[Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"

Wed Jun 18 13:55:49 EDT 2008

Actually, my palm is waterproof. So yeah, you can take it into the tub. 

________________________________

Subject: RE: [Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:26:18 -0500
From: kstipek at aclib.us
To: philipcheney at hotmail.com; marianne.follis at cityofcarrollton.com; jsanderson at nngov.com; jschallan at yahoo.com
CC: publib at webjunction.org

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
>  wrote:
>> On Monday, 6/16/08, Marianne Follis
> 
>> 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

_________________________________________________________________
Introducing Live Search cashback .  It's search that pays you back!
http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/crea=introsrchcashback