link

NYT Magazine is running an article by Clive Thompson that starts out by reporting on a study. The study finds that people lie less on the internet in spite of its image as a realm of dangerous strangers. I had a funny thought as I read this paragraph:

On the Internet, though, your words often come back to haunt you. The digital age is tough on its liars, as a seemingly endless parade of executives are learning to their chagrin. … This isn't a problem for only corporate barons. We all read the headlines; we know that in cyberspace our words never die, because machines don't forget. ''It's a cut-and-paste culture,'' as Hancock [the study's author] put it (though he told me that on the phone, so who knows? There's only a 63 percent chance he really meant it).

The parenthetical remark that ends this paragraph is a joke. (I mean that literally; it is a funny phrase intended to evoke levity.) It includes a playfully ironic jab at the author. My thought was: why didn't he put a smiley face there?

Oh yeah. This isn't a blog post (although the author writes a blog), it's an article in the friggin New York Times.

link

Lisa Williams, who got me thinking about how comments you make on other blogs ought to be findable from your own blog, has some more great ideas for technology-aided discussion. In particular, the location-aware commentary ("show me what others think about the restaurant I'm currently standing in front of") is a wonderful idea that can be solved or closely approximated by current technology. That's what I love about computer technology: there is such a strong current of innovation that you don't have to look far back to discover fundamental, amazing new ideas. I think it's partially a privilege of good timing— a kind of renaissance.

A post by David Weinberger from the SXSW conference session on librarians got me thinking about the many roles of libraries. I think there may be a niche for a business in the library world: one that recognizes that people aren't really willing to physically go to libraries for information any more. It's now remarkably easy to get information online, and no claims of superior quality will change the perception that google is fast, easy, and good enough.

So why go to a library? Some reasons:

• there are people there you want to work with
• you can browse and skim a reputable collection by topic
• you can use resources that are bound to that place, such as librarians, annoyingly proprietary databases, or special media (microfilm, maps)
• it is a nice place to hang out and think about things at leisure away from the bustle of everyday life

What would a library more tightly focused on these goals need?

• a number of small, reservable, soundproofed conference rooms with chalkboards and internet access so that 2 to 4 people can have a discussion without disturbing others
• a cafe that serves coffee and snacks, to sustain long stretches of study and discussion as well as to provide a noisy, stimulating atmosphere for those who prefer it; and to function as a rendezvous point
• dedicated quiet reading/study areas where one can retire with a book or laptop and cup of coffee
• specialized browsing-oriented catalogs: librarians should focus on a hobby or interest of theirs and develop focused browsing systems in partnership with library patrons and experts in the field; these could be done on a rotating exhibit basis
• I'm going to harp on that last one a little; can you imagine how great it would be to go to the library to see an exhibit on the greatest information in an area of interest to you, curated by experts? Not only would you find new, stimulating material, but you'd also be guaranteed to bump into experts and other hobbyists
• The library would have to prominently feature (and even market) the reputation of its librarians and patrons, so like-minded people could find each other and would choose the library as a natural meeting spot
• The library must be located near businesses and restaurants so that it can be easily utilized for meetings and can be seen as the launching point for friendships, romance, and partnerships

And what's wrong with current libraries that prevents them from realizing these goals?

• They are overly focused on books. Books now contain a much smaller fraction of the world's useful information than they did when libraries were conceived, but the concept of a library's holdings hasn't kept in step.
• They are excessively tied to government or educational institutions. In theory, public libraries should serve the public, but as large government institutions they are inert, inflexible, and underfunded. University libraries exclude many potential patrons and will never have their primary focus on the public, and suffer from many of the same problems as public libraries on top of that.
• Because they are tied to multi-purpose institutions, libraries are too general. Their identity is caught up with the university or the town, so the average patron does not feel his potential to rearrange the place, leaving his imprint. Hence the library has little personal appeal.
• Libraries are too large. This is a one cause of their generality, because the sheer physical size of libraries makes it difficult for them to assume an understandable identity. Additionally, the "economy of scale" ideal for the library often results in depressingly bad architecture that encourages us to get our books and get out, without lingering to discover new resources — librarians, books and periodicals, or other patrons.
• Libraries enforce an overly strict distinction between patron and librarian. The flow of information isn't just librarian-to-patron anymore, but the other way around and inter-patron. Individuals should be able to contribute to the structure of the library's physical space and information systems.
• Libraries don't serve coffee. This is especially asinine. By comparison, Starbucks serves information (via wireless internet access).
• Libraries underserve groups. Because of their reputations as quiet zones, libraries are seen as places for individuals to read and reflect. But if the value of a library is to grow increasingly from its power to connect people socially—since its market in distributing information is being clobberred—it must serve groups even more than individuals. This means libraries must contain a large amount of flexible meeting space with collaborative tools like TVs, computer projectors, seminar rooms, and chalkboards.
• Libraries discourage talking. Instead, libraries should set up a physical environment that encourages going up to someone who is browsing and making suggestions out loud, using your voice, and making connections with people.

The next question, which I don't have time to think through right now: can you make money doing this? I am skeptical that current library systems will be flexible enough to try out these kinds of ideas, but perhaps we can entice some entrepreneurs to build a "mall for smarties"?

link

One Jon Husband had an interesting response to a call for visions of the future of blogging tools. He seems to be interested in a lot of the same stuff I am: the intersection of knowledge management, social software, weblogs, and new organizational, social, and economic structures.

link

By way of Jessica:

Evans chronicles her struggle with homelessness and her recovery from her religious past in the online Web log Being Homeless. She's one of an increasing number of the down and out and disenfranchised who are venting their frustrations—and finding friends and support—on the Web.

link

Critt points to an interview on the social and cultural impacts of technology with the guy who coined the term "virtual reality". Lanier has some reasonable points about the dangers of technology, and seems to have a reasonable non-luddite basis for his views. I wish, however, that he could have gone into more detail about what the thought trends he rails against really mean. The Singularity? Sounds like froofy AI mumbo-jumbo. I'm not very optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on how you look at it) that AI will deliver on that promise.