While we’re talking about social software, let’s talk about libraries using the tools that their students and patrons are already using. Union College in Schenectaty NY takes advantage of iTunes’ feature allowing other people on the same network to listen to each other’s music. So, if I’m at the library using the wireless and someone else is at the library using the wireless and has decided to make their music available, I can listen to it as if it were my music. The library uses their own copy of iTunes to offer tracks of new music that is available for checkout at the library. Innovative, free and clever!
Flickr/Yahoo & Library collaboration
Coming on the heels of the recent news about Google’s foray into international government entanglement, here’s some encouraging news perhaps. Flickr is working with the National Library of Australia to “build a image bank with over a million images to be managed by the National Library of Australia.” This seems to not be an archival process but a way for the library to use what Flickr does best, upload, store and allow tagging and categorization of lots of digial images, combined with the mission and purpose of the library. I’m not sure how the library is managing these photos, but it will be fun to see contemporary photos in the PictureAustralia database. I saw a demo of this project when I was in Australia last year, it’s a pretty great resource. [thanks mom]
when is a search engine not a search engine?
Is it okay to remove sites from search results in response to lawsuits? Check out this search and make sure you read the disclaimer at the bottom. Then read about Google agreeing to censor their results in China, begging the question “Are censored results better than none at all?” Gmail and Blogger will also not be available to Chinese users of Google. As a quickie example, you can see the results for Tiananmen Square searches: US Google, Chinese Google, Chinese Google search using Chinese characters. The Chinese searches have the disclaimer “æ®å½“地法律法规和政ç–，部分æœç´¢ç»“果未予显示” or “In accordance with local laws, regulations and policies, part of these search results are not displayed.” This is all in addition to other blocking strategies, commonly referred to as The Great Firewall of China. However in this case Google.cn doesn’t just block searches for keywords, it blocks selectively sometimes without saying that it’s doing so. Slightly more explanation and intrigue over at Search Engine Watch, Google Blogoscoped and Google’s own official blog.
Why does this matter to librarians? Well, it’s obvious how it matters to librarians in China. It also calls into question the very idea of objectivity in search engines everywhere. As Google spends more time and effort currying favor with librarians trying to show how sympatico they are, this move is a departure from expanding access. People who search Google.cn for topics like Tibet or Falun Gong (or possible even other less innocuous topics) won’t just find an absence of results, they’ll find results that are skewed towards the Chinese government’s policies about those topics. That’s wrong. Pundits argue that this is a sensible move for Google from a business perspective, and I won’t debate that, but it does serve to starkly highlight the differences in saying “free acces to information” if you’re a for-profit shareholder-owned company. Any librarian who has had to grapple with a filter with an unknown blacklist will be familiar with the struggles that people on the non-filtered side of Google are going through trying to figure out just what is happening. [metafilter]
Prelinger Library is blogging
I’m trying to find a way to seamlessly integrate longer thought out posts with fewer links in with the shorter quick-link type posts I usually write. There may be some experimentation here over the next few days. For now, please enjoy the brand new Prelinger Library Blog and if you are in the Bay Area in California, please stop by and visit the Prelinger Library in person.
Dear ALA, how is that new website going?
A colleague of mine works for one of the companies invited to go to Chicago to present their proposal to ALA for the content management system for new ALA website. Since travelling to Chicago on their own dime in June, they haven’t head a word from ALA. I’ve heard, informally, that the field has been narrowed to two, possibly one candidate. It’s too bad that formally the other candidates haven’t heard anything. Especially bad, since they have blogs and can express their displeasure online. From the school of “I don’t know what Library 2.0 is exactly, but I know it when I see it” this sort of quick widely-distributable feedback is part of it, and that’s the good news and the bad news for some libraries. Please read An Open Letter to ALA. update: apparently Openflows has now heard from ALA. This post had nothing to do with that.