[Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"

Wed Jun 18 14:18:27 EDT 2008

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Google aims to make books more
findable--which should almost certainly increase library circulation. Yes,
Google (and Open Content Alliance) may make lots of public-domain texts
downloadable--but most of what's in most libraries is still under copyright
(and, given Big Media, likely to stay that way indefinitely).

Google's improving its links to libraries and has shown no apparent interest
in bypassing libraries.  (Here in Google's home town, they even paid for a
new bookmobile...)

-walt crawford, who really does try to do deep reading at times, mostly by
turning off everything else-

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Philip Cheney <philipcheney at hotmail.com>
wrote:

>  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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Publib mailing list
> Publib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/publib
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/publib/attachments/20080618/a3316e61/attachment.htm