Library round-up
I'm seriously going to have to open a new blog for these, because there's just too many of them. It won't be heavily linked from here, so that I can keep my fannish and professional stuff at least nominally apart, but if anyone's interested, I'll drop you the link when/if it exists.
In the meantime:
What Google can learn from history. Interesting piece bringing together the history of copyright and competition (antitrust) law and drawing some striking parallels.
Australia's blacklisted internet site list is leaked. The objections are not entirely about the list of sites blacklisted, more about the opaque nature of the choices made.
Podcast about Cloud Computing and the EUCALYPTUS project. I haven't had a chance to listen to this yet, but it sounds interesting.
Library news (not all good, not all bad):
This is an old article, but worth the read. One of the biggest challenges in US libraries in recent years has been the Patriot Act. I'm still reading up about this, but this was one librarian's response to the privacy issues involved.
MIT Open Access mandate. It's hard to over-stress how important this is. Open Access should be HUGE, and institutions are starting to catch up. Harvard's doing it, Oxford's working on it. It's becoming real.
Washington State Libraries offers advice for hard times, and Friends of the Library in MN are doing their part
New York Libraries may lose up to 17% of their budget. That's about $23m and nearly 500 more people out of work. The rest could face losing 20% of their hours. More details about Brooklyn
Philadelphia's having problems too. Oh, and Virginia Tech
An email with a link to an article in the Independent about discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgendered people in the workplace is filtered out by 'content filters'. Can anyone spell 'irony'? The original article
I really hope this guy's wrong...
Web 2.0 in libraries:
Defusing traditional arguments against letting go of content. With bonus flash presentation!
CILIP (The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) has been getting into hot water over Web 2.0 matters lately. It was originally sparked by a blog post in which the Chief Executive seemed to be highly dismissive of Twitter and other social networking sites, and talked about only having conversations in 'official spaces'. This backfired on him somewhat spectacularly, but to his credit, he's been listening and learning from the experience. His latest blog post suggests that he has at least grasped the problem ("Foster a culture of working on the web. Explain the value of modernised professional qualifications. And get a lot better at communication."). I'm not holding my breath to see what happens about solutions, but some cautious optimism doesn't feel too out of place.
There are interesting debates and conversations going on in the library world at the moment about what 'the future of libraries' is, and how we avoid getting left behind by the technological revolutions (JISC are leading the discussion - their website). There's a debate taking place in Oxford on 2 April, and one of the invited speakers, Peter Murray Rust, a computational chemist at Cambridge, has been blogging about his thoughts and the processes he's using to draw them together. Personally, I have my doubts about using the word 'revolution' in this context, but that's for another post.
In the meantime:
What Google can learn from history. Interesting piece bringing together the history of copyright and competition (antitrust) law and drawing some striking parallels.
Australia's blacklisted internet site list is leaked. The objections are not entirely about the list of sites blacklisted, more about the opaque nature of the choices made.
Podcast about Cloud Computing and the EUCALYPTUS project. I haven't had a chance to listen to this yet, but it sounds interesting.
Library news (not all good, not all bad):
This is an old article, but worth the read. One of the biggest challenges in US libraries in recent years has been the Patriot Act. I'm still reading up about this, but this was one librarian's response to the privacy issues involved.
MIT Open Access mandate. It's hard to over-stress how important this is. Open Access should be HUGE, and institutions are starting to catch up. Harvard's doing it, Oxford's working on it. It's becoming real.
Washington State Libraries offers advice for hard times, and Friends of the Library in MN are doing their part
New York Libraries may lose up to 17% of their budget. That's about $23m and nearly 500 more people out of work. The rest could face losing 20% of their hours. More details about Brooklyn
Philadelphia's having problems too. Oh, and Virginia Tech
An email with a link to an article in the Independent about discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgendered people in the workplace is filtered out by 'content filters'. Can anyone spell 'irony'? The original article
I really hope this guy's wrong...
Web 2.0 in libraries:
Defusing traditional arguments against letting go of content. With bonus flash presentation!
CILIP (The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) has been getting into hot water over Web 2.0 matters lately. It was originally sparked by a blog post in which the Chief Executive seemed to be highly dismissive of Twitter and other social networking sites, and talked about only having conversations in 'official spaces'. This backfired on him somewhat spectacularly, but to his credit, he's been listening and learning from the experience. His latest blog post suggests that he has at least grasped the problem ("Foster a culture of working on the web. Explain the value of modernised professional qualifications. And get a lot better at communication."). I'm not holding my breath to see what happens about solutions, but some cautious optimism doesn't feel too out of place.
There are interesting debates and conversations going on in the library world at the moment about what 'the future of libraries' is, and how we avoid getting left behind by the technological revolutions (JISC are leading the discussion - their website). There's a debate taking place in Oxford on 2 April, and one of the invited speakers, Peter Murray Rust, a computational chemist at Cambridge, has been blogging about his thoughts and the processes he's using to draw them together. Personally, I have my doubts about using the word 'revolution' in this context, but that's for another post.