Don't Judge a Book by Its Cover, and Don't Judge a Library by Its Structure

“As a ‘temple of scholarship’, the library as a place assumed an almost sanctified role, reflected both in its architecture and its sitting.”  An academic library as a ‘temple of scholarship’?  This is an interesting point to me.  I enjoyed reading Freeman’s article, ”The Library as Place: Changes in Learning Patterns, Collections, Technology, and Use,” as it glorified libraries as these meccas of learning set in gorgeous architecture… yet at the same time, I kept thinking- not all academic libraries are architecturally pleasing.  Sure, I can think of movies where it seems like libraries are more of ball rooms with books that look amazing to study in.  But in reality, is this really how most academic libraries are?  I did my undergrad here at Madison, and spent many, many, many hours in libraries.  I agree with the students quoted in the article that libraries serve as a purpose as a place when you are “getting serious” about your studying.  Through my undergrad, myself and all of my friends would do all of our research at home- rarely stepping into a library to locate materials.  Yet- we did go to libraries all the time- to study, to do class readings, to do homework.  It was kind of a social thing; I could guarantee that I would see somebody I knew at the library on Saturday afternoons (non Badger game days of course) and pretty much all day Sundays.  Even during exams, libraries were the place to be on Friday and Saturday nights.  But the libraries I went to were far from glamorous.  Our favorite library was Steenbock (4^th floor, by the windows, or in a study room), a library which had not been updated since my parents went to school here in the 60s.  It didn’t matter what the inside looked like… in fact, I think the dismal pea green chairs and tables helped us focus on our work.  I must admit, there was a brief period in time when we were enthralled with the beauty of Ebling Library, and would drive there just to study in its beauty.  But, that fad was short lived.  Steenbock had tables, chairs, out-lits for our computers, study rooms, computers on the 1^st floor, and a vending machine.  What else could you need? 

Alright, after reading Leckie and Hopkins’ article, “The Public Place of Central Libraries,” I started to change my tune in thinking about the architecture of a library.  I found this article quite interesting and even briefly thought about taking my next vacation to Canada to visit these libraries.  (Especially the Toronto Research Library that was designed as a ‘veritable tree of knowledge).  Then I got to thinking… why was I so enthralled with these libraries, but could care less about the architecture of academic libraries where I spent my undergrad?  I think I figured it out: in college I felt like I was going to the library no matter what.  I had to study, and in order to do that and focus; I had to go to a library.  Never mind if it was beautiful, or spacious, or looked like a coffee shop… I had work to do.  When I think of public libraries, I have a different mental image.  Just like the elderly man in the article who spent hours upon hours researching Renaissance art in the Vancouver library- going to a public library is more of a choice.  You choose to go there and spend your time there.  Its purpose is more for borrowing materials, picking things up, browsing for enjoyment… and having amazing architecture and comfortable chairs helps too!  As stated in the article as well, central public libraries are a “physical statement about the library as an integral part of civic culture and make visible a symbolic statement about knowledge in society.”  I don’t feel that academic libraries hold that same clout when it comes to knowledge.  Maybe my thoughts are this way because on a campus such as Madison, there are tons of  libraries for students to use, not just one central library.  For some odd reason (which I felt Leckie and Hopkins’ article could not pinpoint exactly either) the public library as a building is held in very high regard.  Representing the knowledge of the community, places want their public libraries to be the best they can offer.  Do you think this mentality still holds true in smaller cities?  Do libraries have the same stigma?  And what about on smaller college campuses?  I could see academic libraries having the opposite affect here too; on a smaller campus there might be one large central library that draws all of its students into one location.  All in all, I enjoyed both articles and began to think a lot about the potential effects the physical structure of a library could play in the success of a library.

Using Technology on College Campuses and the Fate of Academic Libraries

I really enjoyed the lecture concerning the “Challenges to Campus Use of the Kindle.”  When the first speaker from Reed began to talk about how they used the kindle as a pilot I thought the accusations from the DOJ seemed  a little intense.  Especially when Reed explained that they had no blind students at the school, let alone the test pilot.  However, after the speaker from the DOJ began to talk, I began to think about a whole set of issues I never thought to consider before.  I was completely impressed with the passion of the DOJ speaker, and the lengths that his organization would go through to protect the rights and equity of disabled students. 

This lecture got me thinking about the fate of technology and its use on college campuses.  When the representative from Princeton said that they used 50 million pieces of paper a year, I guess I wouldn’t say I was surprised, but it was a shocking number.  Especially since 10 million pieces of paper where used by students who were printing out digitized texts (as I do for all of my grad school classes).  Shockingly, with the use of the kindle, there was a 40% reduction in paper usage!  That is huge!  But then, after listening to the DOJ representative, at what cost to students are we saving this paper?

It sounds like there are alternatives to help students with disabilities receive the services they need; however, these alternatives are not always available when needed.  So I guess the major question that came to my mind was: how can technology continue to integrate itself into college campuses while keeping in mind everyone’s current learning needs?  (Well, I guess I kind of stole this major question from the lecture itself).  Also- if there are not people such as the DOJ keeping tabs on universities, will there be separate and unequal use of technology without campuses realizing it? 

But then again, perhaps we don’t have to worry about this necessarily with the kindle… as mentioned, its major flaws were: you cannot see multiple pages at one  and you cannot write on it.  What college students need is material that is “accessible and annotatable.”  I am curious to know what technological advances will be made that truly be accessible and annotatable.  A point was made in the lecture that it is predicted that by 2015 there will be no more print on college campuses… is this really possible?  Isn’t this suggesting that the print book is not far from extinction?  This seems to open a whole can of worms in terms of preservation and accessibility.  And on a side note… aren’t we worried about our eyes?  One summer I worked in an office creating databases of parts of tools, staring at a computer screen for 9 hours a day.  It also happened to be the Summer Olympics, to which I would return home and watch about 3-4hours of Olympic Coverage.  Needless to say, I ended that summer with terrible eye strain and repeatable headaches.  (Have I made this point before? If not, I have definitely thought about it numerous times).   If we get rid of print all together… are there physical affects to our bodies we should be concerned about?  Lots to think about in this lecture, I enjoyed it quite a bit.

(PS… did anyone else see what was written up on the white board during the presentation??  “You+Thai Food+Wine= Fun”  HA!)

I would like to tie aspects of “The Future of the Academic Library” to the article, “The Library as Place: Changes in Learning Patterns, Collections, Technology, and Use.”  Specifically- the issue of the library as a social place for group study.  One point made in the lecture was that academic libraries should start to resemble a “commons” or “bookstore” model.  They also made the comment that libraries “should look like an Apple store.”  The lecturers were insinuating that the number of print resources in libraries should drop with the use of so many materials becoming digital, and the space should be used to create common areas for students to converse, study, and learn.  They even suggested that it should be the “heart of the academic community.”  Now, I am not suggesting that group study facilities are unnecessary by any means, but to turn a library into something that resembles an Apple store?  To get rid of the majority of print material?  I feel like we are just not there yet.  Yes, computers are necessary.  Yes, group space is necessary.  But, yes… print material is still valuable too.  Perhaps I am just being narrow minded here, but I cannot see print being completely phased out of academic libraries within the next 10 years.  Then again, I don’t spend a heck of a lot of time in academic libraries anymore, so maybe my ideas are outdated by 5 years or so.   

But with this switch to digitization and the structures of libraries in general , I can’t help but wonder… what is the fate of public libraries?  Is this the way that public libraries will go too?  What is the fate of fiction books?  Would anyone really want to read a 700 page Harry Potter book as an ebook?  Or, if materials are downloaded, and then printed… isn’t this hugely wasteful?  (Think back to the previous lecture and the Princeton paper claims).  Would it not be better to have paper copies in libraries and to utilize a highly effective method of inter library loans?  I really don’t know the answers to these questions.  I completely agree that the format of libraries is changing, and the changes are necessary to keep with current technologies; however, I wonder if at some point people are going to think that we are making things more difficult than they used to be?  I find this topic very interesting, yet slightly daunting.  I am very interested to see the directions in which academic libraries head.  I am a huge fan of print copies, and would hate to see them die out completely.  There is something to be said for having a physically having a resource, in terms of usage and preservation.  And if digitization does “take over” what is going to happen to all of the print copies of resources?  Will they just be discarded because they don’t need them anymore?  That seems like a colossal waste as paper and resources.   Just my opinion… I would be interested in hearing others.

(PS What was with all the references to gin in this lecture?  Between this and the white board in the last lecture… I am beginning to wonder what kind of a conference this was!  Just kidding)

A Divided Opinion

                I remember a couple of years ago when the whole Chronic Wasting Disease issue was hot… and of course, living in Wisconsin, it became a hot topic FAST.  My family is not a hunting family, but for some of my best friends – hunting is a way of life.  I knew that they were looking up information on the topic nightly, but I guess I never really thought about where it was coming from it.  I think that Eschenfelder and Miller make many valid arguments in their article “Examining the role of Web site information in facilitating different-government relationships.  Throughout the entirety of the article, I couldn’t help but have this little lingering voice in the back of my head saying, “What is the government hiding from us??”  Now, I am an extremely trusting person, and have never really seriously had these thoughts (I like to think I have faith in our government), but seriously- why not give the people the information!  It was a little disheartening to think there was no consistency within these four states’ websites.  Ideally, the public information should be the same across states (with different specifics) and the websites should be fully inclusive of information.  Yet- apparently this is not the case.  Through this study, it seems that Wisconsin had the “best” website, yet is that just because we had such a highly invested interest in it?  Is the public information concerning bed bugs in Wisconsin as thoroughly covered as it is in New York?  I am aware that there are a bazillion issues that the government “should” report on, and that in reality time and resources are limited; however, with the creation of the Web, shouldn’t this be easier?  I like the point that Eschenfelder and Miller made when they commented on the value of information.  Just because a state puts a ton of information on their website, does not necessarily mean it is better.  More does not equal better.  In fact, oftentimes more information is just a fluffy way of looking like you are making a point, when in reality you could be spinning your wheels.  To reiterate a question made in the conclusion of the study, “Do agencies really seek to use Web sites to change their relationships with citizens, or do they see them as tools to reinforce their positions of information power in policy debate?”

                The next article I read was Yudolf’s “The Nerves of the Government,”  and when I finished, I was even MORE skeptical of the government and their duty of providing information to the public.  But then I started to think: sins of commission, sins of omission… can the government win?  Yes, the use of technology makes it easier to disseminate information, but if this technology was not available, would there as many criticisms of the government’s role of informing public?  History has proved that there definitely were instances of this (Watergate for example), yet, were these suspicions common?  I can’t really answer these questions myself, since my entire informed life I can remember the use of the Web.  But are we just using the Web as an excuse, or is there an increase of expectation that comes along with it?   As stated in the article, “technology is ethically neutral, but unethical leaders seize upon it to advance their interests.”  So what do other people think… the Web… good addition to public information?  Or complicated factor that brings out skeptics in citizens? 

                I must admit, I struggled a little with the Interim Summary of the “Documents of a Digital Democracy” piece… and I am not entirely sure why.    I understood the premise of the piece, explaining the Federal Depository Library, and the issues that have occurred with it in its first year of existence.  From the article, it seems like the FDLP is not thriving as “they” had hoped.  I think my issue was… who exactly is the “they” that planned and first implemented this program?  Ithaka?  Then what was their purpose and WHO were they marketing this article to?  I read it, but really, did not feel I could make a connection with it.  Plus, I am not sure if I agree that everything should eventually be digitized.  (Actually, I am not sure the article suggesting this is the way it SHOULD be, but maybe rather it is just an observed trend?)  Yes, digitization would provide easier of access of materials to people, yet… then I began thinking… should everyone have access to everything?  Can people make use of all the knowledge they have access to?

                Now, I know what you are thinking… I spent the first part of this entry talking about how I was baffled in thinking that the government might be withholding information from public, and now with this final article, I start to wonder if giving people access to “all” information is a good idea?  I think this clearly displays… that I have no idea.  Maybe it’s one of those situations where it is “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”  Or maybe it is just that I had a super busy with parent teacher conferences this week, and I have been battling the flu on and off for over two weeks and my head is just a wee bit in a fog.  Or maybe… a little of both.

Spinning, and spinning, and spinning...

                I don’t think I have gotten my head to stop spinning after doing all of the readings for this week.  Apparently, copyrights and intellectual property debates are not my thing.  Not that I don’t necessarily understand them, but moreover, I just don’t have a good idea of what to do about them.  It seems like at some point in all four of the readings, the authors made a point, and then in the next paragraph went, “However… the exact opposite of my point can be argued as well.” 

                The article I enjoyed the most was Brown’s “Who Owns Native Culture?”  Perhaps the reason for this is that I used to live in Australia and found the subject matter interesting (more than I can say for the scientific debate over poly B).  But also, one thing really stuck out to me in the article:  Bulun’s work was taken and distributed without his consent- that much was agreed upon.  One of Bulun’s arguments against why this was so awful, was because the images were sacred and “has the inside secret meaning of our ceremony, law, and custom… To produce it without strict observance of the law… interferes with the relationship between [the painter], [his] ancestors, and the creator being.”  Then, as the article states- why can the image be reproduced in the book?   It seems as though issues of culture, or religion, are especially touchy when it comes to copyright.  This idea, combined with the ideas that other articles bring up about authorship, lead me to wonder… do ideas of intellectual property hold true for the Bible?  It seems that most issues of ownership of intellectual property only become an issue when there is some monetary profit being made.  Who gets the money for the publications of the Bible?  Who allows t-shirt companies to make shirts with biblical phrases on them?  Does “anyone” actually own the rights to these ideas?  But then again, as stated in Brown’s article, “you can’t copyright an idea, you can only copyright the expression of an idea.”  But… is there a person, or group, that takes “credit” for the Bible? (Disclaimer: I would not consider myself a religious person, so maybe there is a clear cut answer to this question that I don’t really know… feel free to fill me in.)

                The issue in McSherry’s  article, “Telling Tales Out of School” seemed to be a huge headache to me.  Quite frankly, I am glad I was not the judge who had to shift through and decide that case.  Even though I found it overwhelming at times, I still found the dilemma interesting.  Science does seem to be very secretive, and this case brings up interesting points of secrecy and research.  My profession, teaching, is the exact opposite.  We go to huge lengths to share everything!  However, once again, I think some of the secrecy boils down to two simple things: money and prestige.  Pelletier’s entire argument revolved around these two things.   But then I started to think… I have a friend who is a teacher in Colorado.  Her school district moved to merit based pay; that is, teachers get paid on a scale according to how well their students perform.  I think the district thought that this would create incentive for teachers to work hard, and be held accountable for their teaching.  (Disclaimer: I think there is nothing wrong with having teachers being held accountable for their teaching- in fact, I think it is a great thing.  But not in this way, and I will tell you why in my next point.)  However, it seems that this year, the plan is back firing.  Instead of sharing curricular ideas, and helping each other problem solve around students and issues, teachers at her school are becoming very secretive and not sharing their work.  They have adopted the mentality: if I found something that works and helping students perform better, then why would I share it with other teachers so their students excel too?  Oh boy.  Doesn’t that seem like the anti-logic of school?  Anyway, that was a small digression, but I couldn’t help thinking about it as I was reading about the issues of propertization of scientific data in this article.

                Litman’s article, “Revising the Copyright Law for the Informative Age,” seemed to focus once again on the gains for entrepreneurs.  Yet, while reading this article, I did feel that entrepreneurs were getting a little bit of the short end of the stick.  Digital information has changed the way our country operates.  We can get information, basically, whenever we want to.  But who owns all of that information?  I remember learning in high school English classes, that once an idea is deemed “common knowledge” we didn’t need to cite it in our papers.  Thinking back on this, at what point does something become “common knowledge”?  This links back to the previous article and the scientific discoveries too.  We know how that the sky is blue, but do we credit someone with that idea?  And what about mathematical theorems?   My high school math classes are failing me right now, but I know there are theorems with mathematicians names on them (Euclid perhaps?)… they are acceptable as “common knowledge” but still have their discoverer’s name attached to them.   Interesting… very interesting.  Okay, let’s get back to digital information and copyrights.  As Litman states in this article, “works can be altered, undectably, and there is no way for an author to insure that the work being distributed over her name is the version she wrote.”  So ideas could potentially be changed, and changed, and changed again without the author having any idea.  This is almost the reverse of issues of the science article; what if the author’s words get twisted into something they don’t want them to say?  That would be a law suit of another beast.  Copyright…apparently it’s a tricky thing. 

                The last of the four articles I read was Boyle’s “Intellectual Property and the Liberal State.”  However, I wish I would have read this one first.  (I print all of them off in order from the syllabus, which then puts the first article at the bottom of the pile.  Next time, I think I will try to read them in the order they are listed… might be some sense to the order they were recorded.)  This article was a good general umbrella for topics within the other signed articles.  Again, slight head spinning due to wordy sentences and ideas that had no clear answer, but enjoyable to read.  Two different quotations stuck out to me in this reading:

·         “How can we be free and yet secure from other people’s freedoms, secure yet free to do what we want?”  Basically, how can we all do what we want to do, but also be secure in knowing that other people won’t hurt us.   Just food for thought.

·         “Once expressed, it is impossible for [an idea] to remain the author’s property.”  This quote really helped me to conceptualize the debate amongst intellectual property.  It reminded me of a quote my French teacher gave me when I graduated high school “If you have an object and you trade it, you only have one object.  If you have an idea, and you trade it, now you have two ideas.”  (Of course, the quote was given to me in French and took me entirely too long to figure out.)  Once you read something, it is yours to remember.  So, at what point, if ever, can an author loose credit for their works?  Back to that old debate of “property” I guess.  And it sends my head spinning, and spinning once again.