546787639820 or however it is written now, you can be www.facebook.com/Jamesbell. They claim that this will make it easier to "find and connect with" people. This doesn't translate into easier searching however. There can only be one www.facebook.com/JohnSmith, and there are 50,000 people in the USA named John Smith (to find out how unique your name is, check out http://howmanyofme.com/).
If you are already friends with someone, you can tell them, see me at www.facebook.com/JohnSmith1234, but if you are already friends, shouldn't you just "request" their facebook-friendship? That leaves just one reason to make this change to usernames: non-facebook related advertising. Now, on your business card, resume, personal ads, whatever, you can add www.Facebook.com/John.Smith.Is.The.Man right underneath phone, fax and email. This will make facebook something that can be advertised in areas off the web.
I am not sure if I like this, one of the best things about Facebook is the ability to not be found by people who you don't want to find you. You have to be connected or invite someone to be your friend. But now, if putting your FB username on contact forms and other things, it will become more public. Myspace did this a while back, but I have never told anyone, "hey, look at my myspace page at www.myspace.com/Imnottellingyou". Myspace was always designed as a place to meet new people, not a place to connect with people you already know or knew before, like Facebook was originally. so usernames just help make everything more public.
And this is what brings us to "Intellectual Freedom": Privacy. Yes, there are privacy settings in searches. But what about the privacy from people who do know you? What about how to block being "Friended" by your Mother, because let me tell you, there is no good way out of that pickle! You either Friend her, or you hear about it next holiday. What about keeping the "Networks" you are a part of private from someone Googling your username? I am a private person generally. I like to think that Facebook is just an amplifier for the personality you already have (annoying people in real life are annoying times ten on Facebook, or people who make inappropriate comments in real life now have a venue to make inappropriate comments that ten times as many people will notice). One thing it cant amplify, however, anonymity. Unless of course, I go and cancel my account.
Links:
The Facebook Announcement
Opinion Piece by Douglas Rushkoff
Side Note: Isn't it funny that Blogger (Google owned) refuses to acknowledge that the word Facebook is not a typo for Face book, casebook, passbook, or forsook. Sometimes it isn't just about recognizing the word is correct, but also sticking it to your competitor.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Freedom to Sext - S640 #3
There is a new wrinkle in the recent (media-driven) controversy called "sexting". Loosely defined, sexting is the sending of sexual images from cell phone to cell phone. Often times these images are taken by or of willing participants as a fun or flirty way to get or keep attention from their friends. The great concern in sexting is the discovery that under aged teens participate in this "epidemic". There have been a few cases across the country in the last year where images of under aged teens have been discovered on phones. While some may say the fact that teens are participating in this is disturbing, it does not surprise me in the least. Teens have been pushing (if not breaking) the limits of "appropriate" (define for yourselves) displays of sexuality. To me, the real disturbing trend is that of local prosecutors charging a wide range of crimes against those taking, sending, and receiving these images. In many cases charges as high as Dissemination of child pornography have been threatened, which could result in major prison time and registration as a sex offender.
The new twist on this trend is that some victims/perpetrators are trying to fight back. In a case in Pennsylvania, some teens charged for their sexy self-portraits are suing the prosecutors for infringement of their Freedom of Expression. This will be an interesting case to watch, as freedoms established in the Bill of Rights are put on trial.
It is my opinion that the use of child pornography laws against these teens is ridiculous. CP laws were established as a deterrent to those who disseminated or viewed child pornography to reduce the industry as a whole, in hope to reduce child sexual abuse. While this is certainly a noble cause, the use of these laws against sexting does not deter child molestation, but instead serves as a self-righteous campaign against teen sexuality in general. I don't think sext-ers are wise for sending pics of themselves, but I certainly do not think they are criminals or sex offenders.
More related links:
Blog post on another Sexting case from NCAC
"What's the matter with teen sexting?"
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Library + Police = No Intellectual Freedom (S640 post 2)
This week in Salt Lake City, a famous architect went to bat for the intellectual freedom of the public library users. As noted in the article from the Salt Lake Tribune, Moshe Safdie made a request to the city that they not build a police station on the same block as the new Main Library building he designed. Along with the Library Director, and other library supporters, Safdie believes having the Police station and emergency center next to the open layout of "Library Square" would act as a kind of censor to the intellectual freedom and free speech of the area.
Now, I don't know very much about the building or area in question, but I could definitely see how putting a police station right next to the library would cause concern. The library would hope to be a place where alternative ideas are defended, and patrons have privacy from a governing authority, the police in such a close proximity could intimidate potential patrons or groups from using the grounds and services.
Judging simply from the quotes in the article, it seems that the Mayor who is making the location recommendation received the letter well, and is likely to agree. What a stir this will make if he is somehow convinced to go forward with the next-door location!
Now, I don't know very much about the building or area in question, but I could definitely see how putting a police station right next to the library would cause concern. The library would hope to be a place where alternative ideas are defended, and patrons have privacy from a governing authority, the police in such a close proximity could intimidate potential patrons or groups from using the grounds and services.
Judging simply from the quotes in the article, it seems that the Mayor who is making the location recommendation received the letter well, and is likely to agree. What a stir this will make if he is somehow convinced to go forward with the next-door location!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
S640 Intellectual Freedom Post #1
In the May edition of Focus on Indiana Libraries (the ILF and Indiana State Library newsletter), Doug Archer, the ILF and ALA Intellectual Freedom Chair wrote a short piece highlighting important IF situations in the current national spotlight. The first, which I will discuss below, is a bill in the Utah government that would have enforced by law ratings recommendations established by private ratings systems.
Fortunatly, this bill was recently vetoed by the governor, but before it was the Utah state legislature approved it. This law would have required businesses that advertised private ratings systems to comply with them to an extreme measure. If a theater allowed some 12 year olds to a PG13 movie, they could be sued. Aside from denying free speach from minor, this law would have given too much power to the private/non-governmental organizations that create the ratings recommendations.
Personally, I believe the materials that a minor views or buys is up to the parents to monitor, not a theater or a game seller. Similarly I already think the Movie ratings system is screwed up, and more legitimate power would be a bad thing. If you dont agree, watch "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" or look for the story of Trey Parker and Matt Stone about their ratings testing while making "Team America: World Police".
Find out more at the National Coalition Against Censorship web site:
http://www.ncac.org/
Fortunatly, this bill was recently vetoed by the governor, but before it was the Utah state legislature approved it. This law would have required businesses that advertised private ratings systems to comply with them to an extreme measure. If a theater allowed some 12 year olds to a PG13 movie, they could be sued. Aside from denying free speach from minor, this law would have given too much power to the private/non-governmental organizations that create the ratings recommendations.
Personally, I believe the materials that a minor views or buys is up to the parents to monitor, not a theater or a game seller. Similarly I already think the Movie ratings system is screwed up, and more legitimate power would be a bad thing. If you dont agree, watch "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" or look for the story of Trey Parker and Matt Stone about their ratings testing while making "Team America: World Police".
Find out more at the National Coalition Against Censorship web site:
http://www.ncac.org/
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Get your Music! Blog #6
I recently discovered a new music application web site that trumps them all. I used Yahoo Music for a brief time, but there are annoying commercials. Then for a longer time used Pandora, but you can you only make suggestions, and cant skip too many unwanted songs.
The new site Grooveshark claims to be "the internet's music library". It seems about right, as you can "borrow" the music while you are on the site, but dont actually copy or own the music when you leave your account. The site is based on P2P file sharing, it is the genious of the site, but maybe oneday also it's downfall. Each song has a couple versions because they all come from individuals uploads of their music collection. This allows you to upload your own music as well, if you have an up-and-coming band for which you are eager to get exposure, for example.
Though I am definently not in need of another social networking site, which this site also has functions, I absolutely love the fact that I can pick my exact playlist. Yes, thats right, not just suggest my favorite artists or styles, but the exact songs I want to hear in the exact order I want to hear them. Creating an account allows you to save your favorite playlists for future listening sessions. I havent had any hiccups with the live streaming or quality of the songs either.
I am very new to this site, which from what I can tell is quite new also, so I will be watching to see how it progresses.
You might consider checking it out too.
The new site Grooveshark claims to be "the internet's music library". It seems about right, as you can "borrow" the music while you are on the site, but dont actually copy or own the music when you leave your account. The site is based on P2P file sharing, it is the genious of the site, but maybe oneday also it's downfall. Each song has a couple versions because they all come from individuals uploads of their music collection. This allows you to upload your own music as well, if you have an up-and-coming band for which you are eager to get exposure, for example.
Though I am definently not in need of another social networking site, which this site also has functions, I absolutely love the fact that I can pick my exact playlist. Yes, thats right, not just suggest my favorite artists or styles, but the exact songs I want to hear in the exact order I want to hear them. Creating an account allows you to save your favorite playlists for future listening sessions. I havent had any hiccups with the live streaming or quality of the songs either.
I am very new to this site, which from what I can tell is quite new also, so I will be watching to see how it progresses.
You might consider checking it out too.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The library in the palm(trees) of your hand
Okay, that was a pretty stupid pun. In fact it didnt really work. But it is spring, and Ive just returned from Florida, and Ive got palm trees on the brain.
But really, Ive just found ove of the most compelling reasons to buy an Apple product and move to the Humid state: OCLS for iPhone!: VIDEO .
This is Orange County Florida, not California, mind you. OCLS
Now, this may have been around before, in other libraries, but it is the first Ive seen. An iPhone application that is a full integrated library system! From what I can see in the video, the user can check his or her account, renew and order/request items, browse or search the catalog, keep track of library sponsored events and map their locations, and links to view recorded events and programs and tutorials the library has created. Looks pretty inviting.
But really, Ive just found ove of the most compelling reasons to buy an Apple product and move to the Humid state: OCLS for iPhone!: VIDEO .
This is Orange County Florida, not California, mind you. OCLS
Now, this may have been around before, in other libraries, but it is the first Ive seen. An iPhone application that is a full integrated library system! From what I can see in the video, the user can check his or her account, renew and order/request items, browse or search the catalog, keep track of library sponsored events and map their locations, and links to view recorded events and programs and tutorials the library has created. Looks pretty inviting.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Media on the Web (S554 post #4)
This post is dedicated to Peter Terew. Shout out to Peter! Whats up?! You better be reading this! You are my biggest fan! (Side note: I love the idea of dedicating any-and-everything to other everythings. For instance, I will now tie my shoe and dedicate it to my fish Violet II, may you not soon realize the same fate as Violet I.)
Today's post is about some news that Google and Universal are in talks to cooperate to build a commercial-provided-content music site. Unlike YouTube (Google's biggest waste of money ever) the content on this site will be professional content, Music videos by Artists signed with Universal Music, provided by license. Sounds to me like a money maker! The interesting thing about free of charge web sites is that they make money from ads, not from users. Ad groups want content that has a specific target audience, and that they know a certain number of people will visit or view. Because of that sites like YouTube are not big ad-money makers, because the user-provided content has no target audience and is unreliable. Sites like Hulu, which is operated by NBC and FOX, and has deals with other TV and Film companies, provide content that has specific target audiences and predictable viewing numbers (same as how they decide what to advertise during the TV broadcast, Beer during sports, Lotion during The Bachelor). Its going to be the same with this new music video site. Brands like T-Mobile, and others that target teens will just at the chance to flash their product before anyone watches the latest music video on demand.
Google/YouTube and Universal:
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE5240AZ20090305
NBC/Fox vs. YouTube:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/185790
Today's post is about some news that Google and Universal are in talks to cooperate to build a commercial-provided-content music site. Unlike YouTube (Google's biggest waste of money ever) the content on this site will be professional content, Music videos by Artists signed with Universal Music, provided by license. Sounds to me like a money maker! The interesting thing about free of charge web sites is that they make money from ads, not from users. Ad groups want content that has a specific target audience, and that they know a certain number of people will visit or view. Because of that sites like YouTube are not big ad-money makers, because the user-provided content has no target audience and is unreliable. Sites like Hulu, which is operated by NBC and FOX, and has deals with other TV and Film companies, provide content that has specific target audiences and predictable viewing numbers (same as how they decide what to advertise during the TV broadcast, Beer during sports, Lotion during The Bachelor). Its going to be the same with this new music video site. Brands like T-Mobile, and others that target teens will just at the chance to flash their product before anyone watches the latest music video on demand.
Google/YouTube and Universal:
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE5240AZ20090305
NBC/Fox vs. YouTube:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/185790
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Facebook Owes You...or Does it? (S554 post 3)
For about a month, Facebook owed you. Well, "you" being the millions of current (since Jan/Feb 2009) Facebook-ers. On Wednesday, after a week of "protest" by Facebook users, the company backed off for the time being, leaving most happy, but with an ominous feel in the air (web?).
Wait, lets back up, you don't know what Im talking about? Facebook is the largest social networking site, where millions of people create their own accounts and share "content" with eachother. This "content" ranges from demographic information, personal information, comments and letters to other Facebook-ers, and photos. A Facebook account is free, and a user shares freely the content of their account, but until recently a user had the option of ending his or her account and removing all of their "content" from Facebook. These "Terms of Service" changed some weeks ago, saying that Facebook would retain copies of archived content, and created a bit of a backlash. Users were upset and claimed that they no longer owned their own pictures, and personal ID, some were worried what Facebook might do with it. (Use photos to post in ads other places on the internet? On a bus? Sell the demographics, addy and phoney to soliciters?) Some called for a boycott (whatever that means), and some claimed they would, or probably did, cancel their accounts. (This is the most ironic part of the story, because people who were upset that Facebook could keep their content after they quit, went and quit and let Facebook keep their content. How was that an effective protest?)
Facebook claims that the policy was designed to keep continuity, which makes perfect sense to me. If a user has an active account, and shares with others regularly, their departure would effect every other user's account with whom they shared content. A photo that person uploaded and shared, and others tagged, would be deleted, and the other users would no longer have that photo. Same with comments; if the user posted a comment for someone else, that comment would be deleted from the other user's account. When joining Facebook or other networking sites a person must recognize that they are contributing to a community that will continue on with or without them, for that reason all content they contribute should be seen as a gift to the community. If a user doesnt feel comfortable giving content to be held for life, they might think again about posting every picture they ever took, or instead posting them on a secure site and providing only links.
The ominous part now: the switch back to the old Terms is temporary, until Facebook clarifies better what they hope to accomplish in the New Terms. My guess, is that they will be much more similar to the just-reversed-new Terms than the old Terms. I guess this serves as a warning/opt-out period, if you arent happy about what the new-New Terms might include, now is your chance to delete without leaving archives of your content for Facebook. If not, well, youve been warned...
http://http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/18/facebook.reversal/index.html?iref=newssearch
Wait, lets back up, you don't know what Im talking about? Facebook is the largest social networking site, where millions of people create their own accounts and share "content" with eachother. This "content" ranges from demographic information, personal information, comments and letters to other Facebook-ers, and photos. A Facebook account is free, and a user shares freely the content of their account, but until recently a user had the option of ending his or her account and removing all of their "content" from Facebook. These "Terms of Service" changed some weeks ago, saying that Facebook would retain copies of archived content, and created a bit of a backlash. Users were upset and claimed that they no longer owned their own pictures, and personal ID, some were worried what Facebook might do with it. (Use photos to post in ads other places on the internet? On a bus? Sell the demographics, addy and phoney to soliciters?) Some called for a boycott (whatever that means), and some claimed they would, or probably did, cancel their accounts. (This is the most ironic part of the story, because people who were upset that Facebook could keep their content after they quit, went and quit and let Facebook keep their content. How was that an effective protest?)
Facebook claims that the policy was designed to keep continuity, which makes perfect sense to me. If a user has an active account, and shares with others regularly, their departure would effect every other user's account with whom they shared content. A photo that person uploaded and shared, and others tagged, would be deleted, and the other users would no longer have that photo. Same with comments; if the user posted a comment for someone else, that comment would be deleted from the other user's account. When joining Facebook or other networking sites a person must recognize that they are contributing to a community that will continue on with or without them, for that reason all content they contribute should be seen as a gift to the community. If a user doesnt feel comfortable giving content to be held for life, they might think again about posting every picture they ever took, or instead posting them on a secure site and providing only links.
The ominous part now: the switch back to the old Terms is temporary, until Facebook clarifies better what they hope to accomplish in the New Terms. My guess, is that they will be much more similar to the just-reversed-new Terms than the old Terms. I guess this serves as a warning/opt-out period, if you arent happy about what the new-New Terms might include, now is your chance to delete without leaving archives of your content for Facebook. If not, well, youve been warned...
http://http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/18/facebook.reversal/index.html?iref=newssearch
Thursday, February 5, 2009
What is that-there WEE-KEE?
The last week has really been a roller-coaster ride for the my library-skill-related confidence.
First, and positive experience: The librarian I work with mentioned my tech-savvy skills to another professor. The professor has a links-only web page hosted by the library for students to use. The professor wanted to allow students to add links to pages and resources they find on their own, to share with other classmates. The librarian said to the professor, it would be a bit of a hassle to have every student email the systems lib to add a link every time they see something interesting, but my intern was talking to me about a new kind of web site called a wiki that maybe you could use. The librarian told me about it, and asked me to email the professor, explain this thing called wiki, and give him some advice and maybe work with him to create one for the class. Its kinda nice to hear someone was bragging on your skillz.
But, of course, the let-down: After sending the most insightful, helpful, easy-to-understand, kind, generously-volunteering-to-assist, optimistic email about what a wiki is and how easy it would be to use, and how to set one up, and where to do it.....I get no response. I guess, when it comes down to it, I lost this professor when I said "You" go to this site..., instead of "yeah, sure, Ill set up this wiki that I don't even know if you will pay any attention to, can I also wash your car in 15 degree temperatures? Wouldn't want that rock salt to harm your paint job."
The next day, feeling good: My wife's professor (she is a student at the university I intern at) said in class that I would be a great person to talk to in the library for help with the coming project. Again, a faculty member bragging on my abilities, this time to her students (and even with my wife in the room, extra points for me if my wife thinks I'm smart!).
That evening, quit now, you cant handle the library: So my wife takes her professor's advice and asks for my help at home. She has a research/intervention proposal for her internship due in the morning and needs more for her literature review. I spend the next two hours trying to understand what it is that the professor wants, telling my wife that this professor has no idea how a research proposal works, saying that the assignment she gave uses terms in the wrong way and therefore my wife should not do it. Eventually, after 2 hours, and no new articles for the literature review, we go to bed. She is irritated that the assignment is too rigid in its requirements and doesn't fit the project she will work on at the internship. I realize I just failed completely at what should have been the easiest reference encounter even, in my own home, with someone I know.
I guess I can always be a researcher, reduce contact with real people to a minimum.
First, and positive experience: The librarian I work with mentioned my tech-savvy skills to another professor. The professor has a links-only web page hosted by the library for students to use. The professor wanted to allow students to add links to pages and resources they find on their own, to share with other classmates. The librarian said to the professor, it would be a bit of a hassle to have every student email the systems lib to add a link every time they see something interesting, but my intern was talking to me about a new kind of web site called a wiki that maybe you could use. The librarian told me about it, and asked me to email the professor, explain this thing called wiki, and give him some advice and maybe work with him to create one for the class. Its kinda nice to hear someone was bragging on your skillz.
But, of course, the let-down: After sending the most insightful, helpful, easy-to-understand, kind, generously-volunteering-to-assist, optimistic email about what a wiki is and how easy it would be to use, and how to set one up, and where to do it.....I get no response. I guess, when it comes down to it, I lost this professor when I said "You" go to this site..., instead of "yeah, sure, Ill set up this wiki that I don't even know if you will pay any attention to, can I also wash your car in 15 degree temperatures? Wouldn't want that rock salt to harm your paint job."
The next day, feeling good: My wife's professor (she is a student at the university I intern at) said in class that I would be a great person to talk to in the library for help with the coming project. Again, a faculty member bragging on my abilities, this time to her students (and even with my wife in the room, extra points for me if my wife thinks I'm smart!).
That evening, quit now, you cant handle the library: So my wife takes her professor's advice and asks for my help at home. She has a research/intervention proposal for her internship due in the morning and needs more for her literature review. I spend the next two hours trying to understand what it is that the professor wants, telling my wife that this professor has no idea how a research proposal works, saying that the assignment she gave uses terms in the wrong way and therefore my wife should not do it. Eventually, after 2 hours, and no new articles for the literature review, we go to bed. She is irritated that the assignment is too rigid in its requirements and doesn't fit the project she will work on at the internship. I realize I just failed completely at what should have been the easiest reference encounter even, in my own home, with someone I know.
I guess I can always be a researcher, reduce contact with real people to a minimum.
Friday, January 23, 2009
No more scanning
So I left a Graduate Assistanceship job this winter to take an un-paid internship at Anderson University. This was partly because I needed to spend more time at home, as my wife is also working now, but largely because I wanted to get "real" Librarian experience before I try to get a job this summer upon graduating from SLIS.
Unfortunately, the first two weeks were frustratingly slow. Because students were not on campus, I was regulated to reading documents about the library, and journal articles about reference and instruction work. Because the library also hosted the beginning of semester Faculty Development day, the librarians whom supervise my internship were busy getting ready for the presentation. I helped organize some things, but I did not feel like I was really doing professional library work.
Because ordering slips for new books are due soon, the librarian I work with has been scrambling to put together recommendations to send to faculty members. The librarian I am working with is also new to the subject she is ordering, Theology and Religion. Her strategy is to scan reviews and ads from printed journals and combine dozens of these scans in one RTF to Word doc. In my opinion, a very time-consuming and unnecessary procedure. Similarly, librarians can send their orders to the Ordering agent online, but that person has to then fill out an individual quarter-page ordering slip. So, librarians still fill out the ordering slip to save a step in the process. This seems like an antiquated process.
The purpose, of all this ranting is just to suggest that I have a lot to learn about working in a Library. Not because I am not confident with the technology that I can use, but because each person is at a different level of technological ability. During my first weeks I am learning a lot about "office politics" and operating within the technological means of those around you, both colleagues and students.
Unfortunately, the first two weeks were frustratingly slow. Because students were not on campus, I was regulated to reading documents about the library, and journal articles about reference and instruction work. Because the library also hosted the beginning of semester Faculty Development day, the librarians whom supervise my internship were busy getting ready for the presentation. I helped organize some things, but I did not feel like I was really doing professional library work.
Because ordering slips for new books are due soon, the librarian I work with has been scrambling to put together recommendations to send to faculty members. The librarian I am working with is also new to the subject she is ordering, Theology and Religion. Her strategy is to scan reviews and ads from printed journals and combine dozens of these scans in one RTF to Word doc. In my opinion, a very time-consuming and unnecessary procedure. Similarly, librarians can send their orders to the Ordering agent online, but that person has to then fill out an individual quarter-page ordering slip. So, librarians still fill out the ordering slip to save a step in the process. This seems like an antiquated process.
The purpose, of all this ranting is just to suggest that I have a lot to learn about working in a Library. Not because I am not confident with the technology that I can use, but because each person is at a different level of technological ability. During my first weeks I am learning a lot about "office politics" and operating within the technological means of those around you, both colleagues and students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)