http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gQBJ3FLg32GX_cAVFLQo1feO6Ckg
In the article, Massive EU Online Library Looks to Compete with Google, the author describes the newest breach in technology. Thursday, November 20, 2008, the EU is launching it’s Europeana digital library to bring together many of the great works that have been collected throughout libraries worldwide. This new technology is not just limited to books either, it will consist of artwork, published readings, films, maps, sound recordings, newspapers, manuscripts, documents, and much more.
The point of this development is that the common person can simply click a button and access libraries and other information storing facilities without having to travel halfway across the globe. Reeding stated that Europeana gives a chance to, "give greater visibility to all the treasures hidden deep in our libraries, museums and archives and compare masterpieces that were, until now, spread around the four corners of the globe."
The prototype that is to be released today will include two million digital items and can be found at www.europeana.eu, which was composed by just 14 staff members. The goal is to have around ten million pieces of work on the site by the year 2010 which is still quite minuscule compared to the 2.5 billion books that contained in Europe’s common libraries.
This digitalization was first attempted by Microsoft in 2006 but was abandoned 18 months later due to the massive amount of time and effort such a project will take. Also, Google claims to have around seven million books available on it’s “Google Book Search” which became available in 2004. Europeana hopes to outnumber that in time.
I believe that this is one of the biggest steps in the scholarly world to date. The idea of being able to access some of the most fascinating works ever invented is quite intriguing and I hope that everything goes according to plan. The only thing I fear is the idea that having all these books at the click of a mouse will interfere with the importance of libraries. I still feel that it is important to be able to actually go into a library and see all that they have to offer to the public.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Reading Report #5
Upon reading the reserves article “Web Hoaxes, Counterfeit Sites and Other Spurious Information on the Web”, by Paul S. Piper, I really began to second-guess my primary information gathering source. The author of this piece describes many different types of false websites such as hoaxes, counterfeit sites, misinformation, fictitious sites, parodies, spoofs, and hacks. I never realized just how many different types of lies there were but Piper did an excellent job of explaining how to distinguish between the many fields.
Throughout the article, Piper gave many examples of the types of sites that are (or were) floating around on cyberspace. Some of them are quite comical while others can be very shocking and damaging. One that I wish he would have mentioned is http://www.dhmo.org/ which is a website that tells the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. This website was taken very seriously, some governments even started campaigns warning people of the dangerous effects of this clear, odorless, tasteless, substance that the educated know to be H2O, or to put it simply, water! I first learned of this page when I was in high school and at first, it deceived me too. There are many sites out there that have the same agenda as this page does, and many of them are believed to be true by the gullible people in the digital society.
After describing the various forms of fake websites available, Piper took an interesting stance on the idea of falsifying the web. When I first read about the many types of sites there are where the main purpose is to make the readers look idiotic, I thought this was an outrage. However, Piper looks at them as possibly very helpful at times. Some of these sites, although biased and tweaked, can offer some very informative information and also opposing viewpoints of very real arguments. Others can be used for a good laugh. Piper supports the allowance of these websites to be on the internet but cautions readers in how to be aware that you are in fact reading one of these sites. At the end of his piece, he tells of the ways that you can differentiate between fact and fiction and also gives a number of sites to help the everyday reader along in their detective work.
I greatly appreciated this article, for it helped me to recognize very important cues that are needed in today’s information gathering. Although I believe these websites should all be required to state somewhere that the information they are disclosing is false or biased, I understand that this is impossible and unreasonable. Therefore, I am thankful that Piper took the time to inform the misinformed with his article.
Throughout the article, Piper gave many examples of the types of sites that are (or were) floating around on cyberspace. Some of them are quite comical while others can be very shocking and damaging. One that I wish he would have mentioned is http://www.dhmo.org/ which is a website that tells the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. This website was taken very seriously, some governments even started campaigns warning people of the dangerous effects of this clear, odorless, tasteless, substance that the educated know to be H2O, or to put it simply, water! I first learned of this page when I was in high school and at first, it deceived me too. There are many sites out there that have the same agenda as this page does, and many of them are believed to be true by the gullible people in the digital society.
After describing the various forms of fake websites available, Piper took an interesting stance on the idea of falsifying the web. When I first read about the many types of sites there are where the main purpose is to make the readers look idiotic, I thought this was an outrage. However, Piper looks at them as possibly very helpful at times. Some of these sites, although biased and tweaked, can offer some very informative information and also opposing viewpoints of very real arguments. Others can be used for a good laugh. Piper supports the allowance of these websites to be on the internet but cautions readers in how to be aware that you are in fact reading one of these sites. At the end of his piece, he tells of the ways that you can differentiate between fact and fiction and also gives a number of sites to help the everyday reader along in their detective work.
I greatly appreciated this article, for it helped me to recognize very important cues that are needed in today’s information gathering. Although I believe these websites should all be required to state somewhere that the information they are disclosing is false or biased, I understand that this is impossible and unreasonable. Therefore, I am thankful that Piper took the time to inform the misinformed with his article.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Reading Report #4
In the article, Can WIKIPEDIA Ever Make the Grade?, the author begins this section by describing Mr. Halavais's actions against Wikipedia. The professor went onto this online encyclopedia under a false name and entered in inaccurate information on various websites to check the very popular information site's credibility. Within three hours of his different postings, every single one of his fallacies were deleted from the site by Wikipedia's quick and accurate editors.
However, some experts still find Wikipedia offensive since they do not allow anyone to have priority, which many scholars feel they should receive. False information is still leaking out and Wikipedia is doing everything they can to prevent these instances from reoccurring. The co-founder insists that the satisfaction behind Wikipedia is not based on growth but instead on quality for the information provided and now many professors are starting to contribute their knowledge to the website's growth.
To fully judge the accuracy of Wikipedia, the journal Nature decided to compare some of it's scientific articles to that of Encyclopaedia Britannica. After careful review, they found that the two sources were hand-in-hand on their information, that Wikipedia was infact reliable. However, Wikipedia is more directed to the studies of the sciences versus humanities and some believe that the information is biasedly directed towards those studies.
When graded, the site ranged from an A to a C, based on who was doing the evaluation and on what topic, but all agreed that there was definite room for improvement. Hopefully the majority of the mistakes that are throughout the online encyclopedia will be caught and corrected to increase the reputation of this incredibly easy to access information site since Wikipedia is the first place many students, like myself, visit.
However, some experts still find Wikipedia offensive since they do not allow anyone to have priority, which many scholars feel they should receive. False information is still leaking out and Wikipedia is doing everything they can to prevent these instances from reoccurring. The co-founder insists that the satisfaction behind Wikipedia is not based on growth but instead on quality for the information provided and now many professors are starting to contribute their knowledge to the website's growth.
To fully judge the accuracy of Wikipedia, the journal Nature decided to compare some of it's scientific articles to that of Encyclopaedia Britannica. After careful review, they found that the two sources were hand-in-hand on their information, that Wikipedia was infact reliable. However, Wikipedia is more directed to the studies of the sciences versus humanities and some believe that the information is biasedly directed towards those studies.
When graded, the site ranged from an A to a C, based on who was doing the evaluation and on what topic, but all agreed that there was definite room for improvement. Hopefully the majority of the mistakes that are throughout the online encyclopedia will be caught and corrected to increase the reputation of this incredibly easy to access information site since Wikipedia is the first place many students, like myself, visit.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
LIB 103 Reading Report # 2
Upon reading the article from the journal Chronicle of Higher Education titled “The Infodiet: How Libraries Can Offer an Appetizing Alternative to Google”, I must say that I agree with the argument that students need to go back to the libraries to find real, relevant information and venture away from the convenience of Google.
Many of my teachers and professors throughout the years have made it a requirement to include sources outside of the internet for research projects, some banning the online information system altogether, and at first I thought they were absurd. However, after further speculation of the data that anyone can post on Google and other browsers, it has become apparent as to why. Although it may be more convenient to just type in what you are looking for in the privacy of your own home, a portion of the purpose of doing a research project is lost. Some of the information is grossly mistaken and others may be too broad to really give you the point in which you started out to make.
Libraries and the information they provide can do just the opposite for you if the students are taught how to use them to their fullest capacity. Whether it is consulting a librarian or even using their databases to find the relevant sources necessary, the information you gather is guaranteed to be based off of more factual information. Professors and institutions should take greater care in educating their students in these fields.
I also agreed on the idea of “google-izing” the libraries information technologies. Whether it makes it more convenient or not, the idea of the professional system being targeted around what the current day student is used to would most likely appeal to many more scholars and help them adapt to the institutional way of acquiring information. Plus, being a student on the university level myself, I personally know that sometimes a library can be very overwhelming. Thankfully, the new online sources and catalogs have helped that slightly, but only to those who know they exist and how to use them.
So to me, the question should be how can universities teach students how to use the technologies that are available to them? Instead of complaining that the newer generations are seeking lazier research methods, maybe the real concern should be how can the educators enhance their pupils knowledge of what really can be made available to them with a different click of a button.
Many of my teachers and professors throughout the years have made it a requirement to include sources outside of the internet for research projects, some banning the online information system altogether, and at first I thought they were absurd. However, after further speculation of the data that anyone can post on Google and other browsers, it has become apparent as to why. Although it may be more convenient to just type in what you are looking for in the privacy of your own home, a portion of the purpose of doing a research project is lost. Some of the information is grossly mistaken and others may be too broad to really give you the point in which you started out to make.
Libraries and the information they provide can do just the opposite for you if the students are taught how to use them to their fullest capacity. Whether it is consulting a librarian or even using their databases to find the relevant sources necessary, the information you gather is guaranteed to be based off of more factual information. Professors and institutions should take greater care in educating their students in these fields.
I also agreed on the idea of “google-izing” the libraries information technologies. Whether it makes it more convenient or not, the idea of the professional system being targeted around what the current day student is used to would most likely appeal to many more scholars and help them adapt to the institutional way of acquiring information. Plus, being a student on the university level myself, I personally know that sometimes a library can be very overwhelming. Thankfully, the new online sources and catalogs have helped that slightly, but only to those who know they exist and how to use them.
So to me, the question should be how can universities teach students how to use the technologies that are available to them? Instead of complaining that the newer generations are seeking lazier research methods, maybe the real concern should be how can the educators enhance their pupils knowledge of what really can be made available to them with a different click of a button.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
News Report #1
In the article, Google Plays Big Brother, the author discusses the new Google Chrome download. It has a very sleek and professional appearance, but the terms of agreement are quite skeptical. In one of the sections, Google states that any content that is submitted upon this new download becomes the property of Google, meaning that any research or information that is posted can be subject to public display, and can be modified, adapted, or translated for any purpose that Google may find. As the author states, this can be very damaging to businesses and corporations. Once the issue was brought to Google’s attention, their spokesperson stated that statement is being addressed and section 11 will be modified to deal with the issues, which is good to hear but will they actually go through with the changes?
Another issue with the program is their advertisements. Google makes most of its’ revenue from these ads and states that there may be an increase of them on this “improved” search engine. They claim that they will be related to the inquired information of the user, which takes us right back to them monitoring what is being put into their search engines.
This information disturbs me greatly. I do not believe that anyone should have the right to invade the everyday person’s privacy in such an intimate way. Google may feel they have the right to do so, but how can they be sure what the information is being used for? As discussed before in class, what if a student who is doing a research project on world weapons stumbles across a search for the construction of a bomb? Or maybe a person is in field work and has to be able to identify a meth lab so they must do research on the chemicals used to make the illegal drug? Google (and other spy programs) may see the straight forward red flag, but they have no way of telling what that information might be used for.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/tech-bottom-line/archives/2008/09/google_plays_bi.html
Tech's Bottom Line Bill Snyder » Google plays Big Brother
Another issue with the program is their advertisements. Google makes most of its’ revenue from these ads and states that there may be an increase of them on this “improved” search engine. They claim that they will be related to the inquired information of the user, which takes us right back to them monitoring what is being put into their search engines.
This information disturbs me greatly. I do not believe that anyone should have the right to invade the everyday person’s privacy in such an intimate way. Google may feel they have the right to do so, but how can they be sure what the information is being used for? As discussed before in class, what if a student who is doing a research project on world weapons stumbles across a search for the construction of a bomb? Or maybe a person is in field work and has to be able to identify a meth lab so they must do research on the chemicals used to make the illegal drug? Google (and other spy programs) may see the straight forward red flag, but they have no way of telling what that information might be used for.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/tech-bottom-line/archives/2008/09/google_plays_bi.html
Tech's Bottom Line Bill Snyder » Google plays Big Brother
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)