What Nothing Says

NOTE: This is also late but I want to post for completeness. Like the previous post, I will update as I have time.

1. Weinberger writes about context as both explicit and implicit, p. 150f: what are some examples of both explicit and implicit contextual messages found in libraries?

I’m having trouble with this. I suspect it is in part because my exposure to libraries in the USA in recent years is very limited. I can answer based on my own library and some I have been to in Taiwan. I think my trouble is more than this, though. I’ll have to read others’ posts to gain more insight.

Implicit

• the library taken as a whole
• whether or not help can be found easily
• the apparent level of technology skills to access materials
• more?

Explicit

• the content of each specific item in the library
• signage
• rules and usage agreements (e.g. what certain rooms are used for, how to get a library card, late return fees)
• scheduled library activities
• more?

2. In the section “Mapping the Implicit”, Weinberger quotes the GIS director at Rand-McNally that
“we’re targeting maps for specific audiences” (p. 158). Adapt the sentence to read for librarians as “we’re targeting information products for specific audiences”. Think about your past experience and education and how to combine it with an MLIS degree to create information products for specific audiences. What products would you create, what audiences would you target, what would be your niche?

I am impressed by the targeted information products that already exist and I am having a hard time coming up with specific ideas for this question. I’ll try to come back to this.

3. After reading the section “What Isn’t Said” with the four points about how the Web might overcome the volume of information to make useful connections, think about Kevin Kelly’s point about having to be transparent in order to benefit from The One. How has your position on transparency and information sharing changed over the past few weeks of this course?

I don’t think my position on transparency and information sharing has changed over the past few weeks of this course, but that I have become more aware of my already fluctuating position on transparency and information sharing.

I think information should be shared on a case by case basis and that we should choose carefully who we share with. A few weeks ago, a Facebook friend posted about their colonoscopy and it showed up on my wall. The post was something very close to this:

Just got back from a colonoscopy. Fun.

My reaction was varied.

Since I would not share that information on Facebook, I was a bit surprised that anyone would.

Why isn’t there more information? Surely they didn’t have a colonoscopy for fun.

• Do they have a disease?
• Was it preventative?
• Did they win a free colonoscopy in a drawing?
• Is Facebook going to direct new ads based on this information?
• What did they want from this post? Likes? Someone to ask about why which would end up in a Hallmark movie about the Facebook friend who became the best IRL friend after a cancer diagnosis.
• Does this person not know that you can set up contact lists on Facebook and share with only certain people. Perhaps this was a good post to share with ‘Family’ or ‘Friends I’ve talked with about colonoscopies before’.

Yes, my brain really works this way and, yes, I did think all these things (and more) and, yes, I specifically remember them. I wasn’t offended by the post. I wasn’t grossed out. I know about the first amendment. I just didn’t (and don’t) understand why that information was shared in that way to be read by those people (me).

However, I have given Google access to all of my personal email and 2 work email accounts – one because our organization uses Google apps and the other because I have chosen to access it through Gmail. Google reads *all* of my email. They also have access to nearly all of my digital photos, most of which have faces tagged. They know my location; rather, they know my phone’s location which is typically my pocket. Google actually suggested an address for “home” because I was there at nights. I’m bothered by this, but there is a trade-off. The more access I give Google, the more helpful Google’s products are to me.

In one of the lectures, Dr. Roland mentioned wishing for a mind-map feature in an OPAC (I think) that would remember all previous searches and some other information. Google is becoming something like this for me because I’m choosing to share.