Did you hear? The web is dead.

For their September issue, Wired magazine wrote a great piece on the changing dynamics of web traffic. As it turns out, the web really isn’t going away, but Internet use has been shifting from browsers (i.e. Firefox, Internet Explorer) to mobile and specialized applications. This observation is an interesting one, because if it holds true then vendors might be able to monetize content again.

I’m not holding my breath. Still, it could present an opportunity for libraries. Here’s why.

Until recently, net usage implied a web-browser and some sort of computer. Web-applications were sometimes involved, but the common denominator was that everyone used a web-browser for delivery.  Data usually went through this common interface.

Enter mobile computing and a host of special programs.

I-Phones, Blackberrys and other comparable devices are more portable than laptop computers. The catch is they don’t work well for web browsing. To counter this, developers started creating specialized programs for them called “apps.” Moreover, other programs like Skype have taken off over the past few years without relying on the web. They just use the Internet instead of web-pages.

All of this highlights the trend that Wired spoke of earlier – a marketplace moving to local applications which don’t freely share data. And, it gets to the crux of my statement about monetizing content.

If information isn’t shared then it can be controlled.

If information can be controlled then the web will, obviously, become less open.

If the web is less open then that will make libraries more important.

Originally, libraries were formed to serve as single, centralized cost-saving repositories of information. Back in the early 1990′s the web started started supplementing (or supplanting) that role. If it turns out that resources stop being posted to the web in a free and accessible way… the beast will starve. Or at least become a lot weaker. Given this, it seems very feasible that Libraries could work with publishers to fit themselves into a new Internet.

I’m not sure all of this will happen, but I can see that media producers would prefer that Libraries make information available rather than the alternative. When something is posted via a web page that makes it hard to charge for.

Last October I singled out Gary Nodler (R-Sen.) from Joplin, because he helped to block the use of laptops by Missouri State Senators. At the time I said I wouldn’t vote for him if he ever runs for a statewide office.  Turns out he is. He’s looking to take Roy Blunt’s U.S. Representative seat in southwest Missouri where I grew up.

My, how the tables turn!

This reminds me of why Internet access (and digital libraries) need to be accessible to lawmakers. And, with information becoming ambiently findable, why they need to be able to fact check one another in real time. The Annenburg Public Policy Center seems to understand this. They host FactCheck.org. So does the St. Petersburg Times which produces the Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact website. Unfortunately, not all of Missouri’s Senators do. Traditional media can’t move at the speed of assertion.

I may have been too hard on Sen. Nodler, especially after I found this site, but given any viewing of “Countdown with Keith Olberman” or “The O’Riley Factor” it’s obvious that political fact checking has it’s own bizarre standard. Interestingly, the media has become segmented in recent years which has allowed political hacks to justify almost anything.

This is a common problem. The internet, radio, and television are all  littered with falsehoods and half-truths, partially because anyone can slap an something together capable of reaching a wide audience. If properly approached, though, this problem can be resolved.

Basically, my argument is this. Given access to quality, agreed upon information sources, and perhaps a revised legislative process, politicians can improve the quality of discourse as debate occurs. If provided the opportunity to call one another out using evidence (the moment something is wrongly asserted), politicians then could, hopefully, improve their bottom line.

Of course they need to have access to the necessary information first, and they need to agree where to get it. The Daily Kos and the Drudge Report obviously should be ruled out.

A few weeks back I did a “Lunch n’ Learn” presentation for MoDOT staff on basic internet searching. I’m still not sure how useful it was (the presentation was very high-level), but I’m posting it here anyway. Lift, borrow, or plagiarize to your heart’s content.

In a previous post I hinted that working as a solo librarian was making me feel alienated.

After reading a colleague’s post at Library Attack I’m convinced that others feel the same way too. In fact, I’m willing to bet that any librarian who dosen’t work in a traditional environment will likely suffer from some form of existential dread. This probably varies in scope, of course, but there are several reasons to believe we’re a Kierkegaardian bunch.

First, as specified in my post on solo librarianship we don’t have co-workers who share our expertise. We’re the only librarian in the library! Without a group to confide in it’s difficult to vent workplace frustrations, explain complex technical problems to others, or seek professional validation. All of these situations can elicit feelings of detachment.

Second, embedded librarians usually blur the lines between job roles to the point that it can become disorienting. One instance was mentioned in another of my posts that patrons assume “because you can find something on a subject and talk about… then it you’re an authority.” Not true! Plus, embedded librarians can always become more interested in the applied side of things too. If you don’t do library work it’s hard to conceive of yourself as a librarian.

Last, technology is bypassing and shaking up traditional duties. Just because someone takes classes to do one thing they won’t necessarily end out doing it. Refer to my point earlier. If you don’t do library work it’s hard to conceive of yourself as a librarian.

From when we grew up, we were taught that librarians are people who check out books. That they tell us to be quiet and ask us to not bring food or drink into the library. Unfortionately, this conception is blantantly at odds with a number of progressive manefestations within the profession. As a young librarian, I wonder what sort of cracks this might produce? Most imporntantly, if we don’t know “who we are” then how can they know what to do for our patrons?