Muddiest Point:
One of the muddiest points of this week concerns the issue of defining “information,” “information technology,” and to distinguish this definition from “knowledge” and “wisdom” (in the DIKW pyramid). I am wondering if it may help to highlight that the definition of “information” and “information technology” depends on the context, on the way it is used, and on the history of the term. Does information really always have to be “true” or “new” as one of the definitions implied? Doesn’t it also facilitate the dissemination of “old” information? And, as Tim Notari has pointed out in his blog entry, isn’t it difficult to determine what is “true” information? And does “information” automatically lead to “knowledge”?
Readings
Lied Library @ Four Years, 2005
While not the most scintillating read, I liked the practical perspective on the experiences with maintaining the technology at Lied library and the realistic tone of the article. The article highlighted the function of the library as a gateway of providing access to computers. It also hints at the challenges and costs associated with this function, and the need to always update the technology in the library (the three year replacement cycle of pc’s). I was interested to read about the restrictions for computer usage to community users of the library (which I suppose are users who are not students), which hints at possible consequences of making the expensive technology accessible to the students – what is open to some, becomes restricted to others. I would be curious to hear how the library is doing now, and how it is dealing with budget cuts and limited resources – how can technology be maintained at this level with limited resources?
Content, nor Containers, OCLC report 2004
I think among the most interesting points of the report is the statement that libraries should help provide context for content, or information, and should help to establish authenticity and provenance of content. For example, libraries can provide information to patrons on how search engines work, which group or company developed them for what purpose, and what kind of information they include, and what information they may exclude. In this respect, reference librarians can not only help patrons to find information, but also explain different ways of accessing information. Who finances OCLC, by the way?
Clifford Lynch, Information Literacy, 1998
While more than ten years old, Clifford Lynch’s appeal to focus information technology literacy not only on the knowledge of computers, and of specific applications, but also on the infrastructure that supports the technology, and on economic, social, political, and historical problems, still resonates today. Beyond becoming familiar with specific applications, this is also what I hope to get out of this class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I liked that you asked who finances OCLC - I was wondering about their angle.
Not that this has much to do with anything, but I found this blog post (http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2009/06/oclc-policy.html) that made it sound like there were some conspiracies concerning OCLC's policies.
I was also interested in the technological maintenance question the Lied article brought up. Money always seems by be the wrench in the works when it comes to improvements.
It is an interesting idea to think of providing information as to how search engines work as the average person doesn't really understand exactly how they work. I've had some explanation on it in a previous computer science class and also during library information sessions in high school but I've never really paid a lot of attention to how they work. If you learn the method with which they use to search, you could easily manipulate it to get better results. Which is always good when you're trying to finish a paper at five in the morning.
Post a Comment