Showing posts with label wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wikipedia. Show all posts

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Mandating School Libraries: but what will they look like?



A high-profile group of children's authors, publishers, teachers and librarians is calling on the government to make school libraries statutory. Signatories to a petition to Number 10 include Philip Pullman, Horrid Henry creator Francesca Simon and former children's laureate Michael Rosen, as well as the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers Christine Blower, Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, top children's publishers and the directors of a raft of youth library associations.

This is, of course, a logical idea - but what should a library - any library - look like in the future? Is there, for example, another petition from the same type of high-profile group demanding a radical rethink about the way that "digital literacy" is taught.
The petition itself – which calls on the government "to accept in principle that it will make school libraries, run by properly qualified staff, statutory" – will run until December, but by the end of the summer school term Gibbons hopes to have consolidated the support of the book world and to have started soliciting support from community figures, faith groups and celebrities within the wider community.

Properly qualified staff meaning someone who can find a book on Google Book Search? Who can explain issues of trust and verification when using, say, Wikipedia? Someone versed in the narrative genius of many computer games? Someone who is, at least, thinking about Kindles and E-Readers; about marketing the case for reading printed texts over the competing stories found online? Someone who knows where textual resources reside in the digital domain. I'm sure the "celebrities within the wider community" will be able to help here. From the Guardian.

Monday, May 11, 2009

The Three Rs



Reading, Writing & Arithmetic?


Typing and Reposting?


What will happen to us when we stop reading books not because we don't want to, but because we can't?

That day seems to be approaching for me. But I don't want to go down without a fight, so even though I knew I was doomed, I checked out that doorstop of a novel (Roberto Bolano's "2666," a mighty 912 pages) and took it home.

I made it through no more than 10 pages before I had to put it down and skim a magazine, but I was glad I tried. It seemed like a good book. So good, in fact, that I later consumed it the modern way:

I read the plot summary on Wikipedia.

From "Technology and books: Is the novel too much for our technology-addled brains?" in the cash-strapped Chicago Trib.

Thursday, April 02, 2009

A Few Months Ago...



...I watched a presentation on the realities of the 'google generation' - that's all of us btw - and how they search, read and source the web. Striking stuff. Afterwards a man from the Encyclopedia Britannica asked: "Ok, so what shall I do?"


“Wikipedia has been accused of exhibiting systemic bias and inconsistency; critics argue that Wikipedia’s open nature and a lack of proper sources for much of the information makes it unreliable. Some commentators suggest that Wikipedia is generally reliable, but that the reliability of any given article is not always clear. Editors of traditional reference works such as the Encyclopædia Britannica have questioned the project’s utility and status as an encyclopedia.”

Then look at Britannica.com. A search for Encarta in the free portion of the Britannica site turns up nothing. And a search for Wikipedia provides one paragraph plus a pop-up window telling you you are trying to access premium content

wiki on wiki.


From the Christian Science Monitor on the death of Encarta.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Wikipedia: trust comes via someone else, it's called social transparency



Good luck.


We are pleased to announce the release of our first research prototype of a social dynamic analysis tool for Wikipedia called WikiDashboard.

The idea is that if we provide social transparency and enable attribution of work to individual workers in Wikipedia, then this will eventually result in increased credibility and trust in the page content, and therefore higher levels of trust in Wikipedia.

Check this out.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

The Man Who Fell to Earth?






Is heavy metal making us stupid?


Nicholas Carr's "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" was one of the biggest summer hits this year on the dancefloor, with remixes by Andrew Sullivan, John Battelle, and Bryan Appleyard amongst others.



But who or what does Nicholas Carr trust? In auteur theory a movie maker's worst film is said to often reveal much. Here is Carr writing on the album-a-year-meme choices of Amazon's chief technology officer, Werner Vogels.

...you bet your ass I'd entrust my mission-critical data and apps to this guy. I mean, he even ranks Made in Japan, that ridiculous double-record Deep Purple live album with the 20-minute version of Space Truckin', as the best LP of '72.



Here are some of Vogels' picks.


1969: Rolling Stones, Let it Bleed
1970: The Who, Live at Leads
1971: Marvin Gaye, What's going on
1972: Deep Purple, Made in Japan
1973: Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
1974: Genesis, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway
1975: Led Zeppelin, Physical Graffiti
1976: Eagles, Hotel California
1977: The Stranglers, Rattus Norvegicus
1978: Herman Brood and his Wild Romance, Shpritsz
1979: The Clash, London Calling


Full list from 1958 onwards here.


And some of Nicholas Carr's choices:


1977: The Sex Pistols, Never Mind the Bollocks, Here’s the Sex Pistols
1978: Wire, Pink Flag
1979: The Undertones, The Undertones
1980: X, Los Angeles
1981: Squeeze, East Side Story
1982: Richard and Linda Thompson, Shoot Out the Lights
1983: REM, Murmur
1984: The Replacements, Let It Be
1985: Husker Du, New Day Rising
1986: Elvis Costello, King of America

Full list here.


Another question: Is Wikipedia making us reinvent our pasts?