Leslie LIS768 Blog

Welcome! This is your first post. Edit or delete it in your dashboard (the administrative area), then start blogging!

Agger, Michael. “The Internet Diet.” Slate.com. 7 June 2010.< http://www.slate.com/id/2255923/> (accessed 6 November 2010).

Allen, Micah. “Snorkeling ’the shallows’: what’s the cognitive trade-off in internet behavior?” Neuroscience.com. 6 June 2010. <http://neuroconscience.com/2010/06/08/snorkeling-%E2%80%99the-shallows%E2%80%99-whats-the-cognitive-trade-off-in-internet-behavior/> (accessed 9 December 2010).

Battles, Matthew.”Reading isn’t just a monkish pursuit: Matthew Battles on ‘The Shallows.’” Nieman Journalism Lab.org. 29 June 2010. < http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/06/reading-isnt-just-a-monkish-pursuit-matthew-battles-on-the-shallows/> (accessed 13 November 2010).

Bell, Vaughan. “Don’t Touch That Dial!” Slate.com. 15 February 2010. <http://www.slate.com/id/2244198/pagenum/all/#p2 > (accessed 9 December 2010).

Bloomberg Business Week.com “’The Shallows: Is the Net Fostering Stupidity?’” 3 June 2010. < http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_24/b4182000596077.htm#readerComments>  (accessed 6 November 2010).

Burton, Robert. “’The Shallows’ by Nicholas Carr.” SFGate.com <http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-06-06/books/21658661_1_synapses-brains-neural > (accessed 6 November 2010).

Chen, Brian X. “Help! My Smartphone Is Making Me Dumb – or Maybe Not.” Wired.com. 4 November 2010. <http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/10/multitasking-studies/all/1> (accessed 13 November 2010).

Colvile, Robert. “The Shallows: How the Internet Is Changing the Way We Think, Read and Remember by Nicholas Carr: review.” The Telegraph. 27 August 2010. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7966092/The-Shallows-How-the-Internet-Is-Changing-the-Way-We-Think-Read-and-Remember-by-Nicholas-Carr-review.html> (accessed 13 November 2010).

Gallagher, Helen. “Book Review: The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains by Nicholas Carr.” BlogCritics.org. 8 July 2010. <http://blogcritics.org/books/article/book-review-the-shallows-what-the/> (accessed 9 December 2010).

Gitlin, Todd. “The Uses of Half-True Alarms.” New Republic.com. 7 June 2010. <http://www.tnr.com/book/review/the-uses-half-true-alarms> (accessed 9 November 2010).

Gray, Michael. “Book Review: The Shallows by Nicholas Carr.” Michael Gray – Graywolf’s SEO Blog 14 September 2010.<http://www.wolf-howl.com/books/book-review-the-shallows-by-nicholas-carr/> (accessed 10 November 2010).

Hamilton, Kevin J.  “’The Shallows’: Is the Internet changing the way we think?” Seattle Times. 17 June 2010. < http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/books/2012143872_br18shallows.html >  (accessed 10 November 2010).

Harris, John. “How the internet is altering your mind.” The Guardian. 20 August 2010. < http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/20/internet-altering-your-mind >  (accessed 10 November 2010).

Horgan, John. “So Many Links, So Little Time.” Wall Street Journal. 4 June 2010. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256790495393722.html > (accessed 9 November 2010).

Howard, Jennifer. “Nicholas Carr’s ‘The Shallows’ and William Powers’s ‘Hamlet’s Blackberry’” Washington Post. 18 July 2010. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071602719_2.html>(accessed 7 November 2010).

Johnson, Steven. “Yes, People Still Read, but Now It’s Social.” New York Times. 19 June 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/business/20unbox.html >  (accessed 13 November 2010).

—————. “More on The Shallows.” Stevenberlinjohnson.com.19 June 2010. <http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/2010/06/more-on-the-shallows.htm> (accessed 8 December 2010).

Krazit, Tom. “A hard look at the Web’s ‘shallows.’” CNET News.com. 29 June 2010. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20009036-265.html > (accessed 13 November 2010).

Lehrer, Jonah. “Our Cluttered Minds.” New York Times Sunday Book Review. 3 June 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/books/review/Lehrer-t.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=books>(accessed 6 November 2010).

——————. “The Shallows.” The Frontal Cortex. 6 June 2010. <http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/06/the_shallows.php > accessed 9 November 2010).

Liu, Jonathan. “Do Not Disconnect: Wired Parenting Has Both Benefits and Costs.” Geek Dad. Wired.com 14 June 2010. <http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/06/wired-parenting/> (accessed 13 November 2010).

Lo Dico, Joy. “The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, By Nicholas Carr.” The Independent. 19 September 2010. <http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-shallows-what-the-internet-is-doing-to-our-brains-by-nicholas-carr-2080205.html> (accessed 14 November 2010).

Mandel, Emily St. John. “Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing To Our Brains.” The Millions. 25 November 2010. <http://www.themillions.com/2010/10/nicholas-carrs-the-shallows-what-the-internet-is-doing-to-our-brains.html>  (accessed 6 November 2010).

McDonald, Mark. “The Shallows, a review of Nicholas Carr’s latest book.” Gartner.com. 19 June 2010. <http://blogs.gartner.com/mark_mcdonald/2010/06/19/the-shallows-a-review-of-nicholas-carrs-latest-book/>  (accessed 9 November 2010).

Menakes, Daniel. “The Shallows.” Barnes & Noble Reviews. 4 June 2010. <http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Reviews-Essays/The-Shallows/ba-p/2699> (accessed 9 November 2010).

Miller, Laura. “Yes, the Internet is rotting your brain.” Salon.com. 9 May 2010. <http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2010/05/09/the_shallows>  (accessed 9 November 2010).

Moseman, Andrew. “’The Shallows’ Rehashes the Weak Argument That Google Makes You Stupid.”DiscoverMagazine.com”6 July 2010. <http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/06/07/the-shallows-rehashes-the-weak-argument-that-google-makes-you-stupid/ > (accessed 13 November r 2010).

Nelson, Fritz. “Book Review: Nicholas Carr’s ‘The Shallows.’” Information Week.com. 3 June 2010. <http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/web2.0/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=225400004 > (accessed 7 November 2010).

Pastore, Michael. “The Shallows by Nicholas Carr (book review).” Epublishers.com Weekly. 7 August 2010. <http://epublishersweekly.blogspot.com/2010/08/shallows-by-nicholas-carr-book-review.html>  (accessed 10 November 2010).

Pinker, Steven. “Mind Over Mass Media.” New York Times. 10 June 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/opinion/11Pinker.html?ref=brain> (accessed 13 November 2010).

Rosenberg, Scott. “Carr’s “The Shallows”: An Internet victim in search of lost depth.” 8 September 2010. <http://www.wordyard.com/2010/09/08/carrs-the-shallows-an-internet-victim-in-search-of-lost-depth/> (accessed 9 December 2010).

Schonfeld, Erick. “No, The Internet Won’t Make You Stupid.” TechCrunch.com. 13 June 2010. <http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/13/no-the-internet-wont-make-you-stupid/> (accessed 13 November 2010).

Shirky, Clay. “Does the Internet Make You Smarter?” Wall Street Journal. 4 June 2010. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704025304575284973472694334.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular> (accessed 13 November 2010).

Stephenson, Wen. “The Internet ate my brain.” Boston Globe. 6 June 2010. <www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/06/06/the_internet_ate_my_brain/#>  (accessed 13 November 2010).

Thierer, Adam. “Book Review: Nicholas Carr’s ‘The Shallows.’” The Technology Liberation.com Front. 1 June 2010. < http://techliberation.com/2010/06/01/book-review-nicholas-carr%E2%80%99s-the-shallows/> (accessed 6 November 2010).

Wernecke, Ellen. “The Shallows.” A.V. Club.com. 3 June 2010. < http://www.avclub.com/articles/nicholas-carr-the-shallows,41732/> (accessed 9 November 2010).

Williams, Anthony D. “Battle of the Web gurus.” The Globe and Mail. 16 July 2010. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/books/review-the-shallows-by-nicholas-carr-and-cognitive-surplus-by-clay-shirky/article1642993/singlepage/#articlecontent> (accessed 14 November 2010).

Wolman, David. “The Critics Need a Reboot. The Internet Hasn’t Led Us Into a New Dark Age.” Wired.com. 18 August 2008. < http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16-09/st_essay>  (accessed 10 November 2010). An article written in response to “Is Google Making us Stupid?” by Nicholas Carr.

Zelkowitz, Rachel. “Book Review: The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains.” ScienceNews.org 28 August 2010. <http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/62083/title/Book_Review_The_Shallows_What_the_Internet_is_Doing_to_Our_Brains_by_Nicholas_Carr> (accessed 10 November 2010).

Your Brain on Computers

The New York Times ran a series of articles examining issues raised by The Shallows.

Connelly, Marjorie.” More Americans Sense a Downside to an Always Plugged-In Existence” Your Brain on Computers. New York Times. 6 June 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brainpoll.html?_r=1&ref=technology > (accessed 22 November 2010).

Parker-Pope, Tara. “An Ugly Toll of Technology: Impatience and Forgetfulness.” Your Brain on Computers. New York Times. 6 June 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brainside.html?ref=technology > (accessed 22 November 2010).

Richtel, Matt. “Attached to Technology and Paying a Price Hooked on Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price.” Your Brain on Computers. New York Times. 6 June 2010.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html?ref=technolog> (accessed 22 November 2010).

————–. “Outdoors and Out of Reach, Studying the Brain.” Your Brain on Computers. New York Times. 15 August 2010.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/technology/16brain.html?ref=your_brain_on_computers&pagewanted=all> (accessed 22 November 2010).

————–. “Digital Devices Deprive Brain of Needed Downtime.” Your Brain on Computers. New York Times. 24 August 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/technology/25brain.html?ref=your_brain_on_computers>   (accessed 22 November 2010).

————–. “Growing Up Digital, Wired for Distraction.” Your Brain on Computers. New York Times. 21 November 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html?ref=your_brain_on_computers>    (accessed 22 November 2010).

Scelfo, Julie. “The Risks of Parenting While Plugged In.” Your Brain on Computers. New York Times. 9 June 2010.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/garden/10childtech.html?ref=your_brain_on_computers&pagewanted=all> (accessed 22 November 2010).

Discussion

Editors. “First Steps to Digital Detox.” Room for Debate. New York Times. 7 June 2010.  <http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/first-steps-to-digital-detox/?ref=review> (accessed 22 November 2010). An organized discussion inspired by the series “Your Brain on Computers” among several writers on technology.

Naughton, John. “The internet: is it changing the way we think?” Guardian.co.uk.com. 15 August 2010. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/15/internet-brain-neuroscience-debate> (accessed 9 December 2010).

Introduction

Our Library at This University uses social media, and we recognize that many staff and librarians do so in their private lives. Social media clearly present many opportunities to broaden communication between Our Library and patrons at This University and in The Town.  On the other hand, we must recognize that there is just as much risk and responsibility in the use of social media.  We do not want to stifle the free exchange of ideas, but we in the library and university administration believe that we must take care and be aware that those who post to any one of the social media currently in use by Our Library do so as representatives of the library and of the university. This is also true of employees, staff, and librarians who post on issues related to libraries on personal social media.

We have come to realize that we need to establish a policy detailing best practices and providing guidelines for the use of social media both sponsored by the library and social media used by employees, staff, and librarians personally.  The purpose of this policy is to ensure that we create in our online communication an environment which is conducive to intellectual development, exploration of ideas, and scholarship, much as we do in our face-to-face communication with patrons.

In general, the term ‘social media’ refers to any Web application, site or account created or maintained by Our Library which facilitates sharing of information and opinions about issues or subjects related to the library. Currently the social media used by Our Library are: Our Library Blog, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Delicious, and YouTube.  As other social media are developed and come into use by the library they will be covered by this policy.  Each library social media forum will have an administrator and designated contributors; content contributed by others must be approved by the relevant administrator or contributor.

Our Library reserves the right to monitor all library social media and to modify or remove any messages or posts that it deems abusive, defamatory, in violation of the copyright, trademark right, or other intellectual property right of any third party, or otherwise inappropriate. We are not, however, obligated to take any action and will not be responsible or liable for content posted on Our Library social media sites.

This policy can be updated at any time. The most current version will be found on the library Web site.

Transparency

• If you post about Our Library on your personal time, make your affiliation, role, and goals clear.
• If you identify yourself as an employee, staff member, or librarian associated with Our Library on a social media site, state clearly that you are expressing your own opinions as an individual and do not represent the library.

Responsibility

• There is no such thing as a private social media site; all posts can and will be found and then shared.
• Be sure of your facts before you post and always give a link to your sources.
• Avoid potentially libelous statements.
• If you make an error, correct it as soon and as visibly as possible.

Respect and Civility

• Be welcoming and encourage comments and discussion among posters but also work to keep the discussion friendly.
• Feel free to correct misinformation, but avoid heated arguments; delete irrelevant or vulgar posts.
• Avoid obscene or racist content; personal attacks, insults, and threatening language
• Refrain from sharing private, personal information without consent; think twice about doing so even with consent.
• If a post is threatening or otherwise causes concern, contact your supervisor and the administrator of the forum.

Representation and Endorsements

• Comments about This University programs and events that have a relation to Our Library are encouraged but avoid commercial promotions.
• Keep comments related to the topic of discussion or content of the forum and avoid comments and links totally unrelated.
• We will publicize events sponsored and approved by the library but avoid doing so for events not related to those.

Confidentiality and Security

• Avoid posting confidential or proprietary information about This University, Our Library, students, alumni/ae or fellow employees, staff, and librarians.
• Do not collect personally identifiable information over social media sites
• If you discuss a situation involving an individual be sure that person cannot be identified.
• Post only what you would present at a conference.

This policy draws on the Social Media Best Practices and Guidelines of Tufts University and on Social Network Guidelines of the Kern County Library.

Introduction

I monitored the Library of the College of DuPage, (COD) a two-year community college located in Glen Ellyn, IL from 30 September until 19 November. At the start of this project I went to the college’s home page and  noticed how difficult it was to move to the library Web page: there is no easily visible link to the library on the page. To find the library Web page, it is necessary to look on the Quick Links drop down list, or click on ‘College Resources’ from the menu at the top of the college Home page. On the other hand, this is a fledgling librarian who is writing this post; that I think of a library as a major resource for an academic community and want to find the Web page easily should come as no surprise.

Once at the library Home page a viewer is presented with a wealth of information including a list, in a panel on the lower right, of all the ways it is possible to connect to the library.

COD Library Home page

The library can be followed by RSS feeds; on Facebook, which is given pride of place with a link on the main page area; through Delicious; Twitter; Flickr; and YouTube. The library also has a blog, but the link is not in the panel, but rather in the list under Library News. Given the prominence of the logo on the library Home page, it seems that Facebook is the primary application for following the library, other than the home page.  I am not really sure why the applications are listed in that order; as will become apparent, the list has nothing to do with the use of the application by the library.

Below the Facebook link on the Web page is more information about accessing library resources on a cell phone.

Media

I am going to discuss the media in the order in which they are listed in the side panel on the COD Library Web page, followed by the Library blog and other media not listed on the library Web page.

RSS Feeds

The library has an informative page about how to set up an RSS feed as well as a menu of library feeds.  This page is a good introduction for those unfamiliar with the concept and provides a chance to advertise the library’s offerings.

COD Library RSS feed

Facebook

The Facebook page has tabs for Boxes, and RSS/Blog in addition to the standard Wall, Info, and Photos tabs.  I am not sure what Boxes page is for: the only item on that page is a review of an unnamed book.

On the Wall page the library posts a variety of notices related to library offerings and events on campus.  There are notices of workshops.

Facebook-SOS Workshop

There are frequent posts featuring selections from the DVD collection.

These posts have a link to a library blog entry with a review of the movie.  There are also posts about magazines in the library collection, again with a link to a blog entry describing the magazine.

Events at the McAninch Arts Center are also the subject of posts, especially when the library has arranged an event in parallel.

There are also notices about reading culture, such as the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Literature to Mario Vargas Llosa.

Banned Books week was the inspiration for several posts featuring quotes about censorship and reading.

Delicious

This application seemed to be a very active one, with 370 bookmarks to a variety of sites, many of which seem to be heavily used.

Twitter

On the other hand, Twitter does not seem to be used by the library.  During the time I monitored the site, the tweets were few and far between.

Flickr

The COD Library Flickr site has 160 images: pictures of the library of course, but also Read posters and two images from the COD Second Life area; there is no indication that the library has a Second Life presence.

YouTube

The YouTube page has a wealth of instructional videos plus others that suggest that someone on the staff has a sense of humor … I recommend the Wisconsin Library Association First Annual Book Cart Drill Team competition.

Blog

The Library blog is accessed either from the library’s Web page or from links in posts on the Facebook page.  The entries expand on the Facebook post, which seems to serve as a short notice and as a funnel to the blog.  The blog has a menu on the right with, among other links, categories of posts, and an archive of previous posts. Here is the blog entry for Your Weekly Glossy featuring JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Other Applications

I found one review on Yelp.  The reviewer mentioned some positives about the library and then complained about the noise level.  There were no results for the COD library when I searched on Technorati; Wikipedia has an article on the library with the warning that the article is written like an advertisement and does not cite references of sources.

Conclusion

The College of DuPage Library has a fairly strong Internet presence.  The COD library relies heavily on the library Web site, and on Facebook, to communicate with patrons and the world at large.  I think this makes a great deal of sense.  The Web page provides a comprehensive look at the library’s offerings and services while Facebook creates a forum for a social connection. There are some comments on a few of the posts that I monitored: in one case the library asked a patron who commented on a movie the library did not own whether they recommended it as a purchase. There are more  ‘Like’ indicators than posted comments.

Delicious, Flickr, and YouTube are used as sites for resources but do not seem to be as active as the library Web page or Facebook.  The librarians do not make use of Twitter as much as they could.  I do not know whether this is due to time constraints or lack of interest on the part of the librarians.

The one recommendation I have is that the library make more use of Twitter. Given that they advertise the ability to connect with the library by cellphone, they could easily use Twitter to alert patrons to a new post on Facebook or the Web page.

Nicholas Carr’s book The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, an expansion of his essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” which appeared in The Atlantic in 2008,  raised questions about the benign or beneficial effect of the Internet.  While there have been other authors who have challenged the assumed benefits of Internet use and a digital life-style, Carr’s book has elicited a level of response that suggests that his work has addressed the issue in a way that other authors have not.  In writing this paper I intend to look at the critical response to the book and to the larger questions Carr raises in an attempt to understand the reaction to this work.  The  focus will not be on whether the book is generally panned or praised, but rather on the character of the discussion.

I chose ( and am still choosing) the reviews and articles from the results of an Internet search.  These articles have come from both print material available online (e.g. the online edition of a print newspaper) and wholly electronic sources, such as blogs.  Some are written by technology experts, others by writers with varying degrees of technological expertise; in many cases there was no biographical information on the author available. I am selecting material for this analysis with a view toward creating a representative sample of reviews and essays that go beyond a simple summary of the contents of the book, rather than an encyclopedic report on the response to Carr’s ideas.

In many cases the reviewer paired Carr’s book with other works, for example with Cognitive Surplus by Clay Shirky; Hamlet’s Blackberry by William Powers; or Born Digital by John Palfrey.  In some cases, e.g. The New York Times, articles were published in the same edition (referred to by links, of course) that dealt with themes raised in Carr’s book. I intend to look more closely at the pairing of Carr’s book with other works, although I do not know if the author of the review had a choice in the pairing.  I also may explore the inclusion of related articles as an expansion of the discussion on Carr’s book.

Following the definitions of the readings, I have been a member of only one virtual community.  However, I have had experiences with online groups that supported committees whose members were geographically dispersed.  I count those also.

My first experience with what I would call a virtual community fits within the goal-oriented community of interest type.  I have been involved with a group that organizes two women’s retreats a year. Aside from the organizing committee there are committees formed for each retreat. It was through membership in a Yahoo.com group for the August 2000 retreat committee that I had my first experience of a virtual community.  The group also met face-to-face, so the Yahoo group was always seen as an instrument to discuss issues that came up between meetings.  I was involved in several more of the retreat committees and the Yahoo group e-mail list continued to be an adjunct to the face-to-face meetings.

I do not mean to downplay the importance of that online group, quite the contrary, but the underlying assumption is that the community of committee members was not strictly speaking, an online community; they have retreats to run and there is a certain amount of face-to-face work.  On the other hand, I  noticed in my years of service on the organizing committee and retreat committees that more and more discussion of substantive issues was taking place online.  Several years ago we created a Web site for documents, an archive of past retreats, and a calendar; it also serves as a promotion of the retreats.  During my last year on the committee,  the organizing committee began to use conference calls for meetings because the members lived in Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana.  While I do not think the group will become completely virtual, the tendency has been to rely more and more on online media rather than on face-to-face meetings.

The second online community I joined was actually formed as a virtual community by a friend of mine.  Unlike the groups associated with the women’s retreat committees, this group was organized around an interest (very broadly defined) and a place (the Chicago Metro area) rather than a goal, so discussion could, and did, range widely.

Since the interest was so broadly defined, for a while at least, there were really interesting discussions and moderation was light but effective in keeping the tone civil. There were disagreements, and a variety of points of view, but on the whole I felt that everyone had an opportunity to contribute as much as he or she wanted to. I was mostly a commentator, but occasionally a contributor.  I also realized that groups such as this have a life cycle: after a while it seemed to me that the discussions became repetitive and the organizer of the list lost interest and stopped contributing posts that sparked discussion.  It became clear that there were few others who were willing to step up to the commentator role.  I am not sure what happened.  I think this group may have been too diffuse in its definition and would have hung together better if the focus had been a bit narrower, the interest area more tightly defined.  That might have attracted more members who were interested in a commentator role, or even a contributor role.  There were, in effect, too many followers and not enough leaders, an odd reversal of what can happen with groups that are face-to-face.

A third group that I belonged to for a while was far more successful and is still active and engaging.  This group is focused on a clearly defined interest and maintains a strong presence on-line with monthly meetings that have a clearly defined topic for discussion.  The meetings are, in contrast to the Yahoo groups I belonged to, adjuncts to the discussion online so those who belong to the group do not feel sidelined if their presence is only online.  This, plus the clear focus, keeps the discussion lively and participation diverse.  There are many who are contributors and quite a few commentators. I am no longer a member because of the time it takes to keep up with the discussion and because my interest in the focus is not as strong as it once was but I enjoyed the group and felt that I was a part of a community even though I would never meet them face-to-face.

I also currently have a Facebook page.  I put this business in the virtual community group in addition to the social networking category because I think that this is also how the business functions. If I had to categorize it I would put it in the community of interest type because interest can also mean interest in what family, friends, and acquaintances are doing.  I find this community satisfying because the goals of Facebook are simpler and less demanding: let us know what you are doing and what you are interested in; keep in touch. I place Facebook in the virtual community area because, when some of one’s friends or family are far away, then Facebook becomes, for all intents and purposes, a virtual community.

My general opinion of virtual communities is mixed. To a certain extent, this is an explosion of the pen pal community so it differs in extent rather than in kind from what existed before the Internet.   I prefer face-to-face contact with members of a community, but  I have had enough experience to know that  a virtual community can be an exciting and interesting group; pen pals with dozens of people rather than just one or two.  On the other hand, I think that virtual communities should not become a substitute for physical communities.  I think that people need physical social interaction to remain healthy and I am wondering what the consequences will be if the balance tips toward virtual communities from physical communities.  In many ways a library could facilitate the existence of virtual communities and physical communities through programming that supports social interaction and discussion for different age and interest groups while incorporating digital media as appropriate.  Gamer meetings come to mind as one kind of programming, but there are other things that can be done, as DOK in Denmark or the Skokie Public Library show.

The three articles on the hyperlocal library published in Library Journal caught my attention in this module.  I think this is a growth area for libraries because we can organize and filter the information that describes the locality and the resources available in the area.  Let Google conquer the world, but the local library, through use of Web tools, can be far more useful to local citizens when it comes to finding out what the local resources are.  The observation that local information flows differently than global information is a good one, as is the idea that a hyperlocal library can put a sense of place in the Internet.  Both of these ideas are new to me, but the first rings true and the second is a welcome addition to what can be an overwhelming global scope of a Google search.  It makes sense to me that information at the local level may be too fast moving and, shall I say, too local for an organization such as Google to capture but that a local library is well-positioned to capture and provide the wealth of local information that the community needs.  I think this idea or approach could also help turn non-patrons into patrons (“Would you like a book with that search result?”).  The addition of QR technology would further the library’s place as the local information hub.  Libraries are already branded as an information center and the incorporation of the hyperlocal technology is a logical extension of the service they already offer.

I was particularly struck by the description of the DOK library center in Delft and by the discussion of what the Skokie Public Library is doing with its SkokieNet Web page as well as other Web pages.  While the DOK example is at the edge of what most libraries are doing, or can afford to do, both libraries are, in my opinion, using new technological tools to enhance their core mission of serving the community. I also think that the technology has allowed the staff to become more expansive in how they interpret the vision and mission of the Skokie library; I can’t read Dutch so I can’t comment on the vision and mission of the DOK.  Both are, in their own way, examples of a hyperlocal library and what can be done with a committed staff.

Another aspect of the ideas behind the hyperlinked as well as the hyperlocal library is the changes in organizational culture that seem to flow from the incorporation of these technologies.  Both sets of ideas reinforce the notion that, as presented in the video for this module and the chapter from the Cluetrain Manefesto, the traditional top-down authority structure is not best suited to serving the patrons.  Both DOK and the Skokie Public Library are successful because the librarians responded to patron interests in a way that is not possible in a traditional organizational structure.  While my experience suggests that you can have a structure that is too flat so that decisions either do not happen or take forever to reach, a library that takes advantage of the new technologies needs to develop a culture of openness to new ideas from staff and patrons and a way to develop creativity among both.  Without that kind of openness, the Skokie Library might well have failed to take advantage of the Web site GoSkokie created by Northwestern University journalism students, much less develop it into the current site.

Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2010.

The author  is a skilled writer and presents a wealth of scientific and historical information in a clear and readable style.  In ten chapters and an epilogue he uses scientific research on brain functioning, anecdotal reports, and intellectual history as a lens through which to assess the effect of the Internet on  us and our culture. In each chapter he discusses one aspect of the Internet, brain functioning, and the development of previous intellectual technologies and on their effects, either documented scientifically or historically.

This work is not a jeremiad, but rather a sober, and sobering, look at the Internet as a tool.  As I read this book I was reminded of the underlying theme of Michael Pollan’s book The Botany of Desire: that domesticated plants were domesticated because they evolved characteristics that make them desirable to humans and in so doing have influenced humans so that we aid in propagating the plants; the same could be said of domestic animals.  None of this was, in the normal use of the work, intentional, but the end result is that as we humans have benefited from the domestication of these plants and animals, by the same token, these plants and animals have shaped human behavior and culture.

Reading this book is to learn that the tools we use have had a similar effect. Carr makes the case that every new technology, especially an intellectual technology, whether it is writing, map making, the invention of the mechanical clock or the printing press, changed not only what we do but how we think and how our brains function: the tools we use to manipulate information work on our minds even as our minds work with them. (p. 45)

His underlying theme is that the characteristics of the Internet foster fundamental changes in brain structure and in how we think.  He discusses research that shows that use of the Internet is, for example, reducing our ability to learn, for focused concentration and for deep reasoning, for making connections between ideas in a way that fosters creativity and complex thinking.  The reason that this book is well worth reading is that his reaction to the documented changes in brain functioning and structure as well as users’ behavior related to Internet use is more complex than the opposition suggested by the title. While he is clearly disturbed by the negative effects of the Internet he recognizes that it has become embedded in our lives; he acknowledges that he finds benefits in using the Internet and made abundant use of it to research this book.  In the closing chapter Carr writes that, as with previous new intellectual technologies, there are and will be changes in our culture and in how we think: “The price we pay to assume technology’s power is alienation. The toll can be particularly high with intellectual technologies. The tools of the mind amplify and in turn numb the most intimate, the most human of our natural capacities – those for reason, perception, memory, emotion.” (p. 211)  On the other hand, he quotes McLuhan that sometimes the alienation is what gives the technology its value but what we need is an honest appraisal of any new technology which includes what is lost and what is gained. (p. 212)

The difficulty with the appraisal of the Internet, as for any of the intellectual technologies he mentioned, is how to conduct that kind of appraisal and what to do if the decision is that the gain is not worth the cost.  Can such an appraisal or decision even be made? Carr points out that we have a vested interest in thinking that this, or any, new technology is beneficial, despite, in this case, the copious scientific research that shows the opposite.  The author is aware of the problem and cites the example of the Shoguns of Japan who tried to ban firearms but were only able to do so for 200 years; no other attempt to stop a technology has even been that effective.  I believe he wrote this book as an attempt to start that honest appraisal.

What librarians, and libraries as institutions, will make of the issues Carr raises is as much a question as what users will make of them.  We are as embedded in our culture as anyone else, and at the moment the culture has swung toward greater use of the Internet.  Libraries as service organizations have given, and will have to continue to give, patrons the tools they need and demand, which means continued access to the Internet.  Are we the ones to start the appraisal of the Internet?  Do we have that much cultural influence?

As I read the first article by Clive Thompson I felt shocked at what CEO Glen Kelman was doing, a residual reaction from the years I spent in corporate environments that were as transparent as stone internally and externally.  By the time I finished the article I was thinking that my experience would have been far more pleasant, more engaged, if there had been some transparency internally at least; my corporate experience was before blogging became such a widespread phenomenon.  Morale at these companies would have been much higher.  At one company where it was clear that the boss did not trust his employees, it would have been impossible for him to keep that attitude and remain in place.  What I learned there was the negative of one of the points in the article: distrust creates dishonesty and lack of open communication fosters lack of loyalty and trust that you need for a smoothly running office.

What struck me in the examples cited by Thompson was how positively the customers responded.  Why not apply this to a library? was my thought as I read the article; sure enough, as I read the other selections in this module, someone else had had that thought too.  I thought it would go a long way toward helping patrons understand the library when it comes to issues such as weeding; decisions not to take a book off the shelves after a challenge; decisions not to purchase a certain book; policies on cell phone use or gaming; the need for a larger building or a remodeled building; shifting to e-journals and databases from print journal subscriptions; etc.  The list is really endless because, following the logic of Thompson’s article, there are very few decisions that are really internal, especially in a library.

After reading the rest of the articles it seems to me that transparency externally requires internal transparency and that creating that kind of culture internally could be more difficult than externally. The positive results of external transparency can become clear very quickly in terms of customer or patron reaction, while the results of internal transparency involve  changing the culture of relationships and the behavior of individual workers as well as the decision-making process; it can seem very messy during the time it takes to change.

While the four articles from The Transparent Library addressed my questions on how to put transparency in place, I  think that the “how” is actually the easy part; implementation and maintenance are the hard pieces.  It is so easy to sabotage this kind of internal change, either consciously or unconsciously, that the external transparency could actually be a support for internal transparency, another reason for the two to go together.  I have been through an attempt a changing a corporate culture and the results were mixed, in no small measure because the financial commitment was not sufficient for additional administrative staff that part of the change required.  I have since wondered whether it is really possible to make that kind of change, or whether the size of the corporation was part of the problem.  Perhaps at a smaller company there would have been more success.  Are the changes necessary to implement a culture of transparency more easily done at a small or mid-sized library or does it depend on, again, the overall culture and the personalities?

At any rate, I think the future of libraries rests with creating a culture of transparency  because it can lead to a healthier and more cooperative, more innovative, and responsive workplace for libraries as well as corporations. It isn’t that I think this kind of change will be easy, but I think it will create more support among patrons, as it did for Kelman’s real estate business, if we librarians are open about the issues libraries confront and the decisions we make.  I am not saying that transparency means the bond issue will always pass, that patrons will never be displeased by decisions, or that the budget from the university or college will increase, but, over the long haul, we will have created a culture of trust between us and the community.  Likewise, internally there will continue to be disagreements among staff, but in a transparent culture no one will feel like they are not being told what the issues are or the rationale for decisions nor will they feel that their accomplishments and ideas are being ignored. The creativity that can be fostered through open communication and recognition is essential for the health of libraries.

Links

Living Out Loud http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6446362.html

The See-Through CEO: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/wired40_ceo.html

From  The Transparent Library by Michael Casey & Michael Stephens

• Check Your Ego at the Door: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6573364.html

• Measuring Progress: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6547089.html

• Road Map to Transparency: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6510682.html

• Turning No into Yes: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6435552.html

The readings and videos seem to fall into three groups: Nicholas Carr voicing skepticism about the effect of digital technology on culture and individuals, those on the other end of the spectrum voicing enthusiasm for the benefits and those in the middle simply pointing out that this is the way things are now so we may as well learn to cope.

I am reading Carr’s book The Shallows as my context book, so much of what he wrote in the two articles was familiar from the reading I have done already.  I find that I agree with his statement of the effects of Internet use, and digital technology; I have noticed some of these effects myself. I wonder if the speed of the reaction by the USDA to the video and the accusations against Shirley Sherrod posted in July by a blogger is an example of what Carr highlights as the tendency to try to react instantaneously nurtured by digital technology. She was asked to resign before anyone in the agency had even talked to her, much less taken the time to find out more information.  At the time, once the real situation had become known, there was some commentary about the “24 hour news cycle” being an influence; what is that but an effect of digital technology?

On the other hand, Clay Shirky, in both a video and an interview, highlights some cultural changes that I think are exciting and could be very helpful.  I have been disturbed by what I of as American individualism taken to a harmful extreme and find in Shirky’s ideas of cognitive surplus and intrinsic rewards as a motivation a provocative idea.  I would hope to see more of that kind of development.  The article by McAffee and Andrew on the benefits to organizations of habits of sharing promoted by digital technology is one more example of the benefits of the new technology and I think is positive.  I like the idea of a collaborative work environment and appreciate the creativity possible (even if it means more lolcat images). The Pew Internet & American Life report also highlighted the creativity that can be fostered by the Internet. It will be exciting to see how these teens carry this forward as they enter the workforce.

Two of the articles (“Born to the Chip;” “Know Your Students”) focused less on the advantages or disadvantages than on how to understand the changes digital technology has caused in behavior and expectations. I agree that this is going to be a focus and a source of tension in libraries as we try to provide services to the digital generation in addition to patrons who are less, shall we say, ‘wired.’  On the whole, I think that these issues are not insurmountable, and that we need to be constantly aware of change as a constant; we need to constantly evaluate services and technology to see if it serves our purposes and those of our patrons.

It may be that we can use some of that intrinsic motivation and cognitive surplus to engage patrons in the library by supporting the volunteer work and providing a place for people to link up with each other on a local level to support the digital collaborations.

David Wolman’s article was, for me, the least useful of the readings.  Asserting that the complaint is against stupidity is a misreading, I think, of Carr’s point.  The research Carr cites does point to neurological changes in the brain, as happened with previous technological changes, starting with the invention of the alphabet and continuing with maps, mechanical clocks, and the printing press.  No one, not even Carr, has claimed that the Internet is going to destroy civilization, but there are changes that we should take a good look at and try to ameliorate, if possible.  I practice tai chi regularly and other meditative techniques.  Is that a way to retain the qualities of concentration and deep reading?  Who knows?  Isn’t it worth discussion and exploration rather than just asserting that the Internet is all good?