It's a google, google, google, google, google world

Wow! I just discovered Google Books. Yes, as Library staff I probably should've used it before, but t'was not the case. I'm a fan of paper, browsing stacks, skimming books, and the like, and hey, I work at the Library. I tend to borrow a lot of real live books. It hadn't really occured to me to seek out those books online instead.

Certainly I spend a fair amount of time on the web anyway, particularly doing non-fiction research (and of course, socializing). While computers don't offer the same tactile satisfaction as print materials, they do offer equal chance for synchronistic discovery. And while I'm a fan of paper, I am also a fan of trees. Fewer books in print could be a good thing, no?

Out of a quick search of three books I'd recently returned to Calgary Public Library, two were available to view as Google Books. Unfortunately, Neurolinguistic Programming for Dummies was not available, but an overview was provided. Yes, it's a must-read for me, if for no other reason than that my financial advisor recommended it, and I need to know what he knows about programming people neurolinguistically. I trust you, M, but I do my research ;).

How wonderful that I can access many of those same books from the comfort of my own home! How ethically dubious as well, in terms of intellectual property. But then, how different is a public library from a public collection of online books? In short, public libraries pay more for the privilege of sharing information, and we have an ethical obligation to keep as complete a collection as possible, regardless of political winds, cries for censorship, and the like.

It was my hope that Google had paid LARGE to be able to offer those books to view, to pay out authors and publishers for the use of the books around which Google will of course sell ad space. Unlike Library books, these digital versions will never deteriorate or need replacement - so the initial investment is it. Well, so much for wishful thinking. I used Google News to access several articles on the subject, and I'm pretty sure Google is coming out of this deal waaaaay ahead. Here's a link to a finely balanced article on the subject of the Google Books Settlement.

Happy reading!

Ahh, Facebook.

I have a mixed relationship with Facebook. When I first joined, I became slightly mad with obsession - must get more friends! With just a few friends to start, I felt an urge to connect with as many people as possible, to build my online community. It was like moving to a new city, where I just knew I knew people ... and I had to seek them out. It took over my life - total time vacuum. I joined some groups and gave a lot of thought to which quotes defined me as a person. Yeah.

Then came the disillusionment phase. Sure, now I was connected ... but I was connected to people who I saw everyday anyway, and others who I hadn't seen for years and wasn't likely to reconnect with beyond a yearly message exchange. And they all had the potential to be voyeurs in MY LIFE. Weird.

Moreover, the stream of information was often boring. It turned out I didn't want to fill my days reading someone else's Daily Fortune Cookie message ... or finding out how often some 'friends' were frustrated with their kids, jobs, partner's absence. A forum for complaining? I needed newer friends, or fewer friends, or truer friends. For many months I stopped checking Facebook. Once every week or two I did check in - just often enough to ensure I didn't miss the best events. Then I got a little cut-throat and axed a few people whose friend requests I should have ignored to start with. Do I miss them? Uh, no. We hadn't seen each other since high school anyway, and there is probably a reason.

The purging helped a bit. I do still have to glance past the Farmville announcements but appreciate Facebook's utility for sharing photos, quick updates, interesting links, creating events, and the like. For now I'm leaving the rest of the friend list intact, but I predict more purging in my future.

I am now blessed/cursed with an iPhone and its delightful Facebook app. It is simply too easy to access, and so I access it much more often. Yep, I'm back to being a daily user. To be fair, I now check my personal email far more often too, whereas I used to neglect it for weeks on end. Spending the day in front of a computer at work does not encourage computing for personal use - unless you have an adorable smartphone like mine. ;) Now I somehow feel more efficient keeping up with email and Facebook daily, though I'm sure I spend twice as much time at either as I did in the past. iPhone, you have revolutionized my world, alright. Facebook - looks like we'll be friends for awhile longer.

2.0 All together now!

It's a wiki world ... and that's a good thing. This Dilbert cartoon originally appeared on August 14, 2008 - you can view the original here.

Denis Hancock of Wikinomics took a moment to revise it, and as a result the world gets this new twist on the old 'workplace as termite mound' joke. I have to give props to Dilbert creator Scott Adams for inviting his readers to contribute Dilbert Mashups like this - essentially a wiki'd version of his strips. Not everyone is so keen to have their work re-thought or re-invented. There is always the risk the original author will be outdone. Here's the Dilbert Mashups link, if you need a few laughs or would like to contribute your own.

Wikipedia and wiki sites in general can get a bad rap as inaccurate, simplistic, a haven for lowest-common-denominator thinking. In any given moment, it's just as likely that collaboration has lead to newer, better, more thorough approaches. That is the joy of wiki - ever-evolving, capable of capturing the best and worst of human thinking, and yes, everything in between. The old tomes of a printed encyclopedia were also prey to errors, omissions, and editorial bias. The constraints of size and cost alone are limitations that wiki technology will never face.

I regularly access Wikipedia for quick fact checks and have found it to be fairly reliable. Typos and grammatical errors are no more common on Wikipedia than elsewhere on the web - often less so than in personal blogs.

Today I edited an entry for the first time, and was astonished at how easy it was. I can see how pranksters could have a fantastic time with this, and certainly editorial bias is a concern for any author. However, Wikipedia does seem to tend towards correctness, with a limited staff but many users and contributors. My contribution was simple: I removed an outdated External Link and added a fresh one. Nonetheless - feels good to contribute!

Advocates of collaborative platforms speak to the possibilities of bringing ideas together without concern for who gets the credit, of building on each others' work in real time, of democratizing knowledge by sharing it widely and freely. I recommend two TED talks I've seen recently that speak to these ideas, both of which have appeal for us wordy folks:
Richard Braniuk on Open-Source Learning
and
Erin McKean on Redefining the Dictionary

Also of interest may be Sir Ken Robinson speaking about how school systems kill creativity.
Sir Robinson delivers his ideas with great humour, commenting on our current system's inclination to emphasize thinking 'from the neck up and slightly to one side'. For me, this talk is a reminder that there are many ways to learn and think, and creative expression is vital. The wiki world allows for and encourages this, emboldening the average citizen to get involved in sharing their knowledge and perspectives.