[Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"

Wed Jun 18 14:26:18 EDT 2008

Not necessarily.  I want to be able to buy books in a paper format so I
could read a favorite book--say, anything by Robert Benchley with the
Gluyas Williams illustrations or Alice in Wonderland with the
Tenniels--in the bathtub.  You cannot take a computer, even a
battery-powered laptop or some reading device, into the bathtub without
risk of property damage and physical danger.  When they produce a
computer that is immune to bubble bath, sun screen, sand, and other
stuff from all the places I have read books, I'll be a little less
underwhelmed by the project.  However, if they offer a for-pay paper
option, I'm all for it.

Kathleen Stipek

Alachua County Library District

401 East University Avenue

Gainesville, Florida 32601

352-334-3931  (fax) 352-334-3948

     --Non, merci.

       Cyrano de Bergerac

________________________________

From: Philip Cheney [mailto:philipcheney at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:16 PM
To: Marianne Follis; Kathleen Stipek; jsanderson at nngov.com;
jschallan at yahoo.com
Cc: Publib
Subject: RE: [Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"

Google aims to make libraries of printed works superfluous by scanning
all texts into their enormous databases,
and a number of major research libraries are assisting them to do so.
Does this mean that the staff at these 
institutions are already stupid?  Is this a stupid question?

Philip Cheney

South Carolina

> Subject: RE: [Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:10:16 -0500
> From: Marianne.Follis at cityofcarrollton.com
> To: kstipek at aclib.us; jsanderson at nngov.com; jschallan at yahoo.com
> CC: publib at webjunction.org
> 
> Exactly. A tool is neither good nor evil; the answers to our prayers,
> or the downfall of our intellect. It is a tool. How it is used is up
> to the user. 
> 
> I couldn't have said it better myself. 
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Marianne 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathleen Stipek [mailto:kstipek at aclib.us] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:01 PM
> To: Marianne Follis; jsanderson at nngov.com; jschallan at yahoo.com
> Cc: Publib
> Subject: RE: [Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"
> 
> And why not seem hostile to something one might dislike intensely? We
> have been so rigorously conditioned to be nonjudgmental, open,
> accepting--pick your own 'golly I'm tolerant' term--that except for
the
> commentariat on the tube and radio nobody expresses a strong opinion
> strongly. The ones who do, right and left, simply play theme and
> variations on their personal prejudices and how some person, place, or
> thing either harmonizes or clashes with them so they don't even do it
> intelligently. Also, the headline is what they call in the narrative
> trade a 'hook' meant to grab a potential reader and haul him or her
in.
> In this case, I think both the pro- and anti-Google forces who bit got
a
> surprise that Google is neither as wonderful or evil as they thought,
> given their prejudices. Our profession is all about not judging a book
> by its cover. Let us not judge an essay by its hook.
> 
> Kathleen Stipek
> Alachua County Library District
> 401 East University Avenue
> Gainesville, Florida 32601
> 352-334-3931 (fax) 352-334-3948
> 
> --Non, merci.
> Cyrano de Bergerac
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: publib-bounces at webjunction.org
> [mailto:publib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Marianne Follis
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:12 PM
> To: jsanderson at nngov.com; jschallan at yahoo.com
> Cc: Publib
> Subject: RE: [Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"
> 
> And yet the title isn't "Is the Internet changing the way we think?,"
it
> is "Is Google making us stupid?" The title alone seems to condemn,
> which to many may seem hostile.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jsanderson at nngov.com [mailto:jsanderson at nngov.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:33 PM
> To: jschallan at yahoo.com
> Cc: Publib; Marianne Follis
> Subject: RE: [Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"
> 
> Having now read the entire article I have to say I found it
stimulating
> and informative. It asks us to consider the long term effects of our
> ever greater use/dependence on technology based information searching.
> It is never wrong to reflect on how are world is changing both to the
> good and to the bad. Which is which may be open to discussion (and
> isn't one of the points that we need to have that discussion and that
it
> is not possible without reflection?) The article seems to ask us to
> consider important things like the difference between knowledge and
> wisdom, fact gathering and thinking. I do not see it as condeming
> technology as a fact gathering tool, but it does ask that we be aware
of
> the impact it may have, an impact we may not notice on a day to day
> basis. To ask serious questions about important trends (and
technologiey
> certainly qualifies) is not to condemn the trend and should not be
seen
> as hostility.
> 
> As to music, did they write any after Beethoven?
> (Just kidding, I like the Beatles) Jim
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:52:08 -0700 (PDT), Joe Schallan
> <jschallan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 6/16/08, Marianne Follis
> <Marianne.Follis at cityofcarrollton.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> And I have to say I think longing for the good old days will get
you 
> >> no where. Didn't the adults of the 50's think that Rock n Roll was 
> >> going to lead to the downfall of our nation's youth?
> > 
> > Hmmm. Even as I wrote my post, I thought that it was only a matter
of
> time
> > before someone dragged out the old-fogey card and played it.
> > 
> > This is very close to Godwin's Law, and I shall take credit and call
> it
> > Schallan's Law -- whenever someone expresses skepticism about
> technology,
> > meaningful discussion ends when the skeptic is implied to be an old
> fogey,
> > resistant to change. Library managers, freshly back from conference
> with
> > New Ideas to complicate our service to our patrons, regularly employ

> > Schallan's Law to put the kibosh on closer examination.
> > 
> > I have reread my posts, and nowhere do I express longing for the
good
> old
> > days. In my case, those were the 60s, and I think I made it clear
that
> I
> > think though they now be old days indeed, they were never very good
> days.
> > 
> > 
> >> Please don't tell me you don't like rock!
> > 
> > 
> > I don't like rock.
> > 
> > I find it hopelessly short form and infantile, written expressly for
> the
> > attention-challenged and fatuous. In a nutshell, Sinatra sings for
> adults;
> > rockers sing for juveniles.
> > 
> > Though no one should take offense at my opinion. De gustibus non 
> > disputandum est.
> > 
> > How I came to dislike rock is interesting insofar as it relates to
> Carr's
> > thesis that the style in which information is delivered can
reprogram
> our
> > brains for better or worse.
> > 
> > Having come of age in the 60s and early 70s (my dad even putting the

> > kibosh on my scheme to take his truck/camper across country to
attend 
> > Woodstock), I was a guy who loved rock. Among my favorites: Jimi
> Hendrix,
> > Jim Morrison and the Doors, the Stones, Cream (Disraeli Gears and
> Wheels
> > of Fire), CSN&Y, The Band, Led Zeppelin, Buffalo Springfield, Jethro
> Tull,
> > and many others, and most of all, Bruce Springsteen. Interestingly,
I
> 
> > especially liked "long-form," thematic rock, and thus Pink Floyd,
the 
> > Moody Blues, Tommy. The seven-minute "Light My Fire" was the only
> version
> > that interested me.
> > 
> > And then, late on, I discovered opera, and I have to say it killed
> most
> of
> > rock for me, as well as most of orchestral classical music, although
> not
> > jazz, Sinatra, or some country. I just didn't hear the stuff like I
> used
> > to, and could not believe that I had ever taken it seriously.
> > 
> > So when Carr says a medium has the ability to reprogram our brains,
> the
> > point resonates with me. A style of music sure as heck reprogrammed
> my
> > brain.
> > 
> > I would go on to a passioned defense of deep reading, but Karen has 
> > already done it eloquently, and I again refer you to
> Freerangelibrarian.
> > 
> > How does Carr's thesis relate to what we do as librarians? It
relates
> to
> > what we promote and endorse. For my part, I will be a long-form 
> > evangelist, and try to make converts. I will have no part in
> programming
> > that makes war on reading.
> > 
> > What we do isn't a profession; it is a calling. We must carefully
> consider
> > what we are incentivizing with the limited resources at our
disposal.
> We
> > aren't removing gallstones or laying pipe; we are ministering to
> minds.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Brothers and sisters, you may now take your hands off the computer.
> > 
> > Joe Schallan
> > Phoenix
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Publib mailing list
> > Publib at webjunction.org
> > http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/publib
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Publib mailing list
> Publib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/publib
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Publib mailing list
> Publib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/publib
> 

________________________________

The i'm Talkathon starts 6/24/08.  For now, give amongst yourselves.
Learn More
<http://www.imtalkathon.com?source=TXT_EML_WLH_LearnMore_GiveAmongst>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/publib/attachments/20080618/da74d14a/attachment.htm