For the background on this issue, see Quis custodiet isos custodes.

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the American Psychological Association has decided to offer copies of the second printing of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th ed as replacements for July’s first printing, which was found to contain a significant number of errors.

A quick search of the APA website hasn’t found any announcements or instructions, but a quick search of the social networks has turned up the following:

• A notice on the Inside Higher Ed Quick Takes site, linking to…
• A posting on the Boycott the APA Manual, 6th Edition Facebook page (membership required to view) by John Foubert, a faculty member from Oklahoma State, which states the following:

“I have just received word that After November 2, call APA at 1-800-374-2721, ext. 5510. Ask for instructions on how to go on-line and print a mailing label you can use to return your copy and receive a corrected copy.”

Whether this is all correct remains to be seen (and any incorrect information will be changed or removed as I learn more), but it appears that there is a window between November 2nd and November 15th to initiate replacing copies of the manuals.

found via Bill Drew on Facebook (more of that social networking)

Here are two quick and effective ways for Ohioans to contact the Governor’s office and convey our thoughts on the library aspect of the budget crisis:

Contact the Governor is a standard contact form that resides on the official governor’s web site.

Ted Strickland’s FaceBook Page is amazing at this moment… there seems to be miles of supportive library comments posted on his wall.  Every single post is about library funding.  If you are a member of FB, I suggest that you consider adding your thoughts to the list.  Note that you have to “Become a supporter” in order to post a comment, but the most important criticism should come from those who support you.

Here is what I posted in both spaces:

Governor Strickland:  Please recognize that libraries allow those with limited means to access information and technology.  To severely cut funding at the same time that circumstances are pushing more people into the “limited means” category will only delay (and perhaps suppress) Ohio’s recovery.  Libraries do not expect to be exempted from budget cuts, but the severe level of the cuts means that many services and locations will not survive, just when people will need them the most.

Note that I do not suggest that libraries not face any budget cuts.  This is a statewide crisis, with many causes, and it will require intelligent and shared sacrifices by many.  To not expect any cuts would be unrealistic.  To implement modest cuts, combined with options to more effectively and efficiently serve patrons, could transform this into a win-win scenario.

I feel that there is a great deal of room for increased efficiency in library operations, especially when it comes to technology.  There are efforts to do this on a multi-state level, which is a solid step in the right direction.  Other steps can be taken statewide to save money and increase participation.  Efforts to find and implement technological efficiency at individual libraries themselves can provide greater service and budgetary savings in the long term.

Blogs Falling in an Empty Forest is a New York Times article about blogging, specifically about the study showing an estimated 95% of blogs have not been updated in over 4 months.

Does this signal an end to blogging?  The death of a communication tool?  Not at all.  As the article points out, much of the information conveyed through blogging can also be conveyed through other tools, such as Facebook and Twitter.

As with all tools, users will seek out the tool that best fits their task (or at least the best that fits their skill set, and will still accomplish the task).  Blogging was an early “web 2.0″ tool, and was adopted and adapted to serve many purposes.  Through a combination of better tools for specific tasks, loss of interest/time/support for the creators, and the limits of readers to follow more than a given number of blogs on a particular topic, it is no surprise that many blogs are going into hibernation.

There is also a discussion regarding the expectations of the blogger.  If one strives for fame, fortune and glory, go for it… but a majority of bloggers will not achieve that level.  I suspect that more than a few people set goals beyond what the market could provide their particular skill set and audience.

When I set out to start blogging, I simply wanted to utilize a forum that would allow me to collect thoughts and ideas that I felt were important, and to use it to organize my own interests and actions, as well as to convey what I posted to those who might be interested.  Over time the focus has expanded to include more of my thoughts and ideas (I still cringe a bit when using the word “I”), but still focuses on what is happening in the library technology world.

Blogging has been harder to maintain than I originally thought, but it has also been far more rewarding.  I am still searching for the balance between all of the activities that demand attention, but I suspect that Libology will remain in the “active” category for some time.

found via ResourceShelf

Amidst a great many other topics, HTML 5 has been on my mind the past couple of weeks.  It started on Tuesday, May 26th, with Kevin Yank posting HTML 5 : Now or Never? on the SitePoint blog.  He was floating the question of whether or not they should look into publishing a book on HTML 5 now, or if they need to wait until it matures enough for developers to use with confidence.  If you read his post, and especially if you look over the comments, you will see that there is a full range of opinions (including that HTML 5 should never be implemented) by developers about the topic.

This remained a relatively minor, background issue until two days later, Thursday, May 28th.  On that day Google announce the existence of a new project called Google Wave.  My initial thought was that Google was simply creating their version of a FaceBook/Twitter/Blogging style platform.  The more I looked, the more I realized that this was much different, and much more important, than a differently branded service.  Wave is something that has the potential to change many, many aspects of how we use the internet.

What is Google Wave?  I have spent a good part of last week trying to distill it into a couple of paragraphs, and am not having much success.  The overall essence of it is something that I haven’t yet wrapped my head around, but here are a few aspects of it that will hopefully illustrate some of it:

It is a communication platform that allows users to send, receive, and use a variety of information (think communications like e-mails, IM, tweets, feeds, etc.) in a way that offers greater control, speed, and usability.  Messaging becomes “real-time”, with your keystrokes being sent live to the person you are communcating with (unless you select to hold the message until you are ready).  The effect of this is that it becomes possible to hold a real-time conversation with others utilizing a variety of communication forms simultaneously.  You can incorporate text, images, documents, and other digital formats into the conversation in a free-flowing manner that saves time, effort and reduces confusion.

To quote from the introduction to an interview, “Email is asynchronous conversation. Instant messaging, by contrast, is synchronous. Wave is both.“  Possibly the best general description of Wave could be that it lets users and groups easily communicate and collaborate in one interface, using whatever editing/communication/collaboration techniques fit the task at hand.  Think of it as a collaboration mash-up tool.

A few places to find further info:

• Went Walkabout : Brought Back Google Wave. (Google Blog)
• Google Wave Drips with Ambition. (TechCrunch)
• Video Interview with the Google Wave Founders (TechCrunch)
• Live with the Google Wave Creators (TechCrunch)
• Sergey Brin : Google Wave Will Set a New Benchmark for Interactivity (TechCrunch)
• Google I/O A Real Eye-Opener (SitePoint)

Watch for the technological shift from these developments.  This will not only give us new and improved tools to perform tasks and work together (think of the possibilities for online meetings and conferencing), but will set standards for what will be expected from web presences.  Our OPACS may have some new goals to aim for.

Note added later:  I have had a busy week, and forgot to actually address the relationship between HTML 5 and Google Wave.  I do so in another post, Why HTML 5.  Apologies for not getting it right the first time!

Eric Shonfeld at TechCrunch writes:

“Once again, the Internet is shifting before our eyes. Information is increasingly being distributed and presented in real-time streams instead of dedicated Web pages. The shift is palpable, even if it is only in its early stages.”

Twitter.  RSS.  Facebook.  Digg.  You-Name-It-Feed.  It is becoming apparent that this is the next big shift in internet usage, and, as with the previous shifts, it is hard to guess what the effects will be, and who will be affected.

And this, like previous shifts, will not supplant previous internet use trends.  HTML, or some form of it, will still be very dominant.  Blogs and Wikis will continue to exist, and will be useful tools for certain types of communication and interaction.  Integration will continue to be the norm, with the “now” infusing itself throughout.  How will this change be considered dramatic?

“Traffic occurs in bursts, depending on what people are paying attention to at that second across a variety of services. Someone might notice an obscure blog post on Twitter, where it starts spreading, then it moves to FriendFeed and Facebook and desktop stream readers such as Tweetdeck or Seesmic desktop and before you know it, a hundred thousand people are reading that article. The stream creates a different form of syndication which cannot be licensed and cannot be controlled.”

This “cannot be licensed and cannot be controlled.”  Think about this.  How much of your web presence is based on control:  control of layout, content, contributors, and most of all, control over the rate at which change occurs?   For a library web site, how much of this control is able to be ceded before the concept of a library web site itself changes, without controls?

As with many future technology issues, now is the time to begin thinking, discussing, understanding all of this.  We cannot begin the process of deciding or planning, because none of us can predict how this will play out.  What will we have in place to deal with this, to anticipate this, to harness this?  One benefit of this process will be the inevitable inspiration that some will have about the potential of streams; a future must-have library web site technology might come from this.

Start thinking!

Gary Hamel’s blog post on the Wall Street Journal is titled The Facebook Generation vs. the Fortune 500, but the issues contained within the post are ones that are going to touch upon all businesses and organizations, including libraries.

He lists 12 “work-relevant characteristics of online life” that will impact the workplace, including:

• All ideas compete on equal footing.
• Leaders serve rather than preside.
• Groups are self-defining and -organizing.
• Power comes from sharing information, nor hoarding it.
• Intrinsic rewards matter most.

All of these are features of organizations that are in a better position to survive, simply because members are motivated to be adaptive, communicative, and supportive.  Think about groups and workplaces you have been a member of… most of your negative associations with them likely would be less critical if one or more of the ideas above were a greater part of the environment.

These ideas will slowly creep in, championed by those who have experienced the benefits a group/organization/business gains by applying them.  Resistance will be the unspoken response by those whose power lies in control of information, expression, and rewards.

The mix of these ideas will affect different groups in different ways, but they will affect every group, including libraries, in a profound manner.  The greatest benefits go to those who can successfully adopt the attitudes and behaviors that will ultimately succeed within that group.

Which of these offers the greatest opportunity for your situation?  What can you do to begin/continue the transition?  Think about this, because it is up to you to change your own approach, and encourage others to change theirs, as well.

found via Lorcan Demsey’s Weblog

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), passed by Congress last August and due to be enforced beginning February 10th, is designed to protect children from exposure to products containing unsafe levels of lead or phthalate.  All well and good.  There has been some controversy regarding the application of the law to resale shops and such, but there now seems to be the potential for this to impact libraries in a big way.

Apparently the General Counsel of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has ruled that the law applies to public, school, academic, and museum libraries.  This means that all products designed for children under 12 years of age (think children’s books) would need to be tested or removed, or children under the age of 12 would need to be barred from visiting the library.

The American Library Association’s district office in Washington D.C. has issued a District Dispatch summarizing the issue, and they have also released a letter sent to congressional members last month requesting an exemption from the law, including a link to research done by the publishing community on the potential for exposure to these chemicals through books (which was rejected by the CPSC General Counsel).

thanks to Sia Stewart for her Facebook posting of the dispatch!

—- 10 minutes later —-

The CPSC posted a clarification yesterday that suggests that libraries might not qualify… they don’t mention libraries, and their General Counsel previously said that it does apply, but what they state does suggest an exemption.

(didn’t see this until after posting)

The 2008 ECAR (EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research) survey has been released, and they have added a section on social networking (pdf version of chapter here).  Among the findings:

• Slightly over 85% of those surveyed use social networks, with Facebook and MySpace topping the list.
• Younger students (under 30) tended to use Facebook, while older ones tend towards MySpace.
• About 50% use social networking for discussing classwork with other students; only about 5% use it for discussing classwork with instructors.

The only one of these three that surprised me was the tendancy towards Facebook/MySpace by age.  I have thought of MySpace as appealing to younger users than Facebook.

Social networks are definitely here to stay.  In five years we may not be discussing Facebook or MySpace (because they might have been superceded by a yet un-created network), but people will be more interconnected, not less.

The third point is one that should make us take notice.  Half of the surveyed students have used social networks to discuss classwork; the main reason they haven’t discussed it with instructors (and by extension, the library folk) is that we view it as some sort of cyber malt shop, a place only for their peers.

If we make ourselves available on social networks, we aren’t going to find ourselves becoming an overnight sensation.  We will, however, give people one more way to view us as being there to assist them.

Whether we create OPAC search tools to embed (or even highlight the good ones that exist, like WorldCat and CiteMe in Facebook – also here), create an institutional identity, or just make ourselves more visible as individuals, there is much we can do to assist students and promote our services.

We can jump on board the trolley, or be left behind.  The choice is ours, both individually and collectively.  I am on Facebook and LinkedIn, btw… and you should be too.

found via Web4Lib — thanks Gerry McKiernan!

There is now a READ Mini Poster creation tool on the American Library Association web site which lets you upload a photo into one of four templates.  This is a neat offering, with a couple of caveats:

1. The positioning tool for the picture is very limited.  I was only able to use my facebook profile picture in two of the templates, and each still didn’t look quite right.  I have been spoiled by Web 2.0 tools such as Facebook’s Pieces of Flair (note that there is a piece of Libology flair, if you are feeling desperate for library-related buttons) and expect such niceties as mouse-controlled positioning.
2. In addition, there are no terms of use listed for these creations.  Knowing that ALA limits the use of other versions of the Read posters, I assume that they would make a specific statement regarding this on the creation page.  I wasn’t even able to load their copyright statement page, so I feel forced to go with default copyright.

These reasons are why I don’t have my newly-minted READ Mini Poster shown here.  This is a great promotional idea, if they can work out how to let us use it effectively.

thanks to Karen R. Schneiderman for posting a link to the Lex Scripta blog on Facebook!

=================================

Update: Jenny Levine, Internet Development Specialist & Strategy Guide for the ALA (and also known as The Shifted Librarian) wrote an e-mail assuring me that “these images can be used by the person generating them for use on personal or library blogs, personal profiles, or other social networking sites.”  When the ALA updates their site next week, this will be clearly spelled out, she says.

I suspect that criticism can easily sound snarky in this medium, so I will re-iterate the dominant point from above:  this is a great promotional idea for the ALA, libraries, social media, and readers.  Check it out!

Disclaimer: I have been an avid user of Scrabulous for several month (Stats:  70 wins and 3 losses, best bingo at 158 points), and am sad to see it go.  I am not posting because of this, however, but because of how the the article illustrates the problems with current copyright law.

Scrabulous Highlights the Failure of American Copyright Law is an excellent article in the Inquisitr.  They examine the copyright history of a game that started off with the name Lexiko, and compare it to the current patent laws as they apply to prescription drugs.

The intent of copyright is to encourage creativity by granting a period of exclusivity, but not at the exclusion of others with time. Copyright law as it stands today limits the creation of new works by denying the rights of others to create derivative works after a reasonable time. Copyright law today works against the greater good.

from LISnews

continued from here…

Evergreen and Project Conifer (John Fink) was a progress report / Q&A session about the installation of the Evergreen ILS for a consortium of academic libraries (McMaster University, University of Windsor, and Laurentian University). John gave a fantastic overview of the project, intended to go live sometime next year. It is a large undertaking, especially considering that they are writing the code for the Acquisitions and Serials areas of the software. He had an observation that I found interesting (and have noticed as well): people using III’s Millennium ILS tend to have a higher opinion of the software than is deserved. It is good, and it works fairly well, but it is deeply flawed, in my opinion. I will add that users of Voyager need to be reminded of the good points of their system now and then, but that it is also flawed. I will say again that Evergreen is going to have a much bigger impact than people realize.

Open Book, a WordPress plugin (John Miedema) was another high-interest session, since I had installed and used the plugin just one week earlier. To discuss the plugin and the reasons behind its functionality and existence with the developer was a great experience. The group discussed Amazon, OCLC, and Google (and their relative restrictions and freedoms) at length. John is a great supporter of the Open Library project, and for good reason.

Metasearch / APIs / Facebook for Libraries (David Fiander, Geoff Sinclair, Me) was a bit of a blur, since I was at the front and trying to think as effectively as possible (more challenging some days than others). I got to discuss my idea (a piece of software that uses an API that is as straightforward as possible, which passes requests to various library and bibliographic systems and returns the results… this could allow search tools and OPAC overlays to work with a standard set of rules, as well as allowing meta-search tools to become more effective), but didn’t feel that any brainstorming actually took place. If someone doesn’t point out a big flaw in my thinking (especially when I am stretching my abilities beyond their comfort zone) I suspect that I am politely being listened to. Maybe not…

The Wrap-up went fine, but there wasn’t a call for action, or a consensus as to what should come next from all of this. I can’t say I expected one, but I was hoping to have some sort of Eureka moment. I did have a strong feeling that I was going to put everything together in an interesting way during the drive home on Saturday, but it didn’t happen that way (keep reading).

We then walked over to the BiblioCommons office for a buffet tray/beer/wine dinner party. I had some great conversations here, and completely forgot to find out what exactly it is that makes people speak of BiblioCommons in reverent tones. There isn’t a lot of information out there beyond it being a “complete social discovery system for libraries” (from their website). People whose opinions I respect are very impressed with it, and I was in a conversation with one of the people directly involved and never asked one question about it. Shame on me!

I ended up skipping the pub night outing, as I stopped by the hotel and felt tired, and spent the time putting pictures online. I went to bed early, and slept very fitfully, until about 4 a.m. That was when the gunshots began. There were 7 ro 8 of them, from at least two guns, sounding like they were just outside the building. I woke at the first shot, rolled out of bed (away from the window) on the second, and duck-walked to the bathroom with my phone as they continued. I was on the third floor, so I don’t think I was likely to get caught in the line of fire (I figure they were either shooting at each other, or shooting into the air). It was a very unpleasant experience, and I didn’t get to sleep for quite a while (and didn’t sleep well then). When my alarm went off, I decided to cancel my sightseeing activities, get some more rest, and leave Toronto straight from the hotel.

So that’s why I didn’t spend the trip thinking about neat library technology and such. Too bad, because this was as good a conference as I have ever attended, and I complimpent John, William and Stacy on their excellent work. I encourage more groups to consider this format (it would work well as part of a standard conference format as well… just set up a block of time, or a conference track, as an unconference).

Previous posts here and here…

I attended the One Big Library Unconference (Facebook too) last Friday, and haven’t had a chance to post about it yet, so here goes:

I arrived in Toronto around 7 p.m. on Thursday after a smooth journey. I stayed in a hotel about 3 walking blocks from the conference venue, mainly so I could park the car on Thursday and walk everywhere. In daylight the neighborhood, part of Toronto’s Chinatown, reminded me of the Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago: a wide variety of people in a busy, urban environment that feels very alive. At night it became somewhat worrisome: many homeless people sleeping in doorways and sidewalks, groups of people “hanging out” and looking a bit dangerous, and panhandlers approaching passers-by for change. I never felt directly threatened, but was very aware of the potential.

The conference was sponsored by York University, and held at the Centre for Social Innovation. The building was very warm, but the facilities were comfortable and pleasant. Everyone I came in contact with was fantastic.

How can I describe everything? Take about 70 people, self-selected to be interested in Libraries and Technology, everyone intent on learning and interacting with others of like mind. I have never seen a conference group as positively engaged in all that they were doing. I think this came about from a combination of the Unconference format, the selection of a well-defined yet general topic, and just the right amount of planning and structure (and not too much of either).

The organizers introduced themselves and described the day’s schedule process. The topics that had been submitted via the wiki were laid out on sheets of paper (see the photos in the second post for detail) on tables, along with blank sheets for newer ideas. I suggested what I had been brainstorming about during the previous day’s drive, and voted on the topics I most wanted to attend.

They ended up combining sessions in order to include all ideas, meaning that I co-presented with two other people (kind of strange, since I wanted a roundtable discussion in order to brainstorm). While they were tabulating the votes and arranging the schedule, we all attended the first session.

Zotero: Start watching for the next update of this incredible tool… it is about to become even more powerful. Then, once you have that gem, watch for the next big release. A great summary is located on their roadmap. I am left with an exceptionally strong positive feeling about this tool and the people developing it. Trevor Owens did a great job with the demo and presentation.

Drupal: This ended up being more of a detailed presentation of what it takes to implement a new web presence in an institution when it involves dozens of people in many departments. Politics, control over presentation of content, and seamless functionality were the main points discussed. On alternate days I think it might just be better for a small team (no more than four people) to install, configure and implement the system. The other days I suspect the “many hands” approach might be better. I had hoped for more tips on installing and configuring Drupal (having installed and configured it for the first time only a couple of weeks ago… watch for an announcement), but didn’t get that. Good session, nevertheless.

Lunch was buffet sandwiches and fruit (and a wonderful coffee bar that was open all day). The highlight was the tours offered to the building’s roof, which has a rooftop garden installed. I enjoyed taking pictures of the people in my tour group.

(more in part 2)

I will definitely be attending the One Big Library Unconference next month in Toronto! I am enthusiastic about this, as it has been nearly a year since I have attended a conference, and I have been very curious about the unconference format. Having worked with Reaching Forward South for a few years, experiencing a participant-organized conference will be a big change.

This (un)conference is, partly because of it’s broad theme, a close fit for much of what fascinates me these days. Unstated, but implied, is the idea that the larger and more distinguished libraries need to join the tiny, underfunded community and special libraries in a way that the world as a whole can benefit. This is a challenging concept, and one that will strongly shape the library world in years to come.

Oh, yes… they’re in Facebook, too.

(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