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

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.

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’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.

The popular conception of a Librarian is as rooted in the public’s consciousness as any other tried and true profession. Doctor, Lawyer, Teacher, Police Officer. Librarian. But, what happens when an entire well-regarded line of work undergoes a fundamental transformation? It’s hard to say, and the devil is in the details, but I get the impression that for anyone who works with electronic media today the devil is the details.

As journalists, librarians, researchers, and others take on added roles as information disseminators the lines continue to blur between previously separated professions.

Librarians traditionally have held two responsibilities: maintaining libraries (duh!) and helping patrons conduct research. Journalists, on the other hand, have been responsible for informing the public of noteworthy events (sometimes). Researchers have always researched. Given a preponderance of free, easily accessible electronic information, though, professionals in different fields are starting to find themselves pulling switch duty. A few cases in point:

• Google is digitizing library books and calling it “web content.”
• Journalists for the New York Times routinely add interactive web applications to their articles.
• Librarians are creating totally unique information resources instead of just finding them.

Put succinctly, the United States  is no longer an industrial nation but a knowledge based one.

Ok. So, with job responsibilities bluring together – and new media in a state of flux – it’s hard to tell the extent to which this is happening. The future is always clouded, and it’s impossible to say what this means for future Librarians, but it’s still possible to define  a set of job requirements that can be expected to remain in place foreseeable future.

What would this “new model librarian” look like?

Citing a Wikipedia article the general idea is of an Internet that, “allows software agents to carry out sophisticated tasks for users, making meaningful connections between bits of information so that ‘computers can perform more of the tedious work involved in finding, combining, and acting upon information on the web.’” Specifically, using a set of tools like RDF and OWL, the idea is to link semantic meanings to automate information retrieval. You’ll note how much more complex this idea is than the one behind HTML – markup.

I’m willing to venture that we need to understand more before we really see progress made. Then again, I wasn’t surveyed.

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.

It’s kinda a necessity to manage things online.

In the interim, I’ve been working to collaborate with the Missouri State Library’s “State Publications Access Program.” Most of the .pdf files I want to manage belong there anyway and working with them guarantees they’ll be preserved. Plus, it might open a doorway in the future to host more material. The catch is, I need to find a way to re-work everything to where it’s user friendly. Then there’s SLA in New Orleans come June. So much for my hobbies.

This morning I took the time to read through a variety of sources concerning Congresses’ effort and the results were telling. Predictably, everything fell into camps that catered to their target demographic’s pre-conceived perceptions. What does this mean for the future of objective research? Is the “media,” if such a group exists anymore, fostering too much democracy?

My point isn’t so much that the media are to blame for Americans not “getting along.” As long as differences in opinion have existed, so have different information sources. Plus, to stay solvent a number of news agencies have had to market to specific audiences. Instead, what I’m arguing is that we are seeing something unique thanks to information being so easy to produce and find.

Newspapers, broadcasters, and other media producers have to segment the market to thrive. Simultaneously, people can find skewed information that backs up their beliefs easier than ever before. The two form a circular process in which the public can look for what they want and the media can produce more of it. They rely on one another. They’re supercharged by the internet and computers. It’s common to talk about clamor in democracy as occurring in a feedback room. I think a completely different feedback process is occurring as we speak.

With information as accessible as it ever was, current news spreads fast.  But, is that a good thing? Is there a dark side to having quick access to information? I don’t doubt that there are many, many benefits,  but it’s also plausible that a universal acceptance of new media can lead to an inevitable playing toward the lowest common denominator?

Like sex, anger and frustration sell remarkably well.

Now, to be fair there’s a long tradition in journalism of people playing to others feelings, and new media doesn’t change that, but it’s also realistic to believe we are witnessing a sort of megaphone effect. People naturally look to validate their own beliefs and we all have source biases. But, given that there are so many sources out there the promulgation of information means that today it’s possible to validate anything. Once upon a time objective research was considered to be important. Today it garners CNN’s ratings.

As time goes on and the general public “backs up” their arguments using easily found resources, I suspect, they will also come to more rigidly defend them. After all if you can find it quickly then it must be true, right? The more rigidly the general public defends their arguments, of course, the more likely we are to see an increase in the volume of national discourse.

If this is the case, then the free flow of information may actually come at a cost. Blogs, Twitter,  and the changing technology driving shifts in information seeking behaviors… I see them as partially to blaim.

Does anyone know of something that I should be reading?

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?