Category: Uncategorized

A motion from the Faculty of Information Studies at the University of Toronto proposes to drop ‘studies’ from their name so as to create the more elegant Faculty of Information. If approved, as seems likely, this will create another information school, joining Texas, Washington, Berkeley, Michigan, and FSU as having names representing the broad field. As noted in the motion, there will come a time when one wonders why we were ever called anything else (info studies, info science etc.). That day is getting nearer. Curiously, the old argument was about dropping the L word, but the Toronto naming indicates that the naming issue has evolved from those heated debates and now more accurately reflects the increased meaningfulness of information as a term for a field.

the sunday New York Times carried an interesting article on the end of paper encyclopedia, noting that Brockhaus in Germany announced it would electronically publish all 300,000 of its articles, which have been reviewed and refined through two centuries of print editions. A spokesperson noted that they may never again release a paper version (though you know as soon as someone says this, there’s a boutique edition just waiting to be snapped up). Strikingly, the NYT piece stated that as extensive as the Brockhaus content is, it is dwarfed by the nearly 2 million entries in English on Wikipedia. Even Encyclopedia Brittannica, with its 32 volumes, cannot compare in sheer size to this.

Naturally people complain that the content is not as reliable or that it’s easy to spoof Wikipedia but people forget that the collective effort of the majority of Wikipedia contributors is amazingly adept at monitoring and correcting problems. That two million articles can be created and maintained so rapidly, and satisfy millions of users who are not all gullible, term-paper copying high-schoolers, is the real miracle here. If we can get here in a decade, imagine how good it might be in two more? And Wikipedia is just one example, there are others such as Citizendium, whose tag line is “we are creating the world’s most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base” and involves greater editorial control than Wikipedia, or The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, where entries are updated by a team of experts. The information world is being shaped as we live, get involved (or alternatively, sit on the sidelines and complain, someone might mistake you for an ‘expert’).

Yes, the word is that the trauma has ended – CS is the sexy once more. Well maybe it’s not quite as unappealing as it was…….but is it really a case of ‘geek chic‘? Oh well, the numbers of grads, if you look at them, are still half of where they stood a decade ago. Part of the attraction seems to be the embracing of new areas under the CS heading (forensics, security etc.) so one can hope for change, especially if TV shows can start presenting computer scientists as action heroes. Is it churlish of me to note that applications to our program are through the roof? But we are not graduating more, we are just graduating better. Now that’s sexy!

John Berry’s opinion piece on the Vanishing Librarians has created a tornado of hot air on JESSE, a discussion list for educators in LIS. Most are reacting to his trotting out of the tired argument about LIS schools being ‘invaded’ by faculty from other disciplines, using it as a launch pad for some ill-informed attacks on new information tools and knee-jerk defenses of some imagined glorious past when an LIS degree was pure. Most of this seems a mis-reading of Berry’s piece which I interpret is an attack on what he views as the deskilling of library professionals at the hands of managers, vendors and an a lazy public more satisfied with Amazon than they have any right to be (apparently), with a pro-forma dig at the LIS world added for good measure. In the battle between logic and emotion, there is usually only one outcome and while it is apparently easy to blame the LIS programs and their faculty for this state of affairs, Berry’s piece suggests he is really criticizing the leaders of libraries for dumbing down services and jobs. Canute-like protestations are not unusual in this world but it’s clear the desire for libraries as bastions of education above all, and at all costs, lives on among those who never have to pay the costs.

My own students raised this in class last week and I attempted to show them that skills are not the same as labels, and arguing about the label rather than the skills would not provide much insight, but it might make you feel better. After all, being disgruntled and hiding behind the line that one is just an old-fashioned standard-bearer is a cheap rhetorical device long beloved of those who don’t want to deal with change. Librarians are not vanishing but I suspect the idea of what constitutes a librarian is now less in agreement among employers, educators, and professionals than at any time in the recent past. Berry does raise a valid point though since the data from recent labor studies I heard at ALISE suggested the largest growth in employment within libraries was for positions filled by people without ALA-accredited degrees. Perhaps the employers need to weigh in more on this. Is it just possible that some programs are not producing the right level of professional, or that some graduates care more about the credential than the education? Perhaps LIS programs are to blame after all, but not in the way most people have concluded.

I had the pleasure of attending the debate here on campus last night (one of the privileges of being dean) and was most impressed with both candidates – their intelligence and ability to debate on their feet in front of a large audience suggested to me that both these folks are very able. Equally impressive was the CNN operation that turned a recreation hall into a TV venue in a matter of days, setting up everything from the stage to the security process, which I hasten to add was more efficient than any airport I’ve flown through in recent years and as unforgiving of inappropriate items (the guy in front of me had to hand over his cell phone, which we had been warned to leave in our cars or face confiscation; no idea if he ever got it back, but he did not seem too perturbed at the loss anyhow). The ability of the organizers to move a crowd in, keep them quiet on demand, while allowing for breaks, was a model of organizational efficiency. That several thousand people would sit rapt to discussions of economic policy and possible plagiarism also gave one hope that there is intelligence left in our society. Much cheering for many points and Barack really does have charisma as a speaker, but it being a campus, the biggest cheer in my section was for Hilary asking for an end to the attacks on science! Now there’s a political agenda some of us can get behind. All told, it was a stirring example of the power and relevance of political discourse to our lives even if I only came away thinking either of them would make a great choice as president.

Back from the cattle-market that is the ALISE hiring conference (please people, don’t think that cornering a faculty member and thrusting your resume upon them is a good way of getting a job….someone must be telling you otherwise or there is no other way to explain this behavior), I note that there is now a digital edition of the CACM which looks good and in which an article by Jeannette Wing entitled: Five Deep Questions for Computing, includes the following:

What is Information?
What is Intelligence?
How can we build complex systems simply?

Funny, I thought these were information questions. In fact, coupled with the previous months issue where Ben Shneiderman spoke of computing as being in the game of accelerating discovery, you might be confused for wondering what truly are the differences between our fields? I make no broad claims to have the answer but I don’t wish to be thought of as a computer scientist. Maybe the information field should be asking: ‘What is computing?’

Bill Aspray of IU’s School of Informatics provided the Schneider Distinguished Lecture 2007 at the School of Information here in Austin yesterday, providing a detailed overview of the status of internet studies as a professional field of enquiry in the academy. I don’t care for the term ‘internet studies’ but as he noted, think ‘informatics’ or ‘information studies’ when you hear the term and the rest of his analysis applies. The Daily Texan coverage highlights the curricular aspects of his talk but he spoke widely of the contested terrain we are witnessing in the intellectual and scholarly response to the social and technical phenomena surrounding the ‘net. What struck me clearly from his presentation was the rather confused manner in which universities are responding. The tension between people in each discipline slicing off their own ‘relevant’ concerns and those who want to create a new interdisciplinary field of enquiry is palpable. As Bill noted, interdisciplinary programs don’t tend to do well in most universities, which of course should make us wonder if disciplines take on the role of distinguishing themselves to the exclusion of asking and answering important research questions.

The sunday edition this week carried an interesting op-ed on Yahoo and co for their willingness to do whatever the Chinese government asks of them when it comes to denying privacy. The article, entitled Yahoo Betrays Free Speech represents a long-overdue comment from the mainstream media on the hold US information companies to account for participation in the repression of freedom of speech. As the author notes:

Last January, Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey reintroduced the Global Online Freedom Act in the House. It would fine American companies that hand over information about their customers to foreign governments that suppress online dissent. The bill would at least give American companies a solid reason to decline requests for data, but the big Internet companies do not support it. That shows how much they care about the power of information to liberate the world.

Plus ca change?

I’ve been saying ‘no’ to an invitation from a journal to handle a paper review for a couple of weeks but it seems you just can’t say ‘no’ to Elsevier. It’s not that I don’t review, I do, and often, but I do so for the four journals I’ve committed to work with and they keep my inbox pretty full. Let’s not forget, reviewing is time-intensive, effortful and yes, completely voluntary — free labor that keeps the process moving as it compunds the free labor authors put in creating the documents. Applied Ergonomics, a journal that might claim to represent good design practice, has taken it upon itself to invite reviewers by sending an automated email which requires the recipient to register with them in order to view and handle the manuscript. This makes a lot of sense for reviewers – the papers are in one locatable place, reviews can be submitted there, no need for the old fashioned paper and envelope stage, and let’s face it, once you’ve registered, you’ve put yourself on their list of available reviewers for the future. The trouble with Applied Ergonomics (and most of these systems) is that you cannot say ‘no’ to a request without registering. It’s clear something is wrong in the world when you have to make an effort to decline an invitation you do not want and did not seek — merely ignoring it only results in pesky automated reminders. I told the editorial office I would not handle the MS, and I would not register in their system to tell them so. One week later I get a letter asking me to review the same manuscript and a reminder to register if I wanted to decline. And so it goes on. Applied Ergonomics describes itself as “aimed at all those interested in applying ergonomics/human factors in the design, planning and management of technical and social systems at work or leisure”. Irony is a lost art.

I am not sure how to take the elevation of this blog to the list of Top 100 Academic Blogs Every Professional Investor Should Read but that’s where CurrencyTrading. Net just put it…..So it’s true, no good deed goes unpunished.