What would you classify this as? A video? A website? Music? In all honesty, I’m not sure any of these terms capture the breadth of the medium. As a side note, props to Google for  using this to promote Chrome. Shameless, but effective.

Edit: This is seriously pushing me to learn more JavaScript.

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.

Whatdya know?

A recent Gallup poll found that only 25% of Americans express “quite a lot of confidence” in newspapers. Television news, believe it or not, fares even worse with just 22% expressing confidence. Too bad they didn’t survey alternative sources or check for source bias. I guarantee you that conservatives trust Fox News more than broadcast news as a whole.

Also, all of this begs the question. Where’s the literacy education going on out there? And, do Americans know how information sources like this are produced?

I said it once. I said it twice. I even said it a third time. Now, the internet utopians have shame on their hands. The message, as they say, might be the medium but what happens when a medium encourages people to stop double-checking their facts?

I’m talking here, of course, about the failure of the media, the government and the “blogosphere” to handle the Shirley Shirod case.

In case you aren’t familiar, three weeks ago a conservative pundit posted an online video of Mrs. Shirod, a Department of Agriculture official, speaking on race and racism. A previous victim, Shirley spoke candidly about her experiences but several statements were used to claim reverse discrimination. To make a long story short, the media picked up on the clip, she was fired, and nobody verified anything. Then the truth came out – her story was a tale of redemption. The clips where out of context.

Over the past year or two, Nicholas Carr has been arguing with journalists and new media advocates about the merits of the Internet. His argument isn’t so much that the Internet is bad as that it encourages short-sighted behavior.

This is the basic idea:

The net allows for quick, easy access to information. Moreover, it’s easy to produce, publish and edit electronic material. Part of new media’s success is due to it’s ease of use and web accessibility. But, in making things easier and more accessible an over-reliance on the internet encourages users to think superficially. Sources, facts and opinions are questioned less.

In short, Carr’s thesis is that the internet works well because it feeds into human nature. Interactivity is an impulsive behavior. But, our innate proclivities often result in negative consequences. Like people getting  fired. The fact that a book titled “Don’t Make Me Think“  epitomizes a mainstream approach to web development speaks volumes about it’s merits and demerits.

At it’s best the web is intuitive to users and creates a democratizing effect. We can all act on instinct, skim a page, or post to Facebook. It is also true, however, that an over-reliance on intuition does not lend well to careful observation.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the Internet is a great thing. It’s perfectly feasible for people to learn to use it in a responsible way. To do that, though, I think requires the careful cultivation of our habits. Once upon a time focused thought was encouraged. Now, we rush to use computers as a “time saver.”

Being able to read does not make one fully literate. Neither does being able to use the internet. Yet, we continue to be obsessed with accessibility and being able to find information as quick as possible.

Bad idea. Here’s why.

Once upon a time publishing was a controlled, one-shot process. A lot of time and effort went into printing material. Now, anyone can publish to the web and it’s easy to have trouble distinguishing between “good” and “bad” information. There’s so much! Format, or creator, doesn’t necessarily determine quality but we aren’t taught how to identify quality information. I never took a class to tell the truth from lies. Most people don’t underlying mechanisms that make new media function either.

Unfamiliarity limits perspective.

Moreover, as companies like Google emphasize ease of use… finding quality information takes a back seat. The nature of the web is open and free, but that can be a bad thing. Especially, when you don’t realize what you’re dealing with.