Air'd

One of the coolest things about today’s internet is that we all can be creators of information as much as we are consumers of it. It’s something I like to make sure we talk a lot about in my information literacy class. Old internet=read only (unless you were geeky enough to understand HTML and how to get it online). New internet=read/write.

There are lots of reasons for this: Web 2.0, cheaper tools (digital cameras, microphones, etc), easier to use tools (largely because of Apple). Anyone who has ever made a Facebook profile has seen how easy it is to get content online. And because of that we all have the potential to influence large scale conversations.

It’s one of the things I love about the internet.

At the same time, there is a lot of discussion about how Twitter is killing blogs. I’m not sure exactly where I fall in that argument, though certainly a lot of blogs I follow are producing less content than they used to. A lot of those authors are spending a lot of time on Twitter. But most of what they’re posting to Twitter isn’t the same type of content they used to blog about. I’m not judging if this is good or bad, it’s just Twitter and blogs achieve two different purposes. Blogging allows the writer to consider an issue in depth or to pull together seemingly unrelated ideas. Twitter allows for real-time information sharing and conversation. For most of us, that type of content is something we can put up much more frequently than blog posts, and is much more reasonable to post regularly as well.

There was a period of time, a few years ago, where to participate in online library discussions, you pretty much had to be blogging or at least commenting on them. That’s not true anymore. There are many folks in the library field who don’t blog, but have established a strong online reputation (and rightly so) based on participation in Twitter and other social networks.

Likewise, the video blogging/podcasting crowd has always been a smaller one than the blogging one. It flat out takes (sometimes just a little) longer to produce that type of work, you’re “out there” in a way that’s really different from text, and the content isn’t as searchable. And there’s a lot of good professional content in this area these days. I know that the podcasts/video podcasts I subscribe to have shifted to be more of this professionally created content over time.

Okay, so at this point I’m thinking:

1. We’re in a fantastic age of the read/write web.
2. There was a period of time where a lot of “regular folks” produced a lot of content (written and multimedia) for the web.
3. We’re in a period where people are shifting to shorter form pieces.
4. We’re in a period where more content is being created by organizations (from the NY Times to Revision3).
5. There’s a lot of quality, polished content to consume on the web.

At the same time, there’s an increase in discussion about online TV, ereaders, and more multimedia publishing.

So, with the unveiling of the iPad, I can’t help but wonder if the device is aiming at the segment of the population that is more consumer than producer of information.

When I think of how I use my computers, I tend to use a majority of that time for some sort of production: mostly writing, document creation, calendar editing, and some multimedia. I do use my home laptop for TV viewing, and I do a lot of reading between production tasks, but when I think “I need a computer!” it’s almost always about something I want to put online.

I love my iPhone, and waited (apparently I didn’t blog that unboxing) in line the day it came out to get it…and again for the 3Gs version. It’s awesome. And I do use it for a lot of content consumption. Often, if there’s something I want to respond to on it, I’ll send myself a link to the website for once I’m back at a laptop. If all my content creation was via Twitter, Facebook, and quick emails, the iPhone would enable 90% of what I’d want to accomplish.

So when I see the iPad, I see a device for people who have those specific types of needs. It looks like a device for people who want to consume information and maybe contribute shorter messages to existing sites. Users without a work computer would probably get the keyboard for emailing, which will increase functionality, but would be something they’d pull out on occasion rather than use with regularity.

In all honesty, as a big Mac fan, I immediately started thinking about how this thing would fit into my life. My first thought was that Apple would need to produce a keyboard that would hold the iPad so I could type on it at conferences. Then I was struck by what a pain it would be to carry multiple parts around like that. And then I realized I was envisioning something an awful lot like my netbook.

And it seems to me we might begin seeing a divergence in computer purchasing options. Those who want to primarily consume information may begin opting for this type of tablet. Those who produce a fair amount of content will still go for a laptop (with keyboard, multitasking, and enough memory/power for video and audio work). And those producers who like to talk about technology will probably have both.

So though I’ve been a repeat line-waiter for the iPhone line of devices, I anticipate sitting this one out. My relationship with the web is as much contributing to the discussion (via blog posts or video or whatever) as it is consuming, and my laptops do a darn good job of enabling that. My iPhone meets my consumption needs pretty well, too.

Though, this entire post has clearly been written before the thing even has been reviewed by many sources and is far from being delivered to anyone’s door. Who knows what’s in store and how things might change in the next year.  For example, Reel Director is an unbelievably awesome video editor for the iPhone. I use iMovie even less now that I have that app. It might all come down to the keyboard, and old fogies like me will just have to get over the lack of a touch type input device.

Related posts:

1. reusable content
2. how does content creation fit in with the future of libraries?
3. pushing content

• BackType Comment Plugin: This one pulls in comments from other blogs, Twitter, FriendFeed, and is pretty customizable. This gets to the issue of losing the conversational nature of the blog. Even if the conversation moves to Twitter, it can still be tied to the post.
• Subscribe to Comments: This one lets people follow along with comments in the blog. I used to have a plugin that did this type of thing for me on other blogs. I’d get a notification whenever there was an update to a blog that I commented on. That company went out of business, though, so I really appreciate blogs that have a notification option. I’m glad to finally have that here.

Anyway, since these two met two of my needs perfectly, I thought others might be looking for similar solutions. Here they are if you need them!

Related posts:

1. Comment Challenge!
2. co.mments
3. Comment Challenge Reflections

As I mentioned the other day, I’m trying to learn more about digital humanities. It’s a topic that I’ve assumed I’d be interested in (after all, I like most technology and one of my majors was philosophy), but I’ve always felt that I had kindof a nebulous grasp of the concept.

Luckily, just as I’m trying to learn more about it, there’s been several interesting things happening in the digital humanities world, at least as far as the Modern Language Association goes. So I’ve been paying attention to some of the aftermath.

As an aside… One thing I’m noticing about that very behavior is that it’s much more challenging for me than following a library related conference (for example, Internet Librarian, Computers in Libraries, or Code 4 Lib). Since I’m not part of the MLA or digital humanities community, I’m not familiar with the channels they use, which ones are the most important, or who the “big” names are. This type of knowledge about the library world makes it easy for me to do this type of following for our conferences. It makes me think a lot of reference librarianship. I need to find the librarian for this type of work who can tell me what channels to be tuned into for the best information!!

Back on topic: In learning what I can about the digital humanities, I’m seeing a lot of interesting discussion about the impact of social networking on scholarship. It’s lovely! From the clear impact of Twitter (though this post has tons of other great stuff in it, too… I’m referencing that later) to story of Rosemary Feal, executive director of MLA, inviting her Twitter friends to a late-night gathering of MLA leaders to discussions of digital literacy being as essential as information literacy and critical thinking…. it’s really fun to see Twitter taking form in this community the way it has taken hold in library conferences and dialog. In fact, reading a lot of this reminds me of ALA just a year or so ago, when it was first transforming the way that Twitter users could participate in the conference: “attending” multiple sessions at once, contributing from home, sharing information in real time, and enabling face-to-face meetups.

But the part of the conversation I’m enjoying most can be found in Amanda French’s Make “10? louder, or the amplification of scholarly communication. It. Is. Awesome. She pulled together a spreadsheet of Twitter use at several different conferences and archived the conference tweets as well. Using this data, she found that “only 3% (at most) of MLA attendees were twittering, while almost twice as many people twittered about THATcamp as actually attended it.” Looks a lot like some of our conferences, no? She pointed out how she had hoped to follow along at a distance this time, but Twitter still hadn’t saturated the community of folks attending MLA… meaning the content didn’t make it out as she had hoped. Again, like some of our gatherings.

And French noted that since Twitterers were the ones reporting, those playing along at home mostly got the news that Twitterers reported. People at home might think the conference was mostly about the digital humanities if those were the sessions Twitterers reported on. They might think that Brian Croxall’s “The Absent Presence: Today’s Faculty” was the most influential as it was discussed by those at home and online at great length, though at the conference it might not have been such a hit. And because of all of this online discussion, the paper was picked up by several mainstream websites (including the Chronicle). And as French says,

Let me put it this way: Brian’s paper was big news only on Twitter and in the blogosphere. Which, however, means that it was big news. Period.

And here’s the leap I love: over at academhack, Dave Parry suggests “The real influence should be measured by how many people read his paper.” Rock. On. Where in the past, only those in the room had the experience of hearing a paper, now the reach can be much, much greater. In this case, it looks like Croxall’s paper was read by around 5,000 people, which is half the total size of the conference. It’s a huge number of people for an academic product.

But, as Parry points out, Croxall’s success comes in part because he has built a lot of social network capital through Twitter, educational technology work, as well as having done a lot of traditional academic networking and scholarly production. Which I have seen (and been fortunate to experience) time and time again in librarianship.

Anyway, enough rambling. Again, here are the two main posts I’ve been reflecting on:

• Amanda French’s Make “10? Louder, or, the Amplification of Scholarly Communication
• Dave Parry’s The MLA, @briancroxall, and the Non-rise of the Digital Humanities

I think we (in libraries, as well as in academia) should be thinking a lot about the issue of “amplification in scholarly communication.” We need to have more discussions of what this means for tenure and what counts in as scholarly communication and participation. I hope this is just the beginning of the conversation…

Related posts:

1. electronic communication
2. women, discussion lists, and communication technology
3. tweet tweet

Made to promote the Collingswood Book Festival 5K Race to Raise Money for New Teen Area in the Library: “Beat the Director.”

Thanks to Brett Bonfield for making my day with this one! I hope you get tons of racers and donations!!

Related posts:

1. awesome video podcasting instructions!
2. open video from MIT
3. wayne state & library 9.95

So I’ve been thinking a lot about what it means to be born in the late 70s/early 80s, what it meant to grow up in the 80s, go to college in the 90s, and begin working in the 2000s. And so far, the clearest (and most obvious) cultural shift is how the internet shapes one’s perception of what is possible.

Over and over again, I’ve thought about how I’ve been allowed to do things at this point in my career that I never in my wildest dreams thought I’d be able to accomplish by the time I turned 30. And it’s not just me. Many of my professional friends have had the same experience. I know that most of the things I’ve gotten to do have come through contributing in one online forum or another.

My blog started conversations with people that I didn’t think would even notice that I had anything to say way back when I was just starting library school. Giving a webcast at an early online conference helped me establish some area of expertise way before I would have thought that possible–and I’m sure I was only given the opportunity because I wasn’t too worried about attempting to give a webcast. Twitter means that I never go to a conference with strangers. And I say all this here not because these experiences are unusual, but because I know many of you have had similar experiences.

And this really is different. I felt comfortable saying things in blogs and webcasts that I wouldn’t have felt comfortable saying in an article or a face-to-face presentation. Getting good feedback in these informal channels helped me feel confident in more formal ones. I certainly don’t have expectations that I’d continue interesting opportunities without continuing work and productivity, but I also have no hesitation sending in all kinds of proposals for consideration for  journals, magazines, and conferences. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. And at this point, if it doesn’t, I assume it’s more about the fit of the topic than anything.  That kind of confidence (especially for me) is something that is a direct result of the context in which I developed as a brand-new professional.

And what’s exciting about this, to me, is it’s all still happening, so we’ll continue to get more new voices. And even more exciting is that a whole large group came of age in this environment–or joined in and adapted with it–meaning we’ll have a whole lot more confident folks who feel comfortable sharing their ideas, opinions, and experiences, even if they are edgy, controversial, or radical. The entire field is richer for it.

So, anyway, Outliers is a great book, and a fascinating read. I am thankful for the clarity it’s giving me in thinking about what it means to be in the library and information science field at this point in our history, and I highly recommend it to you.

Related posts:

1. Pew’s Future of the Internet
2. the culture of beta
3. social networks, the internet, and finding information