I gladly second much of what Todd Puccio stated, and
stated well, earlier in this thread.
But further :
> . . . to advanced researchers, is the need for selection.
. . .
> Naturally, librarians would be important parts of this....
I keep hearing you ventilate this notion, as obviously is
your good right. There have of course been others before
you, many of them surely. The basic idea of course goes
much further back. As far if not further than e.g. Herbert
Baxter Adams ( in _The Johns Hopkins University studies
in historical and political science_, 5th series, 11, 1887, p.
17 ). The 'locus classicus' would almost have to be p.118
in José Ortega y Gasset's "Misión del bibliotecario"
( 1935 ), published later in _Actas y trabajos del II
congreso internacional de bibliotecas y bibliografía,
Madrid-Barcelona, 20-30 de mayo de 1935_ (Madrid :
Barbazán, 1949). But, to the extent that those who have
advanced the notion were not themselves librarians, as
far as I can tell they were dealing in pious and in their
views rather innocent flatteries dished up to groups of
librarians. ( In the first above-cited instance it was e.g. a
historian addressing the ALA, in the second a philosopher
addressing IFLA. ). If what you are talking about is the
selecting in general of what should come to the attention
of a creative researcher/scholar, then I doubt in fact
whether there's a competent and self-respecting scholar or
researcher anywhere who would really agree. At least, that's
my impression ( and hope ), as one not only who in all
modesty reckons himself as belonging to that category but
who in any case has spent an entire adult lifetime
professionally associating with many hundreds of those
who unquestionably do belong to it, in many fields and in
numerous countries ( though alas never, I admit, at e.g. the
American University of Rome, where things theoretically
could be different ).
> . . . while private, for-profit corporations are vulnerable
> to all kinds of manipulation . . .
It is certainly not my experience that not-for-profit
organizations or units therein ( including libraries ) are
any less vulnerable to all kinds of manipulation than
are private, for-profit corporations. Perhaps they are
even more vulnerable.
- Laval Hunsucker
Breukelen, Nederland
----- Original Message ----
From: James Weinheimer <weinheimer.jim.l_at_GMAIL.COM>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 4:09:51 PM
Subject: [NGC4LIB] Bill Clinton: Create Internet agency
Ex-President Bill Clinton has suggested the creation of some kind of agency that
would "be independent" to seek out and "correct" factual errors on the Internet,
and has come under a lot of criticism for it, with critics calling it a "truth
regulator" or a "Ministry of Truth" etc.
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=bill+clinton+internet
<http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=bill+clinton+internet>
> (a more neutral article is at Politico)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54951.html
But he makes a valid point with: "Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it’s
a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money.” As I have mentioned in several posts,
one "user need" that I have heard requested very often, from little children to
advanced researchers, is the need for selection. People are gradually becoming
suspicious of Google and its algorithms (at last!), while private, for-profit
corporations are vulnerable to all kinds of manipulation from the public, from
their competitors, and from all kinds of forces in the world. Their business aim
of "make the customer happy" is not always the same as telling people the truth.
Besides, people still find a lot of junk in the search results of Google and
Yahoo while missing a lot at the same time. But let's face it: people find a lot
of junk in libraries and miss a lot there too, but the perception is completely
different.
I don't believe that Bill Clinton was suggesting any kind of censorship, but
more of a "reliable space" to find out what the current thinking is on certain
topics. This is not a new idea, but was suggested by H.G. Wells in his book
"World Brain" where he suggested the idea of the World Encyclopedia. Here is an
article where he wrote about the Encyclopedia
https://sherlock.ischool.berkeley.edu/wells/world_brain.html
Wells did not foresee the Internet, and compared his encyclopedia it to the
Britannica, but I am sure he would agree that the Internet would certainly make
it far easier. His idea was not like Wikipedia, although many have suggested it.
It would be much more like Citizendium, written by experts, but still with
important differences since according to Wells, articles would be written
differently, with sections (summaries) for different readers in mind:
researchers to journalists to interested laymen to children.
When looked at in this way, I think that everybody would like it because it
would be designed with everyone in mind, and if the true global collaboratory
powers of the Internet could be used today, plus significant government funding
to keep it independent, I would agree with Bill Clinton: it would be a worthy
expenditure of taxpayer money. Of course, Clinton's idea is to build a place to
verify facts. There are some sites like that now, http://www.factcheck.org/,
http://www.politifact.com/, http://www.snopes.com/ and
http://www.opensecrets.org/ are the ones that I know. Some would include
Wikileaks in this list but I doubt if he would. I think more is necessary, but
his idea would be a good first step.
Naturally, librarians would be important parts of this....
-- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Received on Sun May 22 2011 - 13:47:08 EDT