So, within transportation there’s an effort to provide more resources to libraries and information centers.

This isn’t something new, and it’s a continuation of past efforts. For example, in 2001 a group of transportation libraries – in conjunction with the National Transportation Library – formed the Midwest Transportation Knowledge Network (MTKN). Since then, two more “TKN’s” have formed to serve both the eastern and western portions of the country.

On top of this, the  American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Standing Committee on Transportation Research (SCOR) formed the Research Advisory Committee Taskforce on Transportation Knowledge Networks (RAC TKN Task-force). They act as an advisor to the regional knowledge networks.

These are voluntary grassroots associations, by the way. They’re trying to make sure that transportation research, policy-making, and outcomes are well-informed. Why? Well, for starters, in 2007 transportation accounted for 11% of the economy.

This is where I come in. You see, the alphabet soup of technocratic groups that I mentioned earlier are all informal. They have no funding or statutory authority.

Recognizing this, in 2005 a group of states decided to pitch in some money. Taking advantage of the Transportation Pooled Fund Study Program (TPF) through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Wisconsin Department of Transportation started the TPF-5(105) Library Connectivity Pooled Fund. This study didn’t provide funding for non-libraries, but it did offer resources to a segment of the TKN community. As of 2011, Missouri – my home state – has taken the lead in directing it.

In essence, transportation is trying to bake from scratch using an bunch of acronyms.

Like any good cook knows, the final outcome is going to depend on the ingredients used. The problem is, considering how much libraries have changed over the past twenty years, nobody knows what they are anymore. Not only are we baking from scratch, but we’re using a completely new recipe.

• Electronic media has changed user expectations.
• Given government budgets, financial flexibility is not an option.
• Oil and commodity instability hints that we may see a transportation shift within our lifetimes.
• Lines between information producers, providers, and users are blurring.

This represents a great opportunity, but I have to confess that I’m not completely sure what the end result will be. If given a chance to build a modern library network, what would it look like? And, how would it be different from those constructed in the past? Any ideas? It’s important we get this right.

Earlier this year, I had a conversation with a colleague. Anyway, we started talking about digital libraries and how Scribd can serve as a social media repository for libraries. I’ve considered using it, but I’ve always seen externally run programs as “off-limits.”

What do you think? Should I build something on my own? Or, do I bite the bullet and use something I won’t have complete control over?

 Loading ...

I’ve been a faithful Daily Show watcher since high school. So, when Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert – two comedians from Comedy Central – announced their “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” the announcement didn’t strike me as odd. These two men were going to host a rally in Washington, D.C.? So what?

It was obvious that the rally was going to be an extension of their shows. The two have made a career of openly spoofing the media for it’s worst failures. Sure, Stewart and Colbert are liberals, but at the core their criticism has never been one of ideology. It’s been of messaging.

A lot of people don’t realize that.

Keith Olberman, for example, disliked the rally’s message to “take it down a notch.” Apparently, that would risk conceding to Fox News and the right.

Others have argued that the rally accomplished nothing. Or, that it simply mocked legitimate activism by Glenn Beck and the Tea Party.

David Carr’s piece in the New York Times was one of the few that caught the rally’s point while countering that Stewart is wrong in his analysis. TV pundits only reach a small audience. We really are in serious times.

Browsing though the blogs out there, everyone appears to have their own interpretation. That makes sense. Satire is complex. It thrives on individuals drawing their own conclusions. To crystallize things though, I’d like to highlight a few key passages from the rally’s closing.

Reflecting on these passages, Stewart’s point should be clear. The press and the media are guardians of our national discourse. And, for whatever reason they don’t always communicate properly. They mess up. This mislead us. They blow things out of proportion. They sometimes cater to the lowest common denominator, and if you need evidence?

Well, just watch the Daily Show.

Stewart is thriving because the media is seen as failing. And, if anything Saturday’s rally showed that he doesn’t necessarily want them to. Neither does this librarian.

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.

Yesterday, Google rolled out it’s latest in a string of improvements to their search functionality. Google Instant’s, “most obvious change is that you get to the right content much faster than before because you don’t have to finish typing your full search term, or even press “search.” [It...] helps you formulate a better search term by providing instant feedback.” At first I was impressed. Then, I realized this is nothing new.

To balance out the “feelings of euphoria and weightlessness,” here are some reasons why users should to come back to Earth:

All-in-all, I’m pleased with the changes they’ve made. Given some of the hype out there, though, these points sum up exactly what Google Instant is: a nice tweak. We aren’t seeing anything new, it’s not special, and it certainly isn’t a fundamental breakthrough.

Bricks in the Wall: 5.75/10.