The article was an outline of the early beginnings of libraries and where they will end up in the future. It also touched on other forms of media and technology, where they have been, and where they too are going. Libraries in the medieval period were extremely important all over the world. The history of the great Leonardo Di Vinci’s artwork is well documented throughout time and the protection of it has always been deemed important. Libraries helped to store his work and other great important documents throughout the years. The invention of the Gutenberg printing press and the endowment of Andrew Carnegie helped to spawn equally important library revolutions in their time, with Carnegie’s loan helping to establish over 2,000 libraries worldwide. Coming from all of this, we are left to wonder where the future of libraries are headed. With all the new information technology becoming more and more available, and with the trend of all forms of technology having limited lifespans, the question is outlined with several trends which to expect over the coming years.
I could definitely see libraries becoming a quasi museum in the future. The “culture center” analogy they used in the article really struck a cord with me and I think that is probably indeed the future of libraries. They will in some way always have a purpose, as the housing of books in my mind will always be necessary. Also, the ability to put books online and onto handheld things is becoming ever more so available, but I am one of those who believe that the physical tangible asset of a book will always be wanted by a great number of people. The only trend I really disagreed with was number 6, as I do not really believe literacy will ever be “dead.” Maybe Dr. Crossman is right, but I think that is an awfully soon timeframe for literacy to be completely dead. I think books and written information have far too great an impact and use to ever be fully defunct.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
News Report #3
“Closures loom for UA libraries”
Nathan Mitchell, The Arizona Daily Wildcat
02/02/09
http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2009/02/02/News/Closures.Loom.For.Ua.Libraries-3607944.shtml
This story is an appropriate one concerning the current situation our economy is in. It seems even the libraries are affected by the downturn, which makes sense, because nothing really goes by unscathed. The libraries at the University at Arizona are the topic here, faced with the decision to either raise tuition or downsize one library and eliminate two more. The likely scenario will include both the libraries being cut and an increase in the money students pay. The fee which students currently pay is at $30 and will go up nearly $150 more than that. In addition to the libraries being cut, people will also be getting laid off at the university. It appears as the 15% cut which the government is enforcing is in a way a loan from the university, as 10% of the taken money is supposed to be given back at a later date. The cost of reopening one of the closed libraries is estimated to be about $50 million, so other alternatives need to be looked at. In addition to this disappointing news, the cuts are expected to continue in the years to come.
First of all I was surprised to find out how many different libraries this university had. I mean I know the University of Arizona has a good deal more students than us, but if they are closing this many libraries they probably have at least a few more, leaving them with a lot more than us at one point. On one end I can see where the government is coming from concerning their wanting to close the libraries. The economy has truly affected everyone, and maybe Arizona had a few too many libraries that were not fully being utilized. But to close them just to reopen them later seems like a dumb idea. The cost of reopening is astounding, and if they are truly planning on reopening the closed libraries as they have indicated, they should find ways to severely minimize the cost of doing so. To me it just seems like a whole bunch of wasted money in a time where we cannot afford to do so.
“Closures loom for UA libraries”
Nathan Mitchell, The Arizona Daily Wildcat
02/02/09
http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2009/02/02/News/Closures.Loom.For.Ua.Libraries-3607944.shtml
This story is an appropriate one concerning the current situation our economy is in. It seems even the libraries are affected by the downturn, which makes sense, because nothing really goes by unscathed. The libraries at the University at Arizona are the topic here, faced with the decision to either raise tuition or downsize one library and eliminate two more. The likely scenario will include both the libraries being cut and an increase in the money students pay. The fee which students currently pay is at $30 and will go up nearly $150 more than that. In addition to the libraries being cut, people will also be getting laid off at the university. It appears as the 15% cut which the government is enforcing is in a way a loan from the university, as 10% of the taken money is supposed to be given back at a later date. The cost of reopening one of the closed libraries is estimated to be about $50 million, so other alternatives need to be looked at. In addition to this disappointing news, the cuts are expected to continue in the years to come.
First of all I was surprised to find out how many different libraries this university had. I mean I know the University of Arizona has a good deal more students than us, but if they are closing this many libraries they probably have at least a few more, leaving them with a lot more than us at one point. On one end I can see where the government is coming from concerning their wanting to close the libraries. The economy has truly affected everyone, and maybe Arizona had a few too many libraries that were not fully being utilized. But to close them just to reopen them later seems like a dumb idea. The cost of reopening is astounding, and if they are truly planning on reopening the closed libraries as they have indicated, they should find ways to severely minimize the cost of doing so. To me it just seems like a whole bunch of wasted money in a time where we cannot afford to do so.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
News Report 2
"Sex offender arrested for violating parole on Myspace"
Elinor Mills, CNET
February 4th, 2009
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10157193-93.html?tag=mncol;posts
Myspace has recently caught a pandemic of sexual offenders who have created accounts in attempts to solicit underage persons. The recent count of violators numbers 30, but over 90,000 sex offenders were suspected to have personas on the social networking site. While the man in question did not yet attempt anything explicitly illegal on the site, his parole contained provisions which prohibited him from making a page. Four other men, who did not yet appear to be registered sex offenders, were arrested for trying to solicit sex from undercover agents posing as minors. Myspace has since handed over the names of these people to the Connecticut Attorney general, who requested their submission. In an attempt to get the bad spotlight of them for a minute, Myspace called out rival networking site Facebook and accused it of having over 9,000 sex offenders registered. Some argue that both sites contain accounts which appear to be sex offenders, but are really just fake profiles made up in attempts to raise the total number of users or lure potential predators into capture.
First of all, the number of supposed sex offenders on Myspace especially, and Facebook, is astounding, if those numbers are indeed true. I do not know much about Myspace, but that seems like a ton on people. It just reiterates how careful young people and especially girls should be on the internet, and hopefully parents are involved in these accounts. And while I am glad that the authorities are taking measures to clean these sites up, I do sometimes have reservations about their tactics. The way they described catching these predators reminded me of a show I sometimes watch on television, called “To Catch a Predator.” Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the show, and the people they catch truly are disgusting most times, but it just seems so low in a way. Is there no better way to stop these people? Maybe not, and the important thing is that they are caught after the way they handle the situation, but sometimes these officers posing as minors can initiate the conversation and throw themselves at the offender. I am certainly not condoning what happens after the initial invitation, but at times it seems like a big scheme to set someone they don’t like up. I just wonder how the dialogue the agents use parallels that used by real underage girls. Nonetheless, it is gratifying that these guys aren't going unnoticed, and perhaps the crackdown on the sites and the TV show will deter other adults from conducting similar behaviors.
Elinor Mills, CNET
February 4th, 2009
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10157193-93.html?tag=mncol;posts
Myspace has recently caught a pandemic of sexual offenders who have created accounts in attempts to solicit underage persons. The recent count of violators numbers 30, but over 90,000 sex offenders were suspected to have personas on the social networking site. While the man in question did not yet attempt anything explicitly illegal on the site, his parole contained provisions which prohibited him from making a page. Four other men, who did not yet appear to be registered sex offenders, were arrested for trying to solicit sex from undercover agents posing as minors. Myspace has since handed over the names of these people to the Connecticut Attorney general, who requested their submission. In an attempt to get the bad spotlight of them for a minute, Myspace called out rival networking site Facebook and accused it of having over 9,000 sex offenders registered. Some argue that both sites contain accounts which appear to be sex offenders, but are really just fake profiles made up in attempts to raise the total number of users or lure potential predators into capture.
First of all, the number of supposed sex offenders on Myspace especially, and Facebook, is astounding, if those numbers are indeed true. I do not know much about Myspace, but that seems like a ton on people. It just reiterates how careful young people and especially girls should be on the internet, and hopefully parents are involved in these accounts. And while I am glad that the authorities are taking measures to clean these sites up, I do sometimes have reservations about their tactics. The way they described catching these predators reminded me of a show I sometimes watch on television, called “To Catch a Predator.” Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the show, and the people they catch truly are disgusting most times, but it just seems so low in a way. Is there no better way to stop these people? Maybe not, and the important thing is that they are caught after the way they handle the situation, but sometimes these officers posing as minors can initiate the conversation and throw themselves at the offender. I am certainly not condoning what happens after the initial invitation, but at times it seems like a big scheme to set someone they don’t like up. I just wonder how the dialogue the agents use parallels that used by real underage girls. Nonetheless, it is gratifying that these guys aren't going unnoticed, and perhaps the crackdown on the sites and the TV show will deter other adults from conducting similar behaviors.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Reading Report 2
"Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?" By Brock Read. Chronicle of Higher Education (10/27/2006)
I was aware the use of Wikipedia was swiftly growing, but I did not think of all of the possibilities of where it could go. The site seems boundless. It makes sense though after you get into the article, because it is extremely logical that a next step in our technological maturation would be to have fully functional web encylcopedia that is as trusted as say Encyclopedia Brittanica.
I was aware the use of Wikipedia was swiftly growing, but I did not think of all of the possibilities of where it could go. The site seems boundless. It makes sense though after you get into the article, because it is extremely logical that a next step in our technological maturation would be to have fully functional web encylcopedia that is as trusted as say Encyclopedia Brittanica.
There are both detractors and supporters of the website, and even the academic community is split as to whether Wikipedia is truly gaining ground as a leading source of reliable information. It seems to differ as to who you ask. For instance one professor posed as a "troll" to try to sabotage Wiki because he felt it was easy to do so and needed to be dismissed as a serious site. But after his efforts were thwarted, he is now an active contributor of serious, true information. Other have stated that they feel superior to a site which allows and encourages submissions from, in their mind, unqualified persons, and sometimes disparages "true" academians from posting themselves. Some have even claimed to have posted great information on their matter of expertise, only to find it erased by the Wiki editors. The future of the site is uncertain, seeing as some aspects of the site are scant in knowledge while others rival those of any publication.
I thought it was cool to see how quickly irrelevant and false, and even hard to decipher, statements were taken off the site. I always wondered how that was done and it was nice to figure it out. It was interesting to find out that the site actually has serious creators and editors who work round the clock, and hold events to try and improve the site. It seems like a pretty noble idea. It makes sense though because to be even considered moderately reliable, as most would contend for Wiki, you have to have some sort of immediate overrides in certain situations, seeing as it is so easy to erase and post comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)