Library Journal's Academic Newswire today did a slightly-more in-depth piece on Microsoft's intentions to drop LiveSearch.
They seem a bit ticked off, but reported that Open Content Alliance (OCA) founder Brewster Kahle wasn't, though the quotes they attribute to him sound like he's disappointed to be loosing the future funding (and who wouldn't be).
They're keeping the equipment and training. With costs for server space declining, and so much of it available for free, I can't see that this will be a huge hardship until it comes time to update the software. But then again, I'm probably naive. I also tend to be skeptical about the need for new non-profits; and about the need for preserving every single book ever printed (a check in the why-I'm-not-a-librarian box).
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Take that, Google!
Microsoft's latest volley in their match with Google: They are ending the "Live Search" book digitization and search project, and making the digitized books available for free to the original "owners."
Global Problems
The Chicago Tribune reports on the troubles the U of I's Global Campus is facing.
To me the Global Campus initiative resembles a scaled-up, tacked-on version of the online degree that the Graduate School of Library and Information Science has offered for at least the past ten years. The "tacked-on" element is the problem.
Inside Higher Ed pointed to this article.
To me the Global Campus initiative resembles a scaled-up, tacked-on version of the online degree that the Graduate School of Library and Information Science has offered for at least the past ten years. The "tacked-on" element is the problem.
Inside Higher Ed pointed to this article.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
More on Orphan Works
Yesterday's LJ features a short piece on the forthcoming Orphan Works legislation.
I understand why libraries interested in digitizing and making available books are for it, and I understand the enthusiasm of big corporations interested in digitizing and using so-called "orphan" works to pad their lists without paying the creators. I'm not sure how this legislation enforces the constitutional protections of the rights of the creators to their works of science and art.
I understand why libraries interested in digitizing and making available books are for it, and I understand the enthusiasm of big corporations interested in digitizing and using so-called "orphan" works to pad their lists without paying the creators. I'm not sure how this legislation enforces the constitutional protections of the rights of the creators to their works of science and art.
EarlyWord.com
Today in Shelf Awareness:
"How Libraries Buy: Librarians Reveal Their Methods for Collection Development, Saturday, May 31, 9:30-10:30 a.m. A panel of librarians will discuss how they buy books, what they're looking for, how publishers can best reach them and more. Moderated by Nora Rawlinson, founder of EarlyWord.com, the Publisher/Librarian Connection."
I was excited, until I took a look at EarlyWord.com. It's okay. Basically a clearing house of links and "how-tos" for beginner and/or non-MLS librarians. I was interested to see that they have a publisher-catalog links page. Then let down with their disclaimer, "This list is NOT in alpha order. Use “find on this page” to locate specific catalogs." To be fair, the sidebar links are alphabetized. I would love to see some programming and/or innovation in presentation on this site. Alphabetizing would be good, too. Of course, I'm not working as a librarian.
"How Libraries Buy: Librarians Reveal Their Methods for Collection Development, Saturday, May 31, 9:30-10:30 a.m. A panel of librarians will discuss how they buy books, what they're looking for, how publishers can best reach them and more. Moderated by Nora Rawlinson, founder of EarlyWord.com, the Publisher/Librarian Connection."
I was excited, until I took a look at EarlyWord.com. It's okay. Basically a clearing house of links and "how-tos" for beginner and/or non-MLS librarians. I was interested to see that they have a publisher-catalog links page. Then let down with their disclaimer, "This list is NOT in alpha order. Use “find on this page” to locate specific catalogs." To be fair, the sidebar links are alphabetized. I would love to see some programming and/or innovation in presentation on this site. Alphabetizing would be good, too. Of course, I'm not working as a librarian.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Google Health (AHHH!), NYTimes
Why, Google, why?
Do I want my private health records held by Google, who I do not see as being terribly responsible or responsive when it comes to accuracy? No!
Do I want my private health records held by Google, who I do not see as being terribly responsible or responsive when it comes to accuracy? No!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Who makes a book?
Late last week Book Business announced that a "Community-Sourced Book Publisher Launched" called WEbook, kind of a fiction-focused Wikipedia for-profit. As I scrolled through the proposals, I was reminded of another article in CTIAdvertising, When Did It Bekome Acxeptable to Spell Incuhrrectly? WEbook admits that they want to do for book publishing what "American Idol did for music." So, the WEbook "active projects"/proposals section is obviously the humiliation part of the program, where people who should be learning how to use their spell check are instead learning how to use WEbook, convinced they can write a book without knowing how to write a sentence.
There is something of an "ivy-league" and cliquish mentality in publishing, whether it is academic publishing or, from what I have read and heard from published fiction authors, literature, or even mass-market. There has also been a process to getting published which isn't completely dependent on breaking in to the clique. It's largely dependent on learning to write so that someone wants to read it.
Which brings me to this NYTimes article, "He Wrote 200,000 Books (but Computers Did Some of the Work). Did he "write" the books? I don't think so. He wrote the code that wrote the books. Because Google writes the algorithms that compile the data about websites doesn't mean that they wrote the data. He compiled the books. So, he's an author without being a writer.
Both these publishing models produce commodified books. Books-by-the-pound, at some point probably worth less than the value of the recyclable paper they are printed on. I don't think the models are inherently bad, but there is something shifty about their implementation. I think if P.T. Barnum were alive, he would approve.
There is something of an "ivy-league" and cliquish mentality in publishing, whether it is academic publishing or, from what I have read and heard from published fiction authors, literature, or even mass-market. There has also been a process to getting published which isn't completely dependent on breaking in to the clique. It's largely dependent on learning to write so that someone wants to read it.
Which brings me to this NYTimes article, "He Wrote 200,000 Books (but Computers Did Some of the Work). Did he "write" the books? I don't think so. He wrote the code that wrote the books. Because Google writes the algorithms that compile the data about websites doesn't mean that they wrote the data. He compiled the books. So, he's an author without being a writer.
Both these publishing models produce commodified books. Books-by-the-pound, at some point probably worth less than the value of the recyclable paper they are printed on. I don't think the models are inherently bad, but there is something shifty about their implementation. I think if P.T. Barnum were alive, he would approve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)