Today, during a trip to the store my cashier gave me a flier for flu shots. “Flu shots?” I asked. “At Wal-Mart?” The girl responded, “yes” that Wal-Mart was indeed selling them and that the reason they were advertising so early was because the country ran out last year. On the way to the car I heard my roommate grumble to herself.

“She was wrong.” Sarah muttered. “I should have corrected her. The country didn’t run out last year. Wal-Mart ran out, and the country rationed them for ‘at-risk’ groups.” To clarify, Sarah just got her M.A. in Public Health. She’s about to move to Boston for her Ph.D.

I run into this situation quite a bit: one where someone says something wrong, misguided, or outright false. Where, they don’t bother to check if they are right or not before they speak. The librarian in me is losing hair over this.

Well, maybe that’s not really why, but I’m reminded of a quote from the Confucian Analects – “A gentleman wishes to be slow to speak but quick to act.” The idea here isn’t only that someone should focus on action (Confucius especially valued learning), but that it’s important to make sure you are right before speaking.

It’s an idea that extends well beyond ancient China.

Unfortunately, I’m pessimistic about the ability for most people to develop this trait. It’s all too rare. Naturally, humans have a sort of “bounded rationality,” a problem solving mindset that hones in on answers through fits and starts. The problem is, so long as this is our default behavior, people will always be quick to speak. In any sort of self-governing society this is a bad – or at least an inefficient – thing.

I’ve made the case before that technology doesn’t resolve the problems related to our tenancy toward intellectual laziness.

The idea, of course, that I’ve sought to counter is that the Internet has created a vast democratizing network which gives  a voice to everyone. I’ve opined, “so what?” I have a voice. Does anyone read my blog? Not really. So, does it matter if I have a voice or not when everyone else does? The right and wrong alike? Frank Rich in an op-ed column in the New York Times cuts to the heart of this. He points to ghost written Twitter accounts, an explosion in web-based falsehoods (i.e. that President Obama is a Muslim), and astro-turf political sites that mislead people about popular opinions.

Without touching on how this happens, Rich notes that dishonesty, carefully crafted communication, and our behavioral tendencies all undermine the web’s potential. In short, the things that have made democracy tough to manage before (lies, money, tendencies to not fact-check, and a misinformed electorate) exist today today. Moreover, these problems haven‘t been eliminated by the Internet and it’s ability to provide easily accessible information.

All that the web has done is supercharge who we are – flawed people.

Improving the quality of public information is important. But, it can’t be achieved by simply making more of it accessible. The problem is us. It’s our inability to separate the truth from the lies. It’s our intellectual laziness. It’s our dishonesty. It’s our desire to get what we want and sell our personal beliefs.

So long as technology fails to address the limitations we have, it will always be limited by them. And, this is why an old-school librarian approach still matters.

While my I haven’t had many substantial posts as of late I recalled an old conversation during my recent flight to Seattle. Brian, an old high school teammate, teaches Middle School History and Civics in Carthage, Missouri and tries to integrate new media into his curriculum whenever possible. I mentioned that there are quite a few online primary source materials. Moreover, there are several other organizations such as the Center for New Media and History at George Mason University which do some really cool work.

Most students are introduced to primary and secondary sources in Middle or High School, but I’m not convinced that they really get the full breadth of the two. I know that for myself  the idea was this:

Primary - original source

Secondary - interpretive source

The truth is that not all students take away anything here. Notably, it is very important to know that being able to distinguish between primary and secondary sources can be very helpful from a research perspective. And… the Internet can help. Here’s how.

For several years now librarians have been making the argument that we don’t need to get patrons to come to us but that we need to go to our patrons. Libraries need to adopt Twitter, use Blogs, and offer content online. Assuming that libraries and archives take this approach, it’s not much of a stretch to teach High School students (who rely on the internet anyway) that you can find digital copies of primary sources online. And, once they realize this, the point also can be made that they can find originals in their physical host institutions too.

Student familiarities with primary source materials are often limited by access. There just aren’t many obvious and marketed archival repositories in existence. For example, how many of you had a chance to utilize NARA’s resources when working on your High School papers? College papers? I’m sure the answer is none and I think it gets to very important point. If archivists can remove this obstacle then it’s more feasible for a teacher utilize a broad spectrum primary sources; online of course. Sure, doing so doesn’t ensure that that students will “get it” (that primary sources are historical artifacts which can commonly be used as evidence), but it certainly can provide more opportunities for them to learn.

I was browsing the OCLC website today and happened to notice a report funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (see: From Awareness to Funding: A study of library support in America). I haven’t read it yet but some of the points are exceptionally ironic. Take the find that:

Don’t get me wrong.  I wholeheartedly agree, but I can’t help but wonder what public libraries are doing to set themselves apart? How are they “transformational?” In what way are they social, economic, or political catalysts? I may be feeling overly skeptical today but I just don’t think they are. I’m even a little pessimistic about their chances of becoming something more. For better or worse I see public libraries as auxiliaries that are largely limited to transforming the world around them by participating in your generic community outreach? Public libraries are the guarantors of information, a local community center, and help facilitate education. That’s why we have em’.

In an era where instant gratification, entertainment, and quick fixes are the norm helping educate the general populace can only do so much. That is, with this as they are…