If you spend any amount of time perusing Wikipedia, you will encounter articles on topics that are either exceedingly trivial, offbeat, or hard to classify.  For those who seek these articles, they have a page for it:

Wikipedia: Unusual Articles

This could be considered a place to check for offbeat reference questions (although the Wikipedia search function should offer better results).  Note that you would not want to assume that an article listed on this page would remain, as “all such lists have a risk of being deleted because of lack of neutral definition of what really is ‘unusual’.”

A few articles of note:

• The Magic Roundabout
• Buffalo buffalo buffalo…
• Beatosu and Goblu, Ohio
• George P. Burdell
• ISO 3103

found via ResourceShelf

The Perfect Storm is a brief essay in the current issue of the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) newsletter.  G. Sayeed Choudhury, the author of the essay, states that

“Universities have authentication and authorization systems to identify who you are and what you can use; they also have office software or course management systems to support collaboration.    How many passwords do you use within your university system? How easy is it to collaborate with people outside your university? Yet within and without our universities, many faculty, students, and staff collaborate daily using Google’s suite of tools.  This trend will almost certainly grow once Google Wave is launched later this year.  With its impressive integration of services and novel method for identity management, Google Wave may become a tsunami that washes away the office software suite—and perhaps even the course management system.”

I am not so sure that Google Wave will be the tipping point, but it is certainly another step in this direction.  How many of us have stepped outside of the boundaries of the traditional tools we use for our work and schooling?  It is humbling to recognize how much time and effort can be saved through the proper application of a new software program, or an online service, or even tapping into social networking to gain insight (it is interesting that e-mail lists are considered standard, while Facebook, Twitter and blogging still have the “Library 2.0″ label stuck on them… they are all different forms of social networking, with their accompanying strengths and weaknesses).

Choudhury adds:

Too often we fail to examine trends beyond our own institutional context; we are reluctant to embrace risk taking when developing services or infrastructure.  The choices that universities and libraries make regarding infrastructure in the next few years will have profound implications for the future.

I would take it a step further, and suggest that we not only don’t look beyond our own context, we fail to grasp the possibilities that exist with new technology and new applications of existing technology.  When the environment surrounding our libraries changes, the environment within our libraries changes as well – whether we incorporate these changes or remain passive.

In other words:  We ignore tools such as Google Wave, Open Source, Open Access, Wikis, Blogs, Social Networking, social library catalog tools, and everything else at our own peril.  These tools have changed our libraries, are currently changing our libraries, and will continue to change our libraries as far into the future as we can see.  If we want to remain relevant (in other words:  if we want to survive), we need to pay attention.  Libraries as they have existed in the past will continue to play a role, but that role will be viewed more as an archive than a dynamic library.

We have lost a lot of ground, but we have the ability and the resources to do this, and it starts with each and every one of us.  How can we do our job better?  Smarter?  Faster?  What tools can we use?  How can others help?  The libraries that pay attention to those questions, and strive to answer them effectively, will be the ones to thrive.

I challenge you to, within the next week, find one new tool, idea, or resource that makes you better at your job.  Repeat, ad infinitum – from here it appears that it is Turtles all the way down.

One of the more frustrating things about open source software is the fact that many projects have little-to-no documentation.  William Shields, a software developer from Australia, posts about his experiences and concludes that he isn’t going to patronize projects that don’t pay attention to their documentation.

He is correct.  Any mature software project, whether open-source or proprietary, should have resources available to provide information, specifications, options, and assistance to users.  This doesn’t mean that every piece of software needs a manual and a call desk; there should be options available to provide assistance.

For a smaller, lesser-used product, a brief overview and contact information for further questions may suffice.  As the user base grows, group maintained resources (wiki, lists, forums) can allow those with more experience aid novices.

The ultimate goal with any software is for people to use it, and use it effectively to improve their lives.  Good information on using the software is part of that picture.  When you find an open source project that needs documentation, consider how you might be able to add your knowledge and experience to the project (i.e. when life hands you lemons, make lemonade).

found via What I Learned Today…

In a merging of two of my great interests, NASA has issued a Request For Information (ROI) on how best to “analyze and catalog notes from spaceflight pioneer Wernher von Braun into an electronic, searchable database or other system.“

Sample Page from Von Braun's Notes

At first glance, this is something that would be solved by using library tools and software.  However, the list of potential ways to set this up seems to illustrate the gaps in library technology (all points are mine):

• Users should be able to see the notes as they exist.
• The text in the notes, as well as all labels and notations, should be fully keyword searchable.
• All elements of the notes, including text, formulas, diagrams, etc. should be able to be targeted and described in a way that allows for keyword searching.  This includes “tagging”, but also commentary, description and critique.
• Users should be able to define relationships (create links) between ideas within the notes, as well as documents and other resources from other collections.  For instance, someone seeking information on the Saturn V Engine Bell should find all drawings, notes, diagrams, and formulas within the notes, as well as outside resources relating to all of these.

This project begs for a combination of a traditional database (for storing and searching text) with the added functionality provided by social software products.  Nothing in the list is beyond the current means of technology… think  of a wiki combined with flickr-type functionality that can utilize PDF documents and you have a good starting point.

Why hasn’t this been done?  How many libraries and archives have document sets like this that could become a researcher’s favorite collection, with the right application of technology?  Have any been digitized with a social annotation feature?

Why do I suspect that the development of this will come from outside the library community?  We should already have projects that utilize this kind of mash-up philosophy… our collections could be so much more powerful.

There are some great things being done in the library technology realm, and many people and projects that are worth praising.  But now and then I see something like this and wonder how we missed this obvious application of existing technologies.

found via ResourceShelf and Wired Science

Common Chemistry is a resource from Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) which allows one to search for chemical information using a variety of search terms, whether the terms be common names (aspirin, table salt), basic chemical names (acetylsalicylic acid, sodium chloride), or even the official CAS registration number (50-78-2, 7647-14-5).

Although this does not search the entire CAS database, it is an excellent starting point for most of the chemical information questions posed students and the general public.

Note the link to the Wikipedia entry (just above the disclaimer) for many, but not all, results; not many “authoritative” resources are confident enough in their users to connect them with resources developed and maintained by the crowd.

found via ResourceShelf

Shane Fitzgerald, a Sociology student at University College in Dublin, Ireland (not Ohio), performed an experiment in March in which he placed several fake quotes about death in the Wikipedia entry for Maurice Jarre, who had just died, including this one:

“When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head and that only I can hear.”

His intention was to see how the fake, but seemingly relevant, information would be used on the internet.  He expected it to be picked up by blogs and social networks, and wanted to see how far it would go.

To his surprise, the quotes were picked up by the major media, and appeared in many publications considered far more authoritative than Wikipedia.  Fitzgerald notified many of the media outlets of the experiment, and many have issued corrections, including the Guardian.  To his additional surprise, however, many have not issued corrections.

For most library people, there is a healthy respect for Wikipedia.  It is a powerful tool, one that can save time and effort in research, and can answer many questions for which we do not require a high level of authority.  One does need to understand how far the information is to be trusted.  We see quite a few people who scorn any reliance on Wikipedia, some even in the library world (who should know better).  One would expect that journalists would have at least the same level of skepticism.

Today I present a modified version of a (hopefully properly remembered) Japanese saying.  The original, which refers to Fugu, a delicacy made from a toxin-containing pufferfish, is, to my memory:

Those who eat fugu are stupid.  But those who don’t eat fugo are also stupid.

My version of this quote is:

Those who rely on Wikipedia are foolish.  But those who don’t rely on Wikipedia are also foolish.

found through ResourceShelf

Oracle has purchased Sun Microsystems.

This is significant on many levels.  Many of our library systems run on software or hardware from these companies.  The Voyager library I used to work for used an Oracle database running on a Sun Solaris server.  The clients (Circulation, Cataloging, Acquisitions, etc.) for III’s Millennium system run on Java.

Many web-based software platforms use MySQL (an open-source database project owned by Sun), including many, many blogs (including this one) wikis and CMS.

Many of us use OpenOffice as either their primary or as an additional office suite.

I am not saying that we are at risk for losing these foundations of our library and internet software programs.  The fact that OpenSolaris, Java, MySQL, and OpenOffice are all open source means that we can trust that they will be with us in some form for as long as there is a demand (a trust that cannot be equally placed with any closed source software, which can disappear with the collapse or acquisition of the company holding the software rights).

What I am sure of is that we will see changes.  Oracle has a strategy, or if it doesn’t, it will.  Some of these programs will likely see greater support and resources (hopefully OpenOffice), others will likely see less (hopefully none of them).  Some may become more focused towards a particular segment of the technology world (watch MySQL for this possibility).

Look at what you use, and recognize that today marks a turning point for some of the software.   Hopefully it is for the better.

found via TechCrunch and MetaFilter

Sending OCLC on its way is a post by Peter Brantley on his Thoughts and Speculations blog.  It focuses on the library world’s reaction to OCLC’s licensing change, and cautions against our overreacting.

He is not an apologist for OCLC, but someone who is pointing out what he sees as the dangers in pushing OCLC too far off of its business model.  In this I agree; OCLC has done some fantastic things, and is an orgainization worth preserving.  However, we need to ensure that it does not stifle innovation at the same time.

The continuing survival of libraries in the digital age requires us to be creative and experimental with our data, and having it locked up too tightly will only hurt everyone involved.

found via Code4Lib OCLC Policy Change wiki

A recent post, and the resulting discussion, on Metafilter has put me in a Unicode font frenzy.  A few links of note from there and elsewhere:

• decodeunicode.org is a wiki-based collection of Unicode characters.  You can browse as well as search through the character sets.  There is a lot to see here, and you may get into your own font frenzy; you have been warned.
• FileFormat.info has a Unicode section that provides some great resources, including a UTF-8 Browser Test Page.
• Unicode.org, the official Unicode organization, has a great comprehensive Code Charts.
• Sil.org has an excellent introduction to the Unicode standard, as well as a collection of downloadable fonts and software, including my favorite font for print:  Gentium.
• An additional font family that offers great Unicode support is DejaVu, which was recommended in the MetaFilter comments.
• Two interesting characters I had not encountered before:  Reference Mark (※) and Irony Mark (؟).

As someone who has worked with an ILS that didn’t have Unicode support, which was then upgraded to support Unicode, and then changed jobs and is now working with an ILS with very limited Unicode support, I have a great appreciation for the benefits of Unicode.

Libraries should, in all that they do, attempt to store and present data in Unicode.  This includes our catalogs, web sites, and other data repositories.  Even if you offer very little outside of the standard Western characters, it makes your data that much more accessible and useful.

The International Music Score Library Project is a great concept:  a collection of public domain musical scores made freely available to musicians, composers, and everyone else as well!

Note also that the site was built using MediaWiki software.

found via MetaFilter

Eric Leese Morgan has updated his workshop notes for XML in Libraries : A Workshop.  This is as good an overview of XML for library staff as I have seen anywhere.

found via Catalogablog

A couple of posts about sandboxes have caught my eye:

• LISNews posted about Peter Morville (writer of Ambient Findability, which if you haven’t read – you should) and his Flickr “sandbox for collecting search examples, patterns, and anti-patterns.”
• Roy Tennant writes about the benefits of libraries having a sandbox to try out new software and technology, in particular he points out the University of Cincinnati’s sandbox.

I have, in a somewhat disorganized manner, been creating and working with sandboxes for several years.  Libology is, at least in its first phase, my effort to make a structured sandbox for my own efforts, with an eye towards demonstrating how various tools can work for libraries.  These have been scattered throughout several other domains, and one of my first tasks will be to combine what I have done so far under one domain.

Web hosting is inexpensive.  A site that can run blogs, discussion lists, wikis, CMSs, and a great many other helpful tools can be had for about $5 per month.  An individual or group, taking things one step at a time, can learn a lot from simply getting a site and setting up various software.  There is no better way, in my opinion, to learn about open source and web 2.0 than to jump in the sandbox and start playing!

Last September I wrote about Libguides, an online service that creates web 2.0-style offerings for library web sites. I was impressed with the quality of their offerings, but had misgivings about the cost, especially when one considers that a library can do many of the same things with a bit of time and effort. Interestingly enough, that post is still high in my statistics, so people are interested in the idea and/or the company.

In a way, this is a sequel to that post, though not directly:

Interactive Course Assignment Pages (ICAP) is a site set up by Oregon State University (the “other” OSU to those of us who reside in Ohio) as an aid to creating Web/Library 2.0 home pages for college courses.

Blogs, Wikis and New Media is a site set up on WordPress.com, using WordPress software (same as this blog), that contains what was once held in the Utah State University’s courseware system.

These examples (and I am sure there are many more out there) show just how much can be done with time and effort, and minimal expense. We (meaning libraryland folk) oftentimes find it more satisfying to fit ourselves into someone else’s paradigm of how we should present ourselves on the web.

This is found in libraries that are locked into their institution’s web site, with perhaps the opac itself being the only area found outside the template.

This is found in libraries that are locked into their vendor’s offerings, perhaps customizing colors and wording, but otherwise sticking to yet another template.

This can be found in libraries that haven’t actively pursued their web presence at all, possibly because they feel they need to spend a lot of money or hire a web developer in order to do anything online.

This is also found, ironically, in libraries that throw Web 2.0 goodies onto their site without due consideration of how to effectively incorporate them into their services. Even though I strongly urge experimentation with new technology, too much of something can be more harmful than not enough.

Again, I urge libraries to look at your resources (servers you have access to, your employee’s skill sets, your budget) and figure out what you can do, and what you can expand into with a bit of learning and effort. Even if your resources are near to nothing, you can get a free blog on WordPress, and have someone learn the ins and outs in a relatively short time frame. For a small amount of money, you can get web hosting that will let you do most anything in the web 2.0 arena. The exception to this are those few tools which require a dedicated server, which gets more expensive and involved.

With just a couple of hours of work, I could set up web hosting, install a blog, e-mail lists, message boards, and a wiki. Customizing these (colors, options, etc.) would add some more time, but the net cost would be under $100 per year for a great many useful tools. Add to the mix: you get online storage for library promotions, information, and resources.

Hiring someone to do this setup wouldn’t add too much to your cost, perhaps even some form of trade (fine forgiveness, perhaps?). Imagine what your library might be able to do with something like this… and ask yourself what any or all of these tools would be worth. Not so much in money, but in time and effort.

Blogs, Wikis and New Media found via Weblog Tools Collections

Visualizing the Bible is a project by Chris Harrison, a doctoral student at Carnegie-Mellon University.  It consists of visualization of biblical references and social networking.  Check out his other projects, as well, such as his Wikipedia Top 50 and Clusterball.

found via if:book

Free-Reading is “an ‘open-source’ instructional program that helps teachers teach early reading.” Aimed at Kindergarten/First Grade learners, it is a collaborative means to establish an education program that combines the strengths of those who work on the project, and makes it available to teachers and organizations via a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license.

Oh, and the State of Florida just added this program to their list of approved textbooks. Not only can they save a significant amount of funds that would otherwise be spent on texts, the class materials will be current and likely to be updated by a wide variety of professional educators.

found via Open Access News

Wikia, the search engine designed around the concept of wikis, has been launched in alpha.  This means that a) it isn’t going to work as well as anyone wants, and b) no fair comparing it to Google et. al., except in the theoretical.  In fact, we usually wouldn’t see software until the beta stage of development; this shows how much Wikia will rely on users.

There isn’t all that much to see yet, but the idea of an annotated search engine where the users provide feedback about the search results, which will then be used to improve future results, is tantalizing.  Search 2.0 anyone?

via Open Access News

ReadMe is a wiki containing Ask MetaFilter questions along the lines of “What should I read… ?”

This can be a great resource for book clubs, reading groups, and for anyone looking for book recommendations for nearly any topic.  I should note that the MetaFilter crowd can get a bit snarky at times, as with nearly every online community (and are sometimes nsfw) but they are nearly always interesting, and even if you ultimately don’t agree with them, thought-provoking.

found via Librarian.net

Read this post on Thingology, the blog for LibraryThing, then check out the OpenBibliographicData petition on the Open Knowledge Foundation Wiki. If you agree with the petition, I urge you to create an account and add your name to the list.

How important do I think this is? I was online only to get a phone number to call in to work, and checked my overnight e-mail messages. I decided that it needed to be blogged, and that it couldn’t wait (especially since I seem to have misplaced the original e-mail – my apologies to the person not getting credit for passing this information along).

(Note regarding this post:  When you read this post, be sure to read the comments as well.  I did not state my case as well as I should, and end up sounding as though I don’t feel that LibGuides has as much value for libraries as they obviously do.) 

I don’t normally post “negative” about web sites or services; if I am not impressed by something being offered, I simply don’t blog about it. However, I have noticed a really interesting Library 2.0-related offering, and feel that it should be mentioned here.

LibGuides is a truly interesting and useful product. It offers a way for a library to implement many Web 2.0 tools via a service that is remotely hosted and configured, with content and features that you select.

It looks great, in many ways. They include tools for Facebook integration (great for academic libraries), showing RSS feeds on LibGuide pages, and built in instant messaging (IM) capabilities.

Why am I not happy with this offering? Two reasons.

Reason one is their pricing model. According to their FAQ page, their “annual license fee ranges from $899 to $2,499″. This, to me, is packaging Library 2.0 like a database subscription. True, they have done some excellent work in setting up page templates and integrating tools, but why should a library spend that amount of money to rent those services?

Let me provide an example. This blog is run on a hosted web server. The annual fee for this server is less than $50. This provides 1 GB of disk space, plus quite a few built-in tools such as a MySQL database, full e-mail management including listservs, site statistics, and a comfortable amount of site traffic. I have run several different websites on this company’s servers, and have been happy with their service.

What have I run on these sites? Standard web sites, wikis, a blog, a content management system (CMS), listservs, discussion forums, and custom search pages. There are only two things that I have wanted to install that I haven’t been able to, based on their security settings: I can’t host a WebDAV calendar (for shared group calendar software), and cannot install a library automation system, like Koha or Evergreen (so I have to play with Evergreen using a virtual server on my home computer).

Most Web 2.0 software has open source options available. This means that I can select a blog software, download it, install it to the web server, configure it, and there it is. Is this easy to do? Yes and no. Configuration, especially the database settings, can be fairly detailed. WordPress has very good instructions, and if you are comfortable with copying files from one place to another, and can follow a written guide you won’t have much trouble getting a blog up and running.

Wiki? Same type of installation. Want to run a listserv? Don’t need to install anything, just go to the sites control panel and set it up. What I am trying to say is that for $50, time, and some effort, your library can create a web presence that is just as rich as what is being offered via LibGuide.

Reason two, for those of you who are still with me, is their license agreement (Pdf). You pay them, they provide the service on their servers for one year. They can change anything about the agreement, and all they have to do to make you comply is notify you. You own your own data, and they will provide it to you within 30 days of cancellation, if you ask.

These are pretty standard clauses for many services and software. It is actually quite mild compared to some. It still doesn’t sit well with me that open and interactive services are packaged and controlled like this.

Sure, you could try them out for a year, decide not to renew, and only have an xml file with your content and data to show for it. Or you could get a hosted site, start a blog and a wiki (or a CMS with both built in) and build your site from scratch, adding content here and there, adding new programs and technologies as you go.

Even if you hire someone as a consultant to do the installation and initial training (find people in your area who do this, or want to learn… try contacting web design instructors at your local community college for potential contacts), you can do a great deal in a relatively short time span. Even if you spent $500 for someone (and you shouldn’t even need to go that high), once set up the software and technology is yours for just the annual web hosting fee. Just be sure to learn as much as you can about how everything works, and learning what your site’s potential can be.

And after all of this, if you don’t want the hassle or cost of the hosted web service, you can still do many Library 2.0 functions through other sites. Blogs are available simply by registering at Wordpress or Bloglines. Similar options exist for IM. You can find hosted wiki and CMS sites, but these are mostly paid solutions.

I strongly suggest that every library examine their options for the range of 2.0 technology, and adopt those which will best fit your environment. It doesn’t need to cost much; it doesn’t need a limiting license agreement; it does need to give you the flexibility and the power to connect your services with your customers.

And if you want to see a positive review of LibGuides, which highlights the great points of the site, check out BiblioTech Web

The Right Way to Fix Inaccurate Wikipedia Articles is the title of a Search Engine Land post by Durova, a Wikipedia administrator.

Not only is it an intersting read, it allows one to see how those who help manage Wikipedia view their responsibilities.