Juxtapositions

How Do Kids Really Feel About Ads on Commercial Websites?

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:15:00 -0700

A colleague recently discredited a website that I found to be very helpful. Initially, I agreed with her; and then I had another thought. Certainly, inappropriate ads could never be tolerated; yet, child-focused ads may be very attractive to younger folks. Kids today are used to sites that bounce, flip, flicker, and flash. It is part of their culture. They do their homework while listening to music, watching tv, playing a game, texting, im-ing, and surfing the web. Kids today attend to information differently than older people; and they apparently have a high tolerance for distraction--at least when it comes to information on the Internet.

While I love the smell of old books and websites with no ads, today's kid might actually enjoy their disco effects. To each his own.

My 1911 Roget's Thesaurus and Me

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:07:00 -0700

My very favorite, must-have reference is Roget's Thesaurus--not just any Roget's Thesaurus [I find some versions worthless]--but the book first printed in 1911. My edition was published in 1946 by Thomas Y. Crowell Company. I have an MA in English; and I have written tons of papers, reviews, etc. I write daily; and I absolutely use this book many times each day. In fact, I bought my first edition of this book while I was in undergraduate school--in about 1970. I used it until my home burned. This was the first book that I replaced after that fire; and I did so by looking both at Amazon's collection of used books and on Ebay.

The general rule about writing is that one should not use the same word over and over in the same paper. Yet, even the best word-hounds get stuck. Roget's Thesaurus is invaluable for help avoiding this mistake--and in avoiding it, without a large investment of time.

For instance, I might be writing about a person who is funny; but I don't want to keep using that same, common descriptor in my paper. I can look at the back of my old, trustworthy, 1911 friend-- for the word "funny," which is listed in alphabetical order. I see that in using this word adjectivally, I might be talking about something that is odd [83.10]; something that is humorous [842.9]; or something that is ridiculous [855.5]. In order to find accurate alternatives for the term "funny," in any of these specific contexts, one would decide precisely what he/she wants to say--and then flip to the front of the book at either section 83.10; 842.9; or 855.5, to discover alternate ways of saying the same thing [synonyms and antonyms].

Just to be sure that I have made the correct choice, I double-check myself by reading the definition of the word that I have selected. I have discovered The American Heritage College dic-tion-ary to be more than able for this task--or for any other, requiring a certain degree of precision in word usage. I currently use the Fourth Edition, published by Houghton Mifflin; but unlike thesauri, many dictionaries would do.

Should Reference Librarians Offer Medical Advice?

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:44:00 -0700

My ex-husband is a physician. Even though I helped fund a wealth of medical knowledge, Merck Manual became the do-all/be-all source of medical info in our home--even when a doctor was in the house.

I haven't looked at a Merck Manual for years; but back in the day, you could look up any type of ailment [even flatulence, actually called by its layman's name] and find an incredible amount of information about that ailment--what might have caused it; how to treat it; etc. Not many years ago, I saw a specialist about a medical problem that I was having. Even this specialist was not sure about the problem; and I honestly saw him pull a Merck Manual from his shelf, to seek answers. Little did he know that I had my own Merck Manual at home. I could have saved myself a trip and a co-pay for this info. In short, Merck Manual is essentially a Cliff's Notes Medical Degree.

On page 94 of the book: Reference and Information Services in the 21st Century (Cassell and Hiremath, 2004), the following is said about Ready References: "Quick. . . Relative facts need to be located in the same source. The information is wide-ranging and not deep." That perfectly describes Merck Manual. The entire medical profession is lightly whisked into one book, which is slightly larger than the Bible. What a tool!

Although librarians need to be careful about offering professional opinions about medical issues [trust me, even doctors need to be careful about that], they might continuously be asked for that kind of help. I would be very cautious about offering my humble opinion about any ailment; but I would feel very comfortable showing a patron where they can go to find more information and to formulate their own plans of action.

The current, online powerhouse WebMD has become much the same type of resource for finding information about what ails one--but it offers even more.

Some might argue that WebMD is a commercial site; but that actually works for the visitor, who gets the info free. Drug companies pay enormous amounts of money for advertising on WebMD; and those funds pay for quality information on a quality web space. If the site was not well endowed, it would offer far less to the visitor--it couldn't. Someone has to pay the Piper. In this instance, I am just glad that someone is someone else and not me.

Incidentally, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree: my daughter is an executive for WebMD in Manhatten.

Teaching Elementary Children to Evaluate Websites

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:28:00 -0700

Well, this is a cop-out; I actually have nothing to add; but I discovered that Kathy Schrock has created a great Evaluation Guide, for teaching elementary kids how to evaluate websites: Kathy Schrock's Guide

I want to pass on Schrock's Evaluation Form, that was created for elementary children to complete. I like the way that her evaluation begins by having the child list the name of the site and by copy-pasting the URL. Children in elementary school are learning things from the most basic level; and they need to be taught how to identify the most basic of information.

The child is then asked to determine the following [these are paraphrased and loosely interpreted]:

How fast do the pages load?
How big are the images and what is the quality of the images?
Are there sounds? What quality are the sounds?
Is the spelling correct?
Is the author's name and contact info on the site?
Is there a date, telling when the site was created [updated?]
Do the pages have titles?
Does the author say things that you disagree with?
Could you have gotten more and/or better info from an encyclopedia?
Are there links to other, useful sites?
Did you learn from the site?

web 2.0 is the BOMB!

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:17:00 -0700

First, I recommend the book Social Software in Libraries by Meredith Farkas (2007). In the introduction to the book, Roy Tennant, User Services Architecht from the University of California says the following:

"The Internet's creators thought that moving data from place to place was an essential component of a computer network; file transfer was one of its first applications....the need for two-way and many-way communication has once again reasserted itself in the form of social software. Social software provides easy-to-use ways to communicate, collaborate, and participate on an unprecedented scale....As institutions rooted in our communities, libraries are social institutions. Therefore, libraries belong in the social network. We belong where our users can be found--and they are increasingly found online, interacting in completely new ways....Brick-and-mortar libraries are not going away, but they are now not the only way to be there for our clientele. Social networking is a new tool that lets us accomplish many of the same things we've done before, but in new and more effective ways." (pp. xix-xx).

Farkas (2007) summarizes the impact of web 2.0 by saying the following about Social Information:

It allows people to communicate, collaborate, and build community online.
It can be syndicated, shared, reused, or remixed. . . .
It lets people learn easily from and capitalize on the behavior or knowledge of others. (p. 1)

I personally have reaped tremendously from free shareware, provided via web 2.0.
I also endorse the sharing in return. I have begun 92 wikis and several blogs. Only a few of these are open to the public [most of them are my own databases, organizing my own material--hence, doing something in a new way]; but within months of having been launched, my available material was viewed by people from 28 countries. That blows my mind!

Web 2.0 is sharing of resources; and in my opinion, that is the Internet.

Farkas, Meredith G. (2007). Social software in libraries: Building collaboration, communication, and community online. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.

Note: I just created that APA bibliographical entry, using a free, interactive web 2.0 resource, from the following site: KnightCite Citation.

That resource and my other favorite web 2.0 sites are stored in my computer's Bookmarks, my own Ready References, at my fingertips--as long as I am at home and my Internet and/or my computer are not down.

By placing the information on a wiki or in a blog, I organize the material for myself and share it with others simultaneously.

One more important point: Once the material has been launched online, it won't be lost by my computer's crashing. That problem can be eliminated.

*No, I take that back. I had stored several podcasts with some site that discontinued. I lost all of those podcasts, Many of the podcasts were the sound for some of my blogs and wikis. Probably we should store the material in several places. We should probably continue storing material in more than one place--at least for a while longer.

One last benefit of web 2.0 is that all of us can be creators of our own audio-visual production companies; and we can take it to the public.

Another great book to read: The Long Tail by Chris Anderson (2006). In this book, he talks about the aforementioned phenomenon, the fact that web 2.0 makes it possible for us little people to produce, direct, and publish ourselves. That is actually putting a squeeze on some of the former major hitters in the information industries.

Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hyperion.

Should Reference Books Circulate?

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Sun, 7 Jun 2009 05:56:00 -0700

The question was recently asked: Should library reference books circulate?

I am working in a small,l public library, where the buzzing indicates that reference books don't circulate. They sit, gather dust, become old, and are never touched. In our small library, it is rare for kids to do research on site.Therefore, books that just rest on our shelves, waiting to be read in our library, are actually not referring to anyone. They are not being used. They aren't even taken from the shelf. They are just expensive placeholders. If a book isn't referring--is it a reference book at all?

Research indicates that there is a generalized trend for kids everywhere to elect to do their research at home [or at a friend's house or at Borders--anywhere but the library], at random hours. Abraham and Luther (2004) report that today’s children have become accustomed to information that is always available [not just during library hours], adding the following: “After all, the web is 24/7. This expectation is about more than convenience; it indicates a major shift in behavior.” (pp. 34-35). Abram, Stephen & Luther, Judy. (2004). Born with the chip. Library Journal, 129 (8), 34- 37).

As a youth librarian, I can't justify buying books that are just there--"sculptures" to decorate our shelves--even if they are technically called reference books. This is a library policy established for another generation of patrons. The days of following behind tenets established by and for people in the 19th century are over. If libraries continue to do this, we allow ourselves to become museums--like Williamsburg--testimonials of another time in history--shrines. We need to do what works for our 21st Century patrons. I feel that blindly following ancient policies is an inflexible inability to be viable--to continue to grow. Consider a tree: when a tree quits growing, it is dead. I feel that if the library refuses to shift and adapt to new generations of patrons, it essentially quits growing--it dies--it becomes a dinosaur.

I can't speak for all types of patrons; but when it comes to purchases for the Children's Department, I say that libraries should buy good, well-illustrated, attention-grabbing, authoritative information [not just books] that kids will actually use--and let them use them--even at home--or wherever.

I realize that this leads to an entirely different set of needs--how to harness technology and the internet, so that they are actually serving the patrons--and not distracting them. A great deal of research has been done in that area, too. I believe that investigating this research, even though it is time-consuming, is time well spent.

Does Today's Pop Culture Deliver Stupidity?

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Sun, 3 May 2009 19:37:00 -0700

The pendulum is in motion! With every swing, new technology adds more bells and whistles to the Pop Culture Toy Chest. Information eddies and rushes from a stream that is ever-widening. No need for today's researchers to go to the library--to pull out the card catalogs and periodicals. Research is at home--at the tip of one's fingers.

Life is simple. Students today have it made. Right?

NO!

Over the past several decades, educational trends have come and gone. At a glance, it might seem that students today are on “Easy Street.” They certainly have more gadgets and study aids than ever before. They can research and write papers from their beds, propped up on pillows, in front of the television. It might seem logical that because of all of their technological conveniences, students no longer have to think. Yet, while it might seem that Pop Culture, with its technological trinkets, has delivered to today’s student a recipe for sloth and stupidity, is that actually the case?

Not really.

Getting an education in today’s schools is still pretty tough!

Kids today are expected to read at much younger ages than they did, even twenty years ago. They are rushed through the curriculum at break-neck speed, because more material is continuously added—and time is a budgeted commodity.

A group who are often characterized as lazy and spoiled, today’s high school students actually function under a great amount of pressure. Getting into a good college becomes more difficult each year. College-bound students must make outstanding grades throughout high school, while strenuously preparing for the SAT exam, because SAT scores can make them or break them. And the same happens, when undergraduates struggle to get into quality graduate and professional schools.

Students today are actually walking on a very thin tightrope. Even their games are tough!

In his book Everything Bad Is Good For You, Steven Johnson (2009) says, "The dirty little secret of gaming is how much time you spend not having fun. You may be frustrated; you may be confused or disoriented; you may be stuck." (p. 25).

Consequently, even at play, today's kids function at intense levels. To resolve game issues, they are required to undertake engineering and strategic missions that many adults would not tackle for money.

Is Pop Culture Stimulating? Yes!

Does Pop Culture Deliver Stupidity?

Hardly!

Today's Pop Culture might offer a bit of comic relief and an occasional breath of fresh air to today's students; but those same students have little time to wallow in sloth. The current is too fast for that. Kids today can barely stay afloat.

If we really want to discuss the problem for students in today’s pop culture –that is it!

Kids today can barely stay afloat.

The current is too fast!

Based on the book:

Johnson, Steven. (2005). Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. New York: Penguin Group.

M. T Anderson's Feed, A Christmas Carol & Me

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Sun, 3 May 2009 16:30:00 -0700

Image from Booksamillion.

For Spring Break, Titus and his buddies take a trip, meet some girls, and get into a bit of trouble.

There’s nothing new about the storyline; but M. T. Anderson’s Feed is much more than the typical teen tale. It is an excursion into the future—and oddly, also deep into the present.

One might ask: “How can a book be both?” The response is: “Through excellent writing.”

In one way, Feed is a sci-fi/fantasy book that paints a picture of life sometime in the future. Yet, because of its outstanding craftsmanship and character development, Feed is also a candid reflection of the human spirit [an essence that is timeless] and a revelation of life as it already has become.

For instance: The boys who travel to the moon in Feed are just regular teen boys. They horse around and do silly things. At times, all of the kids are insensitive and callous; and that is certainly not something new. When some of them show up at a party, in their ripped and shredded Riot clothes, one might be surprised; but the tendency to wear shredded Riot clothes is actually no different than today’s wearing of expensive, destroyed Abercrombie or other designer jeans.

Because of ecological problems, many of the characters in Feed have untreatable skin lesions. Yet, there seems to be little concern about the lesions. Everyone has them. In fact, they have actually become the fashion rage. Is this any different than our own complacency about rampant anorexia, masked as an attempt to be model-like thin?

Some of the girls in Feed have actually cut themselves purposely and accentuated their lesions. On the surface, this seems especially foreign and appalling; yet, most women today have similarly “cut” into themselves to accommodate pierced earrings. Some kids today pierce themselves more severely than that; and in some cultures, human scarification and piercings have persisted since antiquity.

At first glance, the book is shocking; but on closer inspection, it is not.

Feed seems to take place after the citizens of Earth have essentially destroyed her. In a technological sense, most of the kids have a plethora of sophisticated toys. In fact, the kids themselves are basically technological toys. Almost all of them have an embedded, computerized “feed.” Not unlike today, those with more financial resources have feeds equipped with more bells and whistles.

In order to keep the feeds up and running, the physicians are essentially computer technicians. Again, those with more resources are able to afford better technical support; and those without adequate resources are simply out of luck. Unfortunately, Violet, the girl that Titus meets on the moon, falls into the latter category.

The book’s ultimate tragedy is that Violet is allowed to desist—simply because she cannot pay for technical support. Again, one might tend to be stunned by a society that could allow this to happen; but after consideration, one might decide that this scenario also hints of the familiar.

Recently, I mortgaged my soul and bought what appeared would be my dream computer system. Unfortunately, the dream didn’t last long. I seem to have bought a lemon—and soon discovered that none of my problems are covered—without my continuously paying for live support, to adjust this or that. Just last week, I had to totally scrub my computer and start over. Like most people, I am much too busy to stop and deal with computer problems. Yet, in scrubbing my computer, I lost more than time—I lost family photos, digital art, flash documents, animations, business transactions, music, tomes of research, my own writing, and much of who I actually am.

Admittedly, I don’t have a “feed”—my computer is not embedded inside my body. I don’t even wear it as a backpack [like Violet’s father had to do]. Still, it is very much a part of me. When my computer system is "down," I am cast into panic. When my computer dies, part of me dies, as well. Bottom line: I rely upon my computer—a machine is a fundamental part of the way that I function in life.

That, in itself, is a little scary.

Even more frightening, however, is the tendency to read Feed naively -- smug that its horrors lie in some distant future -- assured that the unsettling images are nothing more than an “undigested bit of beef” or at worst, a “Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come.”

Yet, in many ways, these horrors are already our “Present.”

After reading Feed, the truly most alarming concern is this: What then is our “Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come?”

Audio Is Important In Teaching Youth -- Audio Visual Is Even More Important

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Thu, 3 Jul 2008 03:53:00 -0700

Especially in teaching youth, audio and audio-visual formats are preferable to mere text. Research indicates that today’s students are not text-oriented. They require a more immediate, participatory learning experience—preferably one with visuals. I could continue to offer my personal opinion about this issue; but I decided to allow recognized authorities to continue this discussion. Educational literature is filled with the following information. [This is the first article that I picked up, from a stack of similar articles]:

“Exposure to IT begins at very young ages. . . . It’s not just teenagers who are wired up and tuned in, it’s babies in diapers as well.” (p. 8).

“Consistent with the multitasking . . . it is the norm for children and teenagers to be online while simultaneously watching TV, talking on the phone or listening to the radio.” (p. 8).

“Children may be developing greater digital literacy than siblings who are just a few years older. For example, over two million American children (ages 6-17) have their own Web sites. . . . And the ability to use nontext expression--audio, video, graphics—appears stronger in each successive cohort.” (p. 8).

“The Net Gen are more visually literate than previous generations: many express themselves using images. They are able to weave together images, text, and sound in a natural way.” (p. 10).

“They crave interactivity. And the rapid pace with which they like to receive information means they often choose not to pay attention if a class is not interactive, unengaging, or simply too slow.” (p.10).

“Researchers report Net Gen students will refuse to read large amounts of text, whether it involves a long reading assignment or lengthy instructions. . . . The Net Gen’s experiential nature means they like doing things, not just thinking or talking about things.” (p. 10).

“For the Net Gen, the Internet is like oxygen: they can’t imagine being able to live without it.” (p. 11).

“The short attention spans of Net Geners also point to interaction as an important component of instruction.” (p. 13).

“. . . although reading text may be the preferred mode of learning for faculty, librarians, and other academics, it is not the preferred mode for most of the population. . . . In fact, overreliance on text may inhibit Net Gen participation.” (p. 14).

“Learning science indicates that successful learning is often active, social, and learner-centered. However, with the multiple responsibilities of faculty, staff, and administrators, as well as the large numbers of students most campuses serve, ensuring successful learning without the support of IT may be impossible. . . . With the appropriate use of technology, learning can be made more active, social, and learner-centered. . . “ (pp. 14-15).

To summarize:

I suppose there might be a limited number of reasons that an audio format could be distracting--as far as its use in the library. Yet, I really cannot think of any. If noise were a concern, headphones could solve the problem. Audio precludes the use of some who have hearing disabilities; yet, visual precludes others.

Bottom line, an audio [as well as audio-visual] approach has unlimited positive uses. It can be an educational answer for both students and teachers. It is an essential part of IT.

Reference to the following article: Oblinger,Diana & Oblinger, Jamers. (2006). Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the Net generation. CSLA Journal, 29 (2), 8-16. [Focus: 21^st Century Learning: How Does it Affect the Library?]

Family-Friendly and Affordaable, The Nintendo Wii Is A Great Game System

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Thu, 3 Jul 2008 03:47:00 -0700

After conducting research online to decide which videogame console I would buy for my library, I finally decided that I would buy a Nintendo Wii.

The Nintendo Wii is family friendly. It is very easy to play, as it utilizes a very simple controller (shaped similarly to a standard TV remote, but smaller) that has the fewest buttons of the three main entertainment consoles available. However, what really makes the Nintendo Wii’s controller stand out is its ability to recognize and implement the user’s physical movements in-game for a truly interactive experience.

Most games on the Nintendo Wii are also very easy to jump into and play. Many of these games are designed for many people to play at the same time. These games help bring people together and strengthen the feeling of community; but what’s more than all of this, the games are just plain fun to play.

Rock Band Rocks!

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Thu, 3 Jul 2008 03:42:00 -0700

My son and I just finished playing a game of Rock Band on his Xbox 360 entertainment system. For months I have been hearing the constant rhythmic thumping of the electronic drumset (included with the game) without realizing exactly what was going on, but I finally got a chance to try it first-hand tonight. When I went downstairs to ask him to play one of his games with me, he was already playing the guitar (also included with the game), clicking the color-coded buttons in rhythm as they made their way down the screen at a seemingly impossible pace. I decided I would give the drums a try. Within minutes (after choosing a much easier difficulty level), we were playing songs as unique parts of the fictional band that we created in the game. We played songs by all kinds of artists, ranging from the grungy sound of Nirvana to the more vintage sound of bands from my era, like Mountain. It was interesting to play the game, because not only was it incredibly addicting and fun, we both had the opportunity to enjoy each other’s company and also enjoy music from each other’s unique generations.

We virtually performed them in the game together. It was very refreshing to play a game like this. That, in itself, is a reward--to have a common ground with my teenager.

The object of the game is not violent or antagonistic; rather, it is entirely cooperative. I hope games like this continue to be popular with today’s youth as they promote much better values while still managing to be incredibly fun.

Birds of a Feather Flock Together and Other Sticky Situations on MySpace and Facebook

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Thu, 3 Jul 2008 03:40:00 -0700

In the article "Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace,” Danah Boyd discusses some “sticky” issues concerning MySpace and Facebook.

Both of these virtual communities are relatively new. MySpace was launched in 2003 and Facebook in 2004. At this time, both communities serve large populations of young people.

Contrary to the superstitions of some, most members of MySpace and Facebook are not “networking.” In other words, they are not using their virtual communities as avenues to seek connections with absolute strangers.

In the article "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship," Boyd & Ellison distinguish between the terms “social network” and “networking” as follows: "Networking" emphasizes relationship initiation, often between strangers. While networking is possible on these sites [online social communities], it is not the primary practice on many of them. . . . What makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather. . . these meetings are frequently between "latent ties" (Haythornthwaite, 2005) who share some offline connection."

As part of their community involvement, users are encouraged to create profiles that express their individual interests. Research indicates that in selecting the appearances of their profiles, users reflect even more about themselves. When visitors look at various profiles, they gravitate toward others who seem most like themselves. This discovering and connecting with the familiar becomes a cohesiveness—a glue that binds people within social groups. Thus, it is the “stickiness” that holds the networks together and brings users back again and again.

In the virtual world, it seems that it is also true that "birds of a feather flock together."

As researchers began to analyze which community various individuals tended to select, another type of stickiness began to surface--the kind of stickiness that seems to be pervasive, when attempting to say something that is awkward.

Although it seemed inappropriate--or perhaps tasteless--to mention it, Boyd began to note that people of the working class--the less educated--seemed more at home in MySpace and people of the more professional class seemed more at home at Facebook.

As she mentioned this trend, Boyd acknowledged that people don't generally like to openly admit issues having to do with social class. She acknowledged that the discussion was a "sticky" situation.

I don't know whether this suggests that virtual snobbery is alive and well; but it does seem to suggest that a virtual line has been drawn in the virtual sand of the virtual communities.

boyd, danah. 2007. "Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace ." Apophenia Blog Essay. June 24 . http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.htm

Library Patrons Are Like Ships That Pass in the Night -- Social Networks Could Bring Them Into the Same Harbor

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Thu, 3 Jul 2008 03:37:00 -0700

For many years, people have considered America’s librarians to be physical places—what Chris Anderson (Long Tail 2006) would call bricks and mortar places—that serve flesh and blood people.

Many of the people who share the same libraries don’t actually know each other. Occasionally, they pass each other—like ships in the night—as they come and go. Woven into a library’s common web, they have what Boyd & Eillson (2007) call “latent ties.” They exist in a mutual community; but they don’t really connect. [Incidentally, statistics seem to indicate that the members of the traditional library community don’t actually come to the library very often either; and for many reasons their absences are felt.]

Libraries could learn several things from social communities—like MySpace and Facebook.

In another post, I discussed the manner in which like-minded people find each other in social networks. I discussed the cohesiveness that results from their virtual connections, saying the following: “When visitors look at various profiles, they gravitate toward others who seem most like themselves. This discovering and connecting with the familiar becomes a cohesiveness—a glue that binds people within social groups. Thus, it is the “stickiness” that holds the networks together and brings users back again and again.”

If libraries learn nothing else from social networks, they need to take note of this last trend. This “stickiness” that occurs when people connect.

In their article "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship," Boyd & Ellison say that the people who ultimately connect in virtual communities actually had “latent ties” beforehand. Again, they were like ships in the night—merely passing. It was the connecting that mattered—that gave the relationship purpose—that brings the people back into the site again and again.

In her book Social Software in Libraries: Building Collaboration, Communication, and Community Online Meredith Farkas (2007) says that many libraries have become the “physical hubs” of their communities. (p. 73).

I certainly cannot speak for all of the nation’s libraries; but from what I have observed, I would amend Farkas and say that a few libraries have become their communities’ physical hubs. I would say that most libraries have the potential to be that physical hub; but that they fail to step up to the plate.

When I think of a wheel and a hub, I think of spokes that connect and circulate—that function as a unit. Ships that pass in the night are not wheels—they are not hubs. The library needs to find ways to pull its ships into the same harbor. Social networks—virtual communities could help.

Anderson, Chris. ( 2006). The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More.
boyd, danah. 2007. "Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace ." Apophenia Blog Essay. June 24 . http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.htm

Farkas, Meredith. (2007). Social Software in Libraries: Building Collaboration, Communication, and Community Online.

Does Pop Culture Deliver Stupidity? No! The Current Is Too Fast For That!

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Thu, 3 Jul 2008 03:34:00 -0700

The pendulum is in motion! With every swing, new technology adds more bells and whistles to the Pop Culture Toy Chest.

Information eddies and rushes, from a stream that is ever-widening. No need for today's kid researchers to go to the library--to pull out the card catalogs and periodicals. Research is at home--at the tip of one's fingers.

Life is simple. Kids today have it made--right?

NO!

I have been in the teaching and parenting business for many years; and I have watched a few trends come and go. It might seem that kids today are on Easy Street. It might seem that because of all of the research time that they are saving, that they should be able to prop up their feet, eat, drink, make merry, surf around, video game themselves down the drain, and still manage to do their homework.

It might seem that Pop Culture has delivered to kids a recipe for Slovenly Stupidity; but that is not what I have observed.

True--kids today have more gadgets that would ostensibly make research and schooling simpler; but they are expected to do twice as much work, too.

More ground is covered faster in classes; and more and more classes are added to the curricula.

Getting into a good college becomes more difficult each year.

College-bound kids are tutored for the SAT, because SAT scores can make them or break them.

For a group who are often characterized as lazy and spoiled, kids today function under a great amount of pressure. They are walking on a very thin tightrope. Just getting from Point A to Point B requires a certain amount of savvy.

I don't know how anyone could believe that Pop Culture is making kids today stupid. Kids today are functioning at a higher level than at any other time in history. Even today's games are tough!

In his book Everything Bad Is Good For You, Steven Johnson, discusses how very un-fun today's games can often be:

"The dirty little secret of gaming is how much time you spend not having fun. You may be frustrated; you may be confused or disoriented; you may be stuck." (p. 25).

Even at play, today's kids function at intense levels. To resolve game issues, they are required to undertake engineering and strategic missions that many would not tackle for money.

Is Pop Culture Stimulating? Yes!

Does Pop Culture Deliver Stupidity? Hardly!

Today's Pop Culture might offer a bit of comic relief and an occasional breath of fresh air to today's kids; but kids today have little time to wallow in stupidity. The current is too fast. Kids today can barely stay afloat.

If we really want to discuss the problems with today's culture -- that is it.

Kids today can barely stay afloat. The current is too fast.

Johnson, Steven. (2005). Everything ad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. New York: Penguin Group.

Image from www.booksamillion.com

Is It True That Everthing "Bad" Is Good for Us -- or Do We Merely Need to Re-Define "Bad"

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Thu, 3 Jul 2008 03:32:00 -0700

Let's play a game. Everyone close your eyes and focus for a second. When I say a word, don't speak--just visualize the word that I have said.

Okay -- Get Ready -- Here's the Word: "Library."

Of course, I can't say this for sure; but I bet most of you thought about a physical place--probably of bricks and glass--filled with books. It was probably a quiet place. It may have even been a fairly empty place--in regards to patrons. Yet, the patrons and the staff that you envisioned were probably flesh and blood humans--and the library and books were probably also real, and tangible.

If this is fairly close to what you have envisioned, you are correct--at least as far as the traditional concept of a library goes; but you are only partially correct, in terms of the ways that things are evolving.

The traditional library was created in the 19th century. This is the 21st century. In the 19th century, books were the stock and trade of the library. In the 21st century, books are only part of what the library must encompass. Now, libraries are challenged to also function digitally--to deal with bits--as well as books.

Things have changed. Information itself has changed. The needs of the patrons have changed. If the library hopes to continue to serve the patrons, it must also change--in many ways.

But the primary change that is required is one of attitude.

Above all else, today's library must be open. It must be willing to consider new ideas, new data, and new ways of doing things, because these new ideas, this new data, and these new ways of doing things ARE the patrons--and most importantly, the Patrons ARE the library.

A library for today's patrons--especially for today's younger patrons--must include options for electronic gaming, music, dvd's, computers, technological gadgets, multimedia software, etc. Many potential patrons, who would prefer to never read another book, would enjoy these other services and items.

It is important for the library to realize that these other items--that these other non-book services have significant merit, in their own rights.

In his book, Everything Bad is Good For You, Steven Johnson discusses the merits of the nonliterary popular culture. Among other things, he says the following:

"Increasingly, the nonliterary popular culture is honing different mental skills that are just as important as the ones exercised by reading books." (p. 23).

Most libraries need to expand their services so that the 21st century patrons are served in the media that THEY deem to be valid.

The library can elect to keep doing things the same, old, bricks and mortar, books-only, 19th century way--and hope that an occasional fly will flit through the building. Or it can opt to change and serve today's patrons, just the way that they are--not the way that the library wishes that they were.

When In Rome Do As the Romans Do.

When In the 21st Century Do As the 21st Centurians Do --

Or Don't Do As the 21st Centurains Do. Those are our options.

But if the choice is the latter, we should not be surprised to discover that funding is affected. After all, if the taxpayers are not being served by the library, why should the taxpayers continue to support it?

In summary, I'd like to return to my original point: the primary change that is required is one of attitude.

I have to think that the title of Steven Johnson's book [Everything Bad Is Good For You] is a tease. The title should actually be something along the line of: Many Things That You Traditionally Have Thought Were "Bad" Are Actually Good For You: Let's Reconsider the Meaning of "Bad." Let's Examine Our Attitudes.

Johnson, Steven. (2005). Everything ad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. New York: Penguin Group.

Introduction to KidReadz

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:28:00 -0700

Please take a look at this short video clip, which introduces the KidReadz Service [A Virtual Children's Librarian] that soon will be launched. This video tells you something about KidReadz, which is a virtual community for children of the Picture Book Age. It explains how teachers can use the service to find curricula and lesson plans to use picture books in their classrooms.

In addition, it tells a bit about sites for teens and children of other ages, that are also coming soon.
KidReadz and all of theses other services are divisions of ReadyReadz -- A Virtual Youth Librarian.

Click To Play in QuickTime

Dog Beach Morning in South Jersey

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:30:00 -0700

Libraries Can Benefit from Their Long Tails

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:40:00 -0700

To summarize: In his book The Long Tail, Chris Anderson discusses a recent trend in the media industries. Once dominated by a few major players, the media market now includes a diluted, extended trail—a “Long Tail”—of minor players, who have created a string of niche markets.

I really can’t speak for all libraries; but my little library has a very long tail—especially in the adult sections. The problem is not as acute in the children’s section, because that department is new. The children’s section has an abundance of the best, the brightest, and the freshest available. There are also numerous dusty, old books [like the Dr. Doolittle treasure that I recently found]; but the flashy books prevail. Our new children’s books fly off of our shelves.

The adult part of the library has been ongoing for many decades; and it is clouded by a plethora of tired, worn books that really don’t reach out and grab passersby. Still, many--like the old Dr. Dolittle--are gems, rotting in mildewed caves.

Anderson speaks of an 80/20 rule, saying that 20% of the population accounts for 80% of the results. In the adult section of our library, that figure is a dream. A narrow pocket of books circulate; and the rest sit. I’d venture to guess that the ratio is more like 95/5.

Our library has an extremely long tail, just sitting and withering—right inside our own walls. That says nothing about the untapped niche markets lying within the grasp of ILL.

My little library is a Free Public Library—at least that is currently the case. I am a Children’s Librarian; and I spend very little time with our library’s statistics. Yet, even I am aware that the threat of funding cuts looms on the horizon. Funding is somehow allocated according to circulation. Anderson’s book speaks of sales; in public libraries, circulation numbers are money.

Anderson also speaks of the satisfaction ratio, when buyers discover the long tail. Several factors affect which of the media becomes the hit parade and which falls by the wayside. In most cases, quality is not the prevailing factor. In many cases, the bestsellers and the rest of the hit parade are mediocre. They are designed to appeal to a mass of people. They are often formulaic. Media of higher quality—media designed to provoke thought and foster satisfaction often falls outside the cut. Many patrons would welcome discovering the niche markets. They just don’t know they are there.

If the public realized exactly what the library offers—for no money, things would no doubt be different. The quiet, empty tombs would probably become thriving, pulsating marketplaces--veritable tag sales. If the public realized exactly what the library offers—for no money, public policy makers would have a very short platform for preaching funding cuts.

Absolutely, our libraries need to find ways to push our patrons down into our long tails—the physical, brick and mortar ones and the longer, virtual tail. We need to increase our circulation statistics. Beyond that, we need to pull away the blanket that masks the treasures that are hiding—just beyond reach. If patrons are unaware that books and media are available, they really cannot be expected to “check them out.”

Libraries Pay the Piper: Functioning as New Producers, New Markets, and New Tastemakers for Products of The Long Tail

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 06:30:00 -0700

Images from Booksamillion and Amazon Uk

In his book The Long Tail Chris Anderson discusses a recent trend in the media industries. Once dominated by a few major players, the media market now includes a diluted, extended trail—a “Long Tail”—of minor players, who have created a string of niche markets.

Unlike the giants of the hit parade, the bulk of the niche producers operate without financial backing. They represent the “l’art pour l’art” [art for art’s sake] of the media world.

Very simply, the art for art’s sake movement was a purist philosophy that depended upon art’s being created for completely noncommercial reasons. In the media world, this movement probably would not include Oprah Winfrey, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, John Grisham, Stephen King, Katie Couric, etc. Any of these people may have begun with more noble aspirations; but at this point, they are cornerstones of the media “hit parade.” Even they would probably agree that now they represent a huge commercial enterprise.

In media, the niche markets are small pockets--often of the media’s “starving artists.” Largely, the producers are amateurs. Chris Anderson reminds us that “. . . the word ‘amateur’ derives from the Latin amator, ‘lover,’ from amare, ‘to love’).” (p. 63).

In music, the niche producers are the veritable garage bands. In literature and other journalism, the niche producers are the bloggers and the online journalists. In short, the niche markets have evolved with very little monetary exchange.

Again, the niche markets represent “l’art pour l’art.”

The idea is virtuous; but any movement without some means of financial support is doomed. At the very least, someone has to pay the rent and buy the food. To be commonly blunt, "Someone has to pay the piper." Unless all of the niche producers married or inherited well, they ultimately must be paid; elect to starve and/or be homeless; or else focus their time and energy in some area that does pay.

Chris Anderson says that for the “Long Tail” of niche markets to survive, someone or something has to push patrons (financial supporters) down into that tail—thus allowing the patrons (the finances) and the producers to connect. In short, the patrons must “find” the niche producers.

Unfortunately, because of their sheer numbers, dilution, and obscurity—the niche producers are not easily found. Discovering them is like finding the proverbial “needle in a haystack.” At least, that is the case, without filtering and aggregators.

In serving as filters and aggregators, libraries can be instrumental in helping the patrons and the niche producers connect—thus, in driving financial solvency down into and maintaining the “Long Tail.” And they can do so, on equitable terms. [Most of America's libraries are still Free Public Libraries].

In her book Social Software in Libraries: Building Collaboration, Communication, and Community Online Meredith Farkas (2007) says that libraries are “physical hubs” of their communities. (p. 73).

Ideally, libraries are equipped with technological tools that can help the niche producers create their wares. [This would further a tendency Anderson refers to as "democratizing production."] After the wares are created, libraries, as hubs, can help filter these wares to the public. [Anderson would no doubt refer to this as "democratizing distribution."] Because libraries are connected [via ILL and other networks], all of the individual hubs can be linked to create a national—even an international vein or web [worldwide web]--to unite niche markets and the public.

In determining which of the niche markets to support, circulate, aggregate, filter, and maintain, libraries are powerful agents in developing and fostering public taste. In doing so, America's Free Public Libraries are inadvertently long arms with the power to touch and fan the flame of an economic and philosophic revolution.

In essence, libraries are inadvertently "paying the piper."

In light of the continuous threat of funding cuts, one might question who will pay the piper of the pipers?

Anderson's Long Tail -- and the Future of Libraries

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:16:00 -0700

Image from www.booksamillion.com

Anderson, Chris. ( 2006). The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. [Also in Audio--as Shown in the Above Image].

Background of the Book:

In his book, The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More, Chris Anderson talks about ways that technology has impacted the entertainment and media businesses.

Among other things, Anderson discusses how Indy artists and self publishers have been able to emerge from the shadows—bringing with them the niche markets and a wider selection in these areas.

In surfing the Internet, looking for these new artists and authors, customers discovered a plethora of previously unrecognized media. Consequently, the appetites of the public have shifted—have broadened—beyond the traditional hit parade, which had previously fostered the efforts of a select few.

In order to satisfy the broadened appetites of the customers, stores would have been required to carry a vast selection of media—much of it might never sell.

In terms of shelf space and square footage, the traditional store—housed in a physical building—was inadequate; and the costs of expanding stores to accommodate the new market were prohibitive.

Virtual stores—requiring very little shelf space, yet, capable of distributing a wide variety of media—became the new business model.

What should librarians note from Anderson’s observations in this book?

Librarians are also in the book business. Some might argue with this point; yet, in light of funding cuts and a diminishing client base, it has become evident that libraries must become good businesses to survive.

Most libraries are still operating as traditional stores or "buckets" of books. In terms of shelf space and square footage, libraries are limited--in the same ways that businesses are limited--actually, more so.

The only way for libraries to sufficiently expand their media selections is to enhance digital services.

The good news for libraries is that the ILL is ahead of this game. The ILL is a means through which libraries can greatly extend their physical holdings. It is crucial that libraries take advantage of the ILL services and market this service to their clients.

Yes, I said "market." Part of surviving in the business world is sufficient marketing. Libraries also need to improve in that department; but that is fodder for another blog.

RSS Me?

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Sun, 8 Jun 2008 06:30:00 -0700

Blog Me! IM Me—no Meebo Me! Wiki Me? Twitter Me? Am I a Chicklet? [Probably not—at least, not yet]!

Feed Me? Rss Me? Well, Maybe Me!

i want to be del.icio.us!

Wow! My head is spinning!

A week ago, I had hardly heard of Web 2.0. I was not born in the Information Age. I think my “Tail is Long”— but I’m really not sure! I know that I was not “Born with a Chip!”

I have spent days signing up for accounts—checking them out—trying to absorb them; and honestly, at this point—I have to say that I am suffering from a serious case of Too Much Information!

Yet, I have glimpses of how Web 2.0 is going to help me!

Blogging is my new best friend. For 58 years, I have had thoughts and ideas that I knew I should be recording somewhere—reliable! I have always jotted them down—lost them—typed them into a Word document—lost them—but I think that Blog is going to be a good resource for keeping some things straight—in a place that won’t crash.

[Actually, I read somewhere that there is some speculation that the Internet might crash. I don’t know where I read that—that was before I learned to Blog]!

I am trying to understand RSS and Chicklets—but honestly, at this point, I am almost brain dead!
Everything that I have read says that RSS is the Cat’s Meow!

Personally, I like Dogs!

At this point, RSS has been a source of Information Overload for me; but that problem lies with me—not with RSS!

Who has time to listen, watch, and absorb all of that RSS?
You can lead this horse to water; but she doesn’t have time to drink?

Tux Paint - Open Source Paint Program for Young Children

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:25:00 -0700

Tux Paint has many features that are similar to those in Firefox -- even in Photoshop. Yet, this free program is simple enough to be handled by very young children.

In today's landscape with an ever-widening mulitmedia horizon, this is an excellent program--to help children become more technologically literate.

It is also good as an outlet for creativity.

The Text Tools and images can be combined, so that children can write and illustrate together.

Features, such as the Shapes Tool and the Stamp Tool could be used for teaching math.

The program can be downloaded, with or without the extra Stamp Software, at:

http://www.tuxpaint.org/

Both are free at this time.

M. T. Anderson's Feed -- and Me

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Sat, 7 Jun 2008 09:45:00 -0700

Image from www.booksamillion.com

Anderson, M. T. ( 2002). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Candlewick Press.

For Spring Break, Titus and his buddies take a trip, meet some girls, and get into a bit of trouble.

There’s nothing new about that storyline; but M. T. Anderson’s Feed is much more than the typical teen tale. It is an excursion into the not too distant future—and oddly, also deep into the present.

One might ask: “How can a book be both?” The answer is simple.

In one way, Feed is a sci-fi, fantasy book that paints a picture of life as it has not actually become.

In a Dickensian way, it is “Christmas Yet To Come.”

Yet, because of its outstanding writing and character development, it is also a candid, revealing reflection of the human spirit—an essence that is timeless.

The book takes place, after the citizens of Earth have essentially destroyed her. In a technological sense, most of the kids have a plethora of sophisticated toys. In fact, they, themselves, are basically technological toys. Almost all of them have an embedded, computerized “feed.” Not unlike today, the people with more financial resources are equipped with more bells and whistles.

In order to keep the feeds up and running, the physicians are essentially computer technicians. Again, those with more resources are able to afford better technical support; and those without adequate resources are simply out of luck. Unfortunately, Violet, the girl that Titus met on the moon, falls into the latter category.

Because of ecological problems, some of the health issues—the lesions, for example—are beyond treatment. But there seems to be little concern about the skin lesions. Everyone has them—they have become the fashion rage.

The plot, to this point, is basically futuristic science fiction. Yet, the characters are not at all futuristic.

The boys, who travel to the moon, are just teen boys. They horse around and do silly things. At times, the kids are insensitive and callous; but that is certainly not something new. When the they showed up in their ripped and shredded Riot clothes, I immediately thought of the $100 destroyed Abercrombie jeans—that line my son’s closet. While it is a bit shocking, the sporting of the lesions is much the same type of fashion-reaction.

Some of the girls have actually cut themselves and accentuated their lesions. That seems especially appalling; but most women today have similarly “cut” into themselves to accommodate pierced earrings. In some cultures, human scarification and piercings have persisted since antiquity.

The book takes place in the future; but it is a reflection of people—who always have been.

Superficially, the book is shocking; but on closer inspection, it is not.

I was appalled that Violet was allowed to desist—simply because she could not pay for technical support; but the scenario is actually not all that far-fetched.

Recently, I mortgaged my soul and bought what appeared would be my dream computer system. Unfortunately, the dream didn’t last long. I seem to have bought a lemon—and none of my problems are covered—without my continuously paying for live support, to adjust this or that. Just last week, I had to totally scrub my computer and start over. Certainly, I was not dying; but I felt as though I was.

Like almost everyone else, I am much too busy to stop and deal with computer problems. Yet, in scrubbing my computer, I lost more than time—I lost pictures, digital art, flash documents, business transactions, music, tomes of research, my own writing, and much of who I actually am.

My computer is not embedded inside my body; I don’t even wear it like a backpack—but it is very much a part of me. When my computer is "down," I am cast into panic. When my computer dies, part of me dies, as well. That, in itself, is a little scary.

In final analysis, I would have to say that Feed is a fantasy book that is more real than not. After reading the book, I must say that the thing that most shocks me about Feed is that it truly does not shock me at all.

Libraries and Librarians Learn from Brown and Duguid

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:56:00 -0700

A Discussion of the Book: The Social Life of Information by John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid. (2002). Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

In The Social Life of Information, Brown and Duguid make several points that Libraries/Librarians should find to be insightful.

The major theme of The Social Life of Information is balance. Technological Information is powerful; but not without the people who process and use that information.
Both people and technology are vital to our culture’s prosperity. Utilization of both must be balanced.
Libraries/Librarians must not fall for false hype and launch an all-out removal of traditional books and other media.
Digitization is important; but its usage must also be balanced.
Traditional books are not a dying breed.
Libraries/Librarians must respond to changes being evoked by technology. They must become and remain current; but they must also preserve much of their traditional services.
Libraries/Librarians must create options for the sharing of social information and for the evolution of learning communities. Web 2.0 is invaluable for this.
Most importantly, Libraries/Librarians can be assured that the machine is not replacing them.

In addition, administrators are reminded of the importance of remaining connected to the trenches—of remaining active in the actual workings of the library and the collaborations among the staff.

Administrators are also reminded of the value of the divergent thinker and the need to foster communication and fraternization among staff members.

The major points of the book are elaborated upon in other of my blogs.

[See Blogs Posted June 5, 2008: “Are Machines Replacing People?” “Administration from an Ivory Tower vs. Collaboration,” “Don't Stamp Out the Stand-Outs,” “Information vs. Knowledge,” and “Are Libraries Going All Digital—Are Traditional Books a Dying Breed?”]

Are Libraries Going All Digital—Are Traditional Books a Dying Breed? My Experience with Dr. Dolittle Says Not

noreply@blogger.com (Jacki Kellum) — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:33:00 -0700

Image from the Wikipedia article: The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle

Not long ago, I noticed an old, 1922 edition of The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle, resting on one of the shelves in our library. The book was scuffed and bland—certainly not as flashy as many of the books published now. Nothing about the book called out to passersby; and it had not been circulating. Like a lonely, little onion in a petunia patch, the old, gray book just sat—waiting. Perhaps, it was waiting for me. On that particular day, it certainly seemed that way.

As I pulled the book from the shelf, I got a sour-sweet whiff of old-book smell. I rubbed my fingers across the heavy, granular cover [with corners missing--revealing layers of curled cardboard] and also through the brittle-thick, yellowed pages. In a matter of seconds, I was 50 years younger—back in the dusty, little farm community and the dark, musty library, where I first discovered books.

The significant thing about my reaction that day is that it had very little—perhaps nothing—to do with the stories inside the book. Hugh Lofting’s writing and illustrations are treasures that I discovered long after my childhood. My reaction to the old masterpiece was provoked by the book itself—and not by the subject matter within the book. The old book reminded me of The Bobsey Twin books that I actually did read as a child. The old book carried me back home—if only for a moment.

There is no way to digitize this type of experience.

In the library world, the question is often asked: Are Libraries Going All Digital—Are Traditional Books a Dying Breed? In The Social Life of Information, Brown and Duguid offer an answer to that question. They talk about the value of books, as physical objects. According to these experts, there are numerous reasons that libraries must not consider going all digital; but they further assert that numbers indicate that this is not an actual threat. In the current landscape of rampant technology and mass digitization, book sales are surprisingly up—not down.

As far as I am concerned, this is great news!

The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle received the Newberry Medal in 1923. An interesting, open blog project, on all the Newberry Winners is located at the following site: http://newberryproject.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Voyages%20of%20Doctor%20Doolittle

Incidentally, The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle can be read free online at the following site: http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Hugh_Lofting/The_Voyages_of_Doctor_Dolittle/

I warn you, however, compared to my old, 1922 volume of the book, the digitized version is just a bunch of words.