Archive for the 'Web' Category

I have often said that the librarians were needed in previous decades in order to help researchers find information, but are needed today in order to help researchers skillfully navigate the glut of information available. We do this through a variety of means. Librarians are the janitorial engineers of the information world. We make sense of it all. We organize the information into nice neat little piles called subject headings, wayfinders, and databases. We sort laundry from the information hamper — deciding which information should go where and with what other information and then folding it nicely and placing it on a shelf (or in a database…) for you to find easily.

Sorry for that analogy. Something within me would not let me pass it up.

Chris Anderson of Wired Magazine has an interesting article about Google’s accomplishments and whether the new age of search will render our neat piles of information less relevant. He writes,

The Petabyte Age is different because more is different. Kilobytes were stored on floppy disks. Megabytes were stored on hard disks. Terabytes were stored in disk arrays. Petabytes are stored in the cloud. As we moved along that progression, we went from the folder analogy to the file cabinet analogy to the library analogy to — well, at petabytes we ran out of organizational analogies.

At the petabyte scale, information is not a matter of simple three- and four-dimensional taxonomy and order but of dimensionally agnostic statistics. It calls for an entirely different approach, one that requires us to lose the tether of data as something that can be visualized in its totality. It forces us to view data mathematically first and establish a context for it later.

This is a world where massive amounts of data and applied mathematics replace every other tool that might be brought to bear. Out with every theory of human behavior, from linguistics to sociology. Forget taxonomy, ontology, and psychology. Who knows why people do what they do? The point is they do it, and we can track and measure it with unprecedented fidelity. With enough data, the numbers speak for themselves.There is now a better way. Petabytes allow us to say: “Correlation is enough.” We can stop looking for models. We can analyze the data without hypotheses about what it might show. We can throw the numbers into the biggest computing clusters the world has ever seen and let statistical algorithms find patterns where science cannot.

The new availability of huge amounts of data, along with the statistical tools to crunch these numbers, offers a whole new way of understanding the world. Correlation supersedes causation, and science can advance even without coherent models, unified theories, or really any mechanistic explanation at all.

There’s no reason to cling to our old ways. It’s time to ask: What can science learn from Google?

The question remains, though, what happens after Google? Libraries (though not all) will indeed weather the storm, but what they will look like on the other side is yet to be determined.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Albert Mohler and Richard Darnton on the Future of Libraries

Posted by Paul Roberts on May 29th, 2008

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, commented today on Robert Darnton’s New York Times Book Review article, “The Library in the New Age”, which appears in the June 12, 2008, issue.

An excerpt from Robert Darnton, speaking of Google’s worthy but tip-of-the-iceberg book project:

Meanwhile, I say: shore up the library. Stock it with printed matter. Reinforce its reading rooms. But don’t think of it as a warehouse or a museum. While dispensing books, most research libraries operate as nerve centers for transmitting electronic impulses. They acquire data sets, maintain digital re-positories, provide access to e-journals, and orchestrate information systems that reach deep into laboratories as well as studies. Many of them are sharing their intellectual wealth with the rest of the world by permitting Google to digitize their printed collections. Therefore, I also say: long live Google, but don’t count on it living long enough to replace that venerable building with the Corinthian columns.

An excerpt from Dr. Mohler:

Professor Darnton’s approach is very helpful — especially for those of us who bear the stewardship of libraries and institutions of higher learning. The future will be digital (or whatever replaces digital media), but the future will also need the library. The library will remain as a citadel, where books need no batteries and reading requires no Bluetooth or wireless technology. The spirit of scholarship will always be most at home among books, and the soul committed to learning will always find nourishment in the library.

On a related note, Microsoft has suspended progress on it’s Live Search Academic counterpart to Google Books and Google Scholar. Read about it here. Has Microsoft given up on search? This would indeed explain why they attempted to buy Yahoo!, but would also leave Google as the only mass-digitizer of library content. Once again, libraries will no doubt need to pick up the pieces and bring order to the mess.

Popularity: 27% [?]

Dogeared Pages from the Web: A Weekly Webliography

Posted by Paul Roberts on May 9th, 2008

Pages that I have encountered throughout the week which relate to libraries, technology, theology, and anything else I found interesting:

Popularity: 39% [?]

Dogeared Pages from the Web: A Weekly Webliography

Posted by Paul Roberts on May 2nd, 2008

I considered naming this a concatenate recapitulation, but decided that was too pretentious. This is a summary of links from the Dogeared Pages section in the sidebar which I hope to have as a weekly post. They are pages that I have encountered throughout the week which relate to libraries, technology, theology, and anything else I found interesting.

Popularity: 33% [?]

Stanford University Press: Descending the Ivory Tower

Posted by Paul Roberts on April 22nd, 2008

I think they are starting to get it. I asked a few days ago when and whether academic publishers would start recognizing that increased accessibility to their works results in increased exposure and usage. I did not, however, mention that many of the Ivy League university presses here in the States do already seem to be moving toward making academic content available and accessible in full text free of charge, certainly hoping that the result will be greater exposure. The Princeton Theological Review and Harvard University’s arts and sciences faculty’s plan (see here and here) to post academic papers online for free access, unless scholars specifically indicate otherwise, are good examples.

Earlier this month I noticed that the State University of New York (SUNY) Press announced an initiative to sell .pdf files of new books for $20.00 through their “directtext” option, a trend that will no doubt increase as libraries opt to fill digital repositories rather than handing over $75.00 for a hardcover that will need to be squeezed into already packed library shelves. See also Cheaper by the .pdf, but still . . .

Stanford University Press, however, has gone even further and jumped straight into the deep end. Their blog announced last week:

Stanford University Press is pleased to announce that you can now search the full text of our books via Google Book Search. We are currently still in the process of uploading and scanning our backlist, but there are already over a thousand Stanford titles in Google Book Search. When the project is completed, all of our books will be searchable electronically. …[We] are excited to make it easier for readers to discover content and find books most suited to their interests.

Thanks to languagehat.com for pointing this out: STANFORD BOOKS FULLY SEARCHABLE.

Popularity: 25% [?]

alt="Feed" /> comments rss

Creative Commons Creative Commons

WordPress
eXTReMe Tracker