Saturday, April 12, 2008
Technology rules!
I finally have my information dissemination model posted, imperfect and rudimentary though it may be. You can find it at the bottom of the page. Don't forget to scroll all the way down, as there are 3 drawings. Links to my classmate's blogs can also be found at the bottom of the page.
e-publishing
Well......it has been an interesting and challenging week as a library science student, as I have attempted to publish a drawn model of dissemination here on my blog without much success. Maybe you can't teach an old dog new tricks. However, I do have another important topic to discuss here: e-publishing.
Publication of research, and fiction or non-fiction books, is another aspect of dissemination. It is the mass distribution of ideas without diffusion, as our textbook states it (Greer, Grover, and Fowler, 2007). Traditionally this has been done through the print medium, but advancing information technologies are changing that. E-publishing is the process where "manuscripts are submitted in electronic form and edited, printed and distributed to readers via computer networks" (Mohd and Premlet, 2004). Scholarly e-journals and e-books are the two main forms of e-publishing.
The American Chemical Society was the first professional body to publish their journals in electronic form, in 1983. Since then, the e-journal has really taken off, and is available from many different sources. The publication process for scholarly journals in print form is time-consuming. The manuscript is sent to the editor, then to referees for criticism, then perhaps rewritten and resubmitted, then formatted and sent to the printer. This process is shortened considerably when done electronically, and the quick turn-around time is one of the best features of e-publishing. This time-saving feature could be important to researchers. Another benefit is the ability to do keyword searches of the material (Mohd and Premlet, 2004).
One of the major downsides to e-journals though, is the difficulty in accessing them through directories and catalogs. One study found that dead links or non-working URLs are a big problem in online directories and catalogs. Catalogs fared better than directories in this regard (Ford and Harter, 1998). In an Internet environment, URLs and content may change rapidly, and this makes it difficult to maintain these access guides. In another study, problems with e-journals in general were found, such as "multiple modes of access and data formats, numerous difficulties in connecting to e-journals, incomplete archives, inaccessible articles, and inaccurate printed e-journal directories" (Harter and Kim, 1996).
Clearly, technology has been a boon to information dissemination, but it is still evolving. We need to improve usability, access, and the accuracy of directories and catalogs for e-journals.
The other part of e-publishing is e-books, which so far hasn't been a great success in terms of popularity or demand. Most people don't want to do pleasure reading from a computer screen, or print out an entire novel for themselves. E-book readers like Amazon's Kindle are now available, but I don't see that as much better than reading from your PC. It is portable, but it's still like a computer screen. I don't see the library becoming "paperless" antime soon. As a society, we will always want and need printed material. Younger and future generations may feel differently than I do about information technology, which brings me back to my original thought in this blog entry. I grew up learning to type on an electric typewriter, which I used for many years. Computers are a relatively new tool for me. As a library professional, I will need to have some familiarity with computer and word-processing programs, so I welcomed the challenge of posting a drawing on a blog. I hope the older generations embrace information technology, because it really is changing our world. We are becoming an Info-Nation.
References:
Ford, C.E., & Harter, S.P. (1998). The downside of scholarly
electronic publishing: Problems in accessing electronic
journals through online directories and catalogs.
College & Research Libraries, 59(4), 335-46.
Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.
Greer, R.C., Grover, R.J., & Fowler, S.G. (2007).
Introduction to the library and information professions.
Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Harter, S.P., & Kim, H.J. (1996).
Accessing electronic journals and other e-publications:
An empirical study.
College & Research Libraries, 57, 447-49.
Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.
Mohd, A.A., & Premlet, B. (2004).
E-publishing: Need of the hour.
DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology, 24(2), 3-7.
Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.
Publication of research, and fiction or non-fiction books, is another aspect of dissemination. It is the mass distribution of ideas without diffusion, as our textbook states it (Greer, Grover, and Fowler, 2007). Traditionally this has been done through the print medium, but advancing information technologies are changing that. E-publishing is the process where "manuscripts are submitted in electronic form and edited, printed and distributed to readers via computer networks" (Mohd and Premlet, 2004). Scholarly e-journals and e-books are the two main forms of e-publishing.
The American Chemical Society was the first professional body to publish their journals in electronic form, in 1983. Since then, the e-journal has really taken off, and is available from many different sources. The publication process for scholarly journals in print form is time-consuming. The manuscript is sent to the editor, then to referees for criticism, then perhaps rewritten and resubmitted, then formatted and sent to the printer. This process is shortened considerably when done electronically, and the quick turn-around time is one of the best features of e-publishing. This time-saving feature could be important to researchers. Another benefit is the ability to do keyword searches of the material (Mohd and Premlet, 2004).
One of the major downsides to e-journals though, is the difficulty in accessing them through directories and catalogs. One study found that dead links or non-working URLs are a big problem in online directories and catalogs. Catalogs fared better than directories in this regard (Ford and Harter, 1998). In an Internet environment, URLs and content may change rapidly, and this makes it difficult to maintain these access guides. In another study, problems with e-journals in general were found, such as "multiple modes of access and data formats, numerous difficulties in connecting to e-journals, incomplete archives, inaccessible articles, and inaccurate printed e-journal directories" (Harter and Kim, 1996).
Clearly, technology has been a boon to information dissemination, but it is still evolving. We need to improve usability, access, and the accuracy of directories and catalogs for e-journals.
The other part of e-publishing is e-books, which so far hasn't been a great success in terms of popularity or demand. Most people don't want to do pleasure reading from a computer screen, or print out an entire novel for themselves. E-book readers like Amazon's Kindle are now available, but I don't see that as much better than reading from your PC. It is portable, but it's still like a computer screen. I don't see the library becoming "paperless" antime soon. As a society, we will always want and need printed material. Younger and future generations may feel differently than I do about information technology, which brings me back to my original thought in this blog entry. I grew up learning to type on an electric typewriter, which I used for many years. Computers are a relatively new tool for me. As a library professional, I will need to have some familiarity with computer and word-processing programs, so I welcomed the challenge of posting a drawing on a blog. I hope the older generations embrace information technology, because it really is changing our world. We are becoming an Info-Nation.
References:
Ford, C.E., & Harter, S.P. (1998). The downside of scholarly
electronic publishing: Problems in accessing electronic
journals through online directories and catalogs.
College & Research Libraries, 59(4), 335-46.
Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.
Greer, R.C., Grover, R.J., & Fowler, S.G. (2007).
Introduction to the library and information professions.
Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Harter, S.P., & Kim, H.J. (1996).
Accessing electronic journals and other e-publications:
An empirical study.
College & Research Libraries, 57, 447-49.
Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.
Mohd, A.A., & Premlet, B. (2004).
E-publishing: Need of the hour.
DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology, 24(2), 3-7.
Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
OPAC Must Change
I think it’s high-time we discuss the role libraries and librarians play in disseminating information. Libraries have served as a point of information dissemination for at least 1400 years, long before Information Science came into being. One of the earliest classification schemes on record was created in China around 600 B.C. (Jiang, 2007).
It is not possible to really separate information organization, storage, and retrieval from dissemination. In order to make information available for dissemination, librarians must first organize it and store it in a way that makes retrieval possible. Information retrieval has undergone tremendous change in the last half-century. Once the province of the classification scheme and a card catalog, retrieval now is largely electronic. The card catalog morphed into the OPAC, but librarians and patrons have never been fully satisfied with the traditional OPAC’s functionality. It cannot easily be used for subject browsing, and is more difficult for patrons to use, who have become used to the ease of Internet searches with Google. To better fulfill their dissemination role, I think librarians must educate patrons and administrators on the value of classification systems, and OPACs must be improved to compete with Google.
One way to improve subject browsing would be to integrate an online classification system into the OPAC. In 1984 OCLC undertook an ambitious research project called the The DDC Online Project (Markey, 2006). Their team built an experimental online catalog that integrated the DDC schedules and relative index into its search capability. Evaluation during and after the experiment confirmed the success of the venture – subject browsing was enhanced, and participants gave rave reviews to its performance. In spite of these positive results, online classification as an end-user’s tool was not embraced by the nationwide library community. As Karen Markey, one of the primary researchers in online classification states, “Despite thirty-five years of research, the way in which today’s end users search classification online in OPACs is through simple shelflist browsing…..which has not changed since its initial implementation in the first OPACs in 1979” (Markey, 2006).
There have been other suggestions for improving the library online catalog, thereby improving dissemination. One involves using web-based technology by Endeca. In 2006, North Carolina State University deployed the first “next generation” online catalog in a library. The new software, Endeca’s Information Access Platform, replaced the old keyword search engine based on Boolean searches with state of the art retrieval technologies (Antelman, Lynema, and Pace, 2006). Up to this point, faceted navigation and browsing search software had only been used in commercial websites like Barnes and Noble. This development, along with a proposed partnership between Google and the Library of Congress for a “World Digital Library”, has stimulated discussion on the necessity for new OPACs using Endeca-style technology.
I can’t predict the future, but one thing is for sure: the Internet, Google, and mass digitization are forcing libraries to change the way they disseminate information. If libraries and librarians are to remain relevant in the 21st century, they must adopt improvements fairly quickly, or they will be swept aside in the tide of technological change.
Antelman K., Lynema E., & Pace A.K. (2006). Toward a twenty-
first century library catalog. Information Technology and
Libraries, 25(3), 128-139.
Jiang, S. (2007). Into the source and history of Chinese culture:
Knowledge classification in ancient China. Libraries and the
Cultural Record, 42(1), 1-20. Retrieved from
Project Muse database.
Markey, K. (2006). Forty years of classification online:
Final chapter or future unlimited? Cataloging and Classification
Quarterly, 42(3/4), 1-63. Retrieved from Haworth Press
database.
It is not possible to really separate information organization, storage, and retrieval from dissemination. In order to make information available for dissemination, librarians must first organize it and store it in a way that makes retrieval possible. Information retrieval has undergone tremendous change in the last half-century. Once the province of the classification scheme and a card catalog, retrieval now is largely electronic. The card catalog morphed into the OPAC, but librarians and patrons have never been fully satisfied with the traditional OPAC’s functionality. It cannot easily be used for subject browsing, and is more difficult for patrons to use, who have become used to the ease of Internet searches with Google. To better fulfill their dissemination role, I think librarians must educate patrons and administrators on the value of classification systems, and OPACs must be improved to compete with Google.
One way to improve subject browsing would be to integrate an online classification system into the OPAC. In 1984 OCLC undertook an ambitious research project called the The DDC Online Project (Markey, 2006). Their team built an experimental online catalog that integrated the DDC schedules and relative index into its search capability. Evaluation during and after the experiment confirmed the success of the venture – subject browsing was enhanced, and participants gave rave reviews to its performance. In spite of these positive results, online classification as an end-user’s tool was not embraced by the nationwide library community. As Karen Markey, one of the primary researchers in online classification states, “Despite thirty-five years of research, the way in which today’s end users search classification online in OPACs is through simple shelflist browsing…..which has not changed since its initial implementation in the first OPACs in 1979” (Markey, 2006).
There have been other suggestions for improving the library online catalog, thereby improving dissemination. One involves using web-based technology by Endeca. In 2006, North Carolina State University deployed the first “next generation” online catalog in a library. The new software, Endeca’s Information Access Platform, replaced the old keyword search engine based on Boolean searches with state of the art retrieval technologies (Antelman, Lynema, and Pace, 2006). Up to this point, faceted navigation and browsing search software had only been used in commercial websites like Barnes and Noble. This development, along with a proposed partnership between Google and the Library of Congress for a “World Digital Library”, has stimulated discussion on the necessity for new OPACs using Endeca-style technology.
I can’t predict the future, but one thing is for sure: the Internet, Google, and mass digitization are forcing libraries to change the way they disseminate information. If libraries and librarians are to remain relevant in the 21st century, they must adopt improvements fairly quickly, or they will be swept aside in the tide of technological change.
Antelman K., Lynema E., & Pace A.K. (2006). Toward a twenty-
first century library catalog. Information Technology and
Libraries, 25(3), 128-139.
Jiang, S. (2007). Into the source and history of Chinese culture:
Knowledge classification in ancient China. Libraries and the
Cultural Record, 42(1), 1-20. Retrieved from
Project Muse database.
Markey, K. (2006). Forty years of classification online:
Final chapter or future unlimited? Cataloging and Classification
Quarterly, 42(3/4), 1-63. Retrieved from Haworth Press
database.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Confidential information?
I was in my car the other day, listening to NPR as usual, when a news story came on the air concerning the shutdown of a website by a federal judge in San Francisco. My ears perked up – this might be an interesting topic for my blog! I later looked up the news story on the Internet, and found some good articles in the online version of the New York Times and the Guardian (UK). Here are links to the articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/20wiki.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/opinion/21thu3.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/fib/23/internet.usa/print
Basically, what happened was that a Swiss Bank sued a website, Wikileaks.org, for posting stolen documents on its website. A judge ordered the website to be shut down. Wikileaks is a website for whistleblowers that allows secret documents to be posted on the Internet that are untraceable, so the poster can remain anonymous. Wikileaks says it does this to prevent unethical behavior in governments and private organizations. The Swiss bank was accused of providing a way of money laundering and tax evasion, and of hiding rich client’s money in offshore accounts.
The Internet has become an extremely important tool in information dissemination. Librarians and information workers find it indispensable in retrieving and spreading information. Censorship has always been an issue librarians have had to deal with, and the advent of the Internet has posed special problems in this regard. Shutting down Wikileaks was a form of censorship, I think, violating 1st Amendment rights. The judge later rescinded his order and the website is now available to the public again. I highly recommend visiting the site – it’s an interesting concept that does raise questions about the limits of public dissemination of information.
This conversation certainly isn’t new. It was an important issue way back in the 1950’s in the early years of information science. I found an interesting article in an old issue of American Documentation, by Robert Tumbleson (Tumbleson, 1953). He talked about the social implications of restricting dissemination of information. This article was written, of course, long before the Internet became a primary source of information, but he brings up good points that are still valid, and issues that are still being discussed today. Tumbleson reminds us that many types of information are restricted from public circulation, and that this is a good thing, sanctioned by law and custom. Information passed between husband and wife, doctor and patient, priest and confessor, lawyer and client, are all protected by law from becoming public. Government agencies like the Internal Revenue Service won’t give out information on taxpayers. Trade secrets in science and industry are protected by law from becoming public (Tumbleson, 1953). These examples are supported by public opinion.
This secrecy becomes an issue when it is in the public’s interest to have access to the information, or when it violates 1st Amendment rights. In the case of trade secrets, protecting the science behind military weapons has always been accepted, but if restricting the flow of scientific information is too broad it can stunt the growth of knowledge. Scientists depend on the free flow of information to verify results of experiments and learn from each other so new hypotheses can be formulated. Tumbleson warns against the “arbitrary and capricious placing of restrictions upon the flow of basic scientific knowledge” (Tumbleson, 1953).
Bringing this back to libraries and librarians, the addition of PCs to public libraries has opened up a can of worms that has librarians walking a thin line between the wants of patrons and free speech. Some patrons want to access pornographic websites in the library on the PCs, but others are offended by it, and don’t want children within viewing distance or having the capability to access it themselves. Most libraries deal with this by having filters installed on the computers (those who want to see porn sites can have the filters disabled), but this isn’t a perfect solution either, as the filters sometimes filter out innocuous or important information. Some would say the filter is a form of censorship.
This is an issue that is going to be with us for a long time – where do you draw the line when deciding what information to restrict, if any? There are good reasons certain types of information should not be disseminated, but who decides what can be made public?
REFERENCES:
Tumbleson, R. (1953). Restricted dissemination of information
and its social implications. American Documentation, 4(3),
115-22. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/20wiki.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/opinion/21thu3.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/fib/23/internet.usa/print
Basically, what happened was that a Swiss Bank sued a website, Wikileaks.org, for posting stolen documents on its website. A judge ordered the website to be shut down. Wikileaks is a website for whistleblowers that allows secret documents to be posted on the Internet that are untraceable, so the poster can remain anonymous. Wikileaks says it does this to prevent unethical behavior in governments and private organizations. The Swiss bank was accused of providing a way of money laundering and tax evasion, and of hiding rich client’s money in offshore accounts.
The Internet has become an extremely important tool in information dissemination. Librarians and information workers find it indispensable in retrieving and spreading information. Censorship has always been an issue librarians have had to deal with, and the advent of the Internet has posed special problems in this regard. Shutting down Wikileaks was a form of censorship, I think, violating 1st Amendment rights. The judge later rescinded his order and the website is now available to the public again. I highly recommend visiting the site – it’s an interesting concept that does raise questions about the limits of public dissemination of information.
This conversation certainly isn’t new. It was an important issue way back in the 1950’s in the early years of information science. I found an interesting article in an old issue of American Documentation, by Robert Tumbleson (Tumbleson, 1953). He talked about the social implications of restricting dissemination of information. This article was written, of course, long before the Internet became a primary source of information, but he brings up good points that are still valid, and issues that are still being discussed today. Tumbleson reminds us that many types of information are restricted from public circulation, and that this is a good thing, sanctioned by law and custom. Information passed between husband and wife, doctor and patient, priest and confessor, lawyer and client, are all protected by law from becoming public. Government agencies like the Internal Revenue Service won’t give out information on taxpayers. Trade secrets in science and industry are protected by law from becoming public (Tumbleson, 1953). These examples are supported by public opinion.
This secrecy becomes an issue when it is in the public’s interest to have access to the information, or when it violates 1st Amendment rights. In the case of trade secrets, protecting the science behind military weapons has always been accepted, but if restricting the flow of scientific information is too broad it can stunt the growth of knowledge. Scientists depend on the free flow of information to verify results of experiments and learn from each other so new hypotheses can be formulated. Tumbleson warns against the “arbitrary and capricious placing of restrictions upon the flow of basic scientific knowledge” (Tumbleson, 1953).
Bringing this back to libraries and librarians, the addition of PCs to public libraries has opened up a can of worms that has librarians walking a thin line between the wants of patrons and free speech. Some patrons want to access pornographic websites in the library on the PCs, but others are offended by it, and don’t want children within viewing distance or having the capability to access it themselves. Most libraries deal with this by having filters installed on the computers (those who want to see porn sites can have the filters disabled), but this isn’t a perfect solution either, as the filters sometimes filter out innocuous or important information. Some would say the filter is a form of censorship.
This is an issue that is going to be with us for a long time – where do you draw the line when deciding what information to restrict, if any? There are good reasons certain types of information should not be disseminated, but who decides what can be made public?
REFERENCES:
Tumbleson, R. (1953). Restricted dissemination of information
and its social implications. American Documentation, 4(3),
115-22. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
