ALA President Not Fond of Bloggers

Phil Shapiro writes "American Library Association president Michael Gorman is not too fond of bloggers and blogging. '[The] Blog People (or their subclass who are interested in computers and the glorification of information) have a fanatical belief in the transforming power of digitization and a consequent horror of, and contempt for, heretics who do not share that belief... Given the quality of the writing in the blogs I have seen, I doubt that many of the Blog People are in the habit of sustained reading of complex texts. It is entirely possible that their intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs.'"

Duh

[boola-boola (586978)]

Well yeah... blogs are for people to express themselves, not a place for them to write great literary works.

Think of your photo collection and music collection. It's just another extension of that (think DIARY).

It's about links between information

[yintercept (517362)]

It seems to me that blogs help people develop an understanding of the links between information. For that matter, I think the main value of blogs and homepages is the building of links between the blog and world at large. A well linked blog becomes a discussion with the world.

In someways, blogs are a welcome relief from published literature which can be a bit too introspective or polished. I do agree with the librarian who is dismayed at the hype given blogs. Everything in computers gets overhyped. Individual blogs like mine [blogspot.com] really mean nothing. In aggregation, they provide an interesting topology of the concerns of our culture.

Librarians

[yintercept (517362)]

There is much more to librarians and scholarly writing than card catalogs. I suspect that many librarians see the class of librarians as social structure charged with selecting filtering that ideas that will seep into the culture at large.

A great example of this filtering can be seen at University Libraries. A researcher pointed out to me that my local universities had almost two full bookcases dedicated to studies of Marx, and not a full shelve concerned with Benjamin Franklin. The researcher thought this odd for a library in the United States. Librarians take their filtering responsibilities seriously. Blogs, forums, online bookstores and whatnot pose the threat of democratizing the great filters librarians put in place.

The librarian article seems concerned with blogs v. the press. I never had the illusion that blogs would lead to the elimination of main stream press. Hell, a good third of all the blog posts in this world reference published article. Very few mainstream press articles point to blogs. This assymetry will always favor the press.

Blogs pose no threat to the press. They do pose a great threat to the cultural filters put in place by librarians.

Re:Librarians

[SerpentMage (13390)]

I think the comment of Marx vs Franklin is not fair. For example, did the researcher happen to consider how many bookcases of information that there would be for Adolph Hitler? I am sure that you could fill an entire library just on that single topic.

And to put things in context, Franklin was a great man, but Marx for good or bad was larger. Franklin affected the United States and made it what it is today. But Marx affected the entire world, as "The Commie Father". There is a bit of a difference. Whom would interest me? Franklin hands down, but I would not think that the librarians would want me to read about Marx instead of Franklin.

Frankly, I think librarians are not putting any filter in place, and only presenting ALL of the information, not what a select group considers good or bad.

Getting back to the article, I do tend to agree with the general idea that we are becoming a fast food people who just gobble information without thinking of where the information came from and what it represents.

Re:Librarians

[xSauronx (608805)]

Getting back to the article, I do tend to agree with the general idea that we are becoming a fast food people who just gobble information without thinking of where the information came from and what it represents.

I'm not sure that we are becoming that kind of people....but rather that we already are. Look at the politicians we have in office, the decisions they make, and the laws they pass with little resistance or interest from the average American.

My dad was reading what he thought was a funny email to me, something about left-wingers wanting the guantanamo bay priosners charged with something or released, and a right-winger saying how bad those people were and would the liberals like to baby sit a gun-toting terrorist.

He stopped laughing when I asked how many cases he'd read about in the paper of those prisoners being charged and proven to be terrorists...when he realized he hadn't. He hadn't ever realized that the government that locked those people up is based around a constituiton that says *everyone* has rights to things like a fair trial.

And he's not the only one who has no idea what the fuck is happening in the world outside his pretty little town. And he's not the only one who probably doesn't really care that much.

Re:Librarians

[commodoresloat (172735)]

A great example of this filtering can be seen at University Libraries. A researcher pointed out to me that my local universities had almost two full bookcases dedicated to studies of Marx, and not a full shelve concerned with Benjamin Franklin. The researcher thought this odd for a library in the United States.

Odd, perhaps, but this can't be blamed on librarians. The complete works of Ben Franklin fills 25 volumes. Those of Marx run 50 volumes. But that's just their own work in their original languages -- the fact is, Marx's works have been translated, republished, and commented on and discussed by other writers much more frequently in history than Ben Franklin's. And the fact is, entire nations and people's have embraced Marx's work as the guiding principle of their political culture (for better or worse). While one can say the same of some of Franklin's ideas, there are no revolutions or mass movements in history built on "Franklinism." Even in the U.S., the country most directly touched by Franklin's ideas, very few people actually read him and far fewer write books about him. Many more read and write about Marx.

If you feel there are too few books on Franklin at libraries, don't blame the librarians. They can only choose from what's available. You're right that part of a librarian's job is to filter information but they don't do it with such a blatant political ideology as you accuse them of here.

Re:Duh

[GlassHeart (579618)]

blogs are for people to express themselves, not a place for them to write great literary works.

The complaint isn't that blogs are not great works of literature, but that they're such poor specimens. Surely there's something between the average blog and "great literary works" to strive for?

Re:Duh

[Foktip (736679)]

Apart from that, he makes it seem as though they're "inferior" for not having read "complex texts".

Each person chooses a way to live; people do as they please. To claim that one lifestyle is superior is hypocritical, egotistical, and superficial.

Re:Duh

[LordNightwalker (256873)]

Although his tone is condescending, was he not speaking about the quality of writing and discourse prevalent in blogs? Is this not clearly associated with one's facility with complex texts?

No, since his whole argument was against blog entries in English (I doubt he read any blogs criticizing him in other languages than English) it is clearly associated with one's proficiency in the English language. This in turn has much to do with the culture said person originates from. The fact that a Swede who happens to blog in English produces blog entries of questionable spelling or grammar gives us no insight in his abilities to read and understand complex texts. There is more than one language out there, and not everyone can be expected to have the same level of proficiency in any one such language than the people who natively speak it. After all, I wouldn't expect you to be a more eloquent French speaker than some great French author or poet.

Other than that, I have to agree with you that Mr. Gorman's thoughts on this whole matter are quite unintelligently worded; he probably wrote this in some fit of rage, which isn't the best time to start defending yourself in public against critique. What I found particularly ironic was how he argued that bloggers are unintelligent and inferior in the "grokking complex text" department because their skills in the English Language department are lacking, then goes on a couple of paragraphs later to state that the money invested in this new Google program would be better spent in buying new books for libraries, for example in library-starved California. Yes... It would be nice if more Californians had access to the superior option of local libraries. However, even though Google's new program may not be as elegant a solution as a humble library building stacked with books, it's a resource everyone from around the world (China and similarly censored countries not withstanding) can access.

He needs to get out more

[serutan (259622)]

If the head of the ALA were a publisher, he would know that the overall quality of bloggers' work is no worse than the output of the vast majority of so-called "writers" who submit manuscripts. The fact that some people have talent and others don't is a trivial and uninteresting observation. His reaction sounds more like resentment that mediocre authors, whose work otherwise wouldn't be published, are able to attract large audiences on the web. Maybe he thinks they don't deserve it. Or maybe there's a crumpled up rejection slip in his wastebasket.

Re:He needs to get out more

[joFFeman (574971)]

> Maybe he thinks they don't deserve it. Or maybe there's a crumpled up
> rejection slip in his wastebasket.

he's the president elect of the ALA. he's not really going to be getting any rejection slips. as someone who keeps an online journal, and as the son of a librarian, i have to agree with him. that's why robots.txt has an exclude rule for my 'blog'. i don't want to pollute the contents of the internet[s]. maybe my friends enjoy what i write, and that's fine- i just think it's more responsible to keep it out of the search engines. people often go to search engines for information on a certain subject, and weblogs are all they find in the first few pages. these are mostly sources they do not know, and thus (hopefully) will not trust.

and what he said about the quality of writing in blogs... that's quite hard to argue against. the vast majority of blogs are written by youths for youths- basically public diaries. they are wholly uninteresting as anything but what is considered 'outsider art' by hipsters, who ironically enough compose the upper echelon of the 'blogosphere'. i don't like radiohead, i don't think strongbad is funny, but i do keep a weblog. it's a way to vent, and i don't think it should be considered serious work by anyone. some bloggers are seeking journalistic integrity, and that's great. some people write novels in the form of post-by-chapter blogs. that's cool- but blogs are for the most part internet pollution, redundant, inane, ego-stroking, and self-serving.

Re:He needs to get out more

[mrchaotica (681592)]

I agree, except I look at it from a different viewpoint than you do. I wouldn't say he's so much "resentful" as that he has a valid complaint. The two biggest problems with the "information age" are separating signal from noise, and organizing information. Weblogs and Google are making things worse, not better, because the proliferation of raw data is outstripping our ability to process it. Of course, traditional journalism is no better, considering that they're catering to "consumers" instead of "citizens" now, and chasing after Google and bloggers themselves.

We'd be much better off if instead of yammering on, some of these people became librarians and editors instead.

Re:Duh

[curunir (98273)]

I think your analogy of a diary is particularly good. The vast majority of diaries never amount to anything. But some diaries become historical records that are truly valuable literary pieces. Anne Frank is the obvious example of this. Another would be all the diaries that constantly show up in shows on The History Channel. No librarian would ever think twice about having one of these works in their collection. Yet they make a big fuss about a form of media which isn't really intended to be archived. Maybe they should pay attention to the deterioration of forms of media that are supposed to be archived. The latest Grisham novel doesn't stack up too well against novels from past eras.

I think blogs will be treated similarly to diaries by history. 20 years from now, we may see collections of important bloggings as eBooks, or however "real literature" is published at that time. But the vast majority of blogs will have vanished into the /dev/null, as it were.

Irony:

[uhlume (597871)]

Having read TFA, I find myself struck by nothing so much as how very much like a blog entry this alleged "article" reads...

Re:Duh

[MysteriousPreacher (702266)]

I don't know about being a waste of resources but you're right that these blogs are poisoning search engines.

My blog, has a tiny mention of Bifidus Digestivum (a new miracle incredient) and a commentry on an amusing Danone advert. Now, most of the traffic I get is from people searching for

Bifidus digestivum
danone actress
danone advert mother daughter

A lot of people are coming to my blog and really, just finding crap. Try it yourself, do a google for Bifidus digestivum and you'll see a site called 'buffoons'.

I heard that there was to be a separate index for blogs in Google. personally I think this would be excellent.

The real problem.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389)]

99% of everything is crap. Blog are no different. This is their only problem. Could everyone please now shut the fuck up about blogs? Thanks.

And a note on the word "blog"...

[Old Man Kensey (5209)]

I hate the word "blog". I know, it's heretical to say that. But the whole origin of the word is stupid, vague and probably fictional. There was, of course, originally the word "weblog", and that set my teeth on edge too. A "Web log" is, literally, the record of HTTP transactions with a server. Supposedly, "weblog" originally came to be applied to online discussion sites like Drudge imitators because these people would obsessively tail or otherwise monitor their logfiles in real time and watch the hits come.

The trouble is, no one I know who does or ever did run such a site has ever done this. I did it whenever I posted a link to something I wrote on USENET, and people I knew (hardcore geeks, most of em) thought I was a little weird for doing it (and some of them thought that about me posting to USENET too).

Nowadays you can't do that with most blogs, which are hosted on servers not owned by the "blogger". And "blog" has become so broadly applied that people now call any page written in a first-person singular tone that allows feedback a "blog". Sorry, your LiveJournal page is NOT A BLOG. It's not anything particularly special or worthy of a special name, unless maybe you're Linus Torvalds or John Carmack or somebody else whose every word people hang on with bated* breath.

It's time to face the facts. The term "weblog" was nonsensically conceived to begin with, even more nonsensical in later application, and is now so diluted as to be essentially meaning-free anyway. It denotes no useful categorization. The only thing in its favor is that it was the first term to come into existence to denote what was, at the time, a usefully-demarcated subset of online content. Simple inertia should not rule the day and I for one move that we begin the hunt for a new, more-appropriate term.

* Not a typo. "Baited breath" is incorrect and in fact nonsensical usage.

Re:Duh

[X_Bones (93097)]

That was one of the most painful posts I've ever read on Slashdot. Do you find it even the least bit ironic that your post, rife with spelling and grammatical errors (in a language-related thread, no less), was full of pretentious language and sounded exactly like the whiny blog posts you're complaining about?

ok, apart from the wierd metaphore quite a good post methinks.

Apparently not.

HA!

[NoData (9132)]

Don't let this guy read any Slashdot comments in that case.

Couldn't be more true

[daveschroeder (516195)]

Caution: this post contains generalizations. Most of which are, unfortunately, true.

Bloggers think they're going to be the revolution of the press, and that they'll take the place of the New York Times and Washinton Post, and Newscorp will crumble at their feet.

Not with the half-assed misinformation and melodrama on the vast majority of the political and "news" blogs I've seen (to say nothing of the wild spitting and sputtering in the comments).

Not as long as they have no problem with their complete and utter lack of accountability of any type, and the vicious, one-sided partisan nature designed solely to incite vitriol in their groupthink audiences.

Not while they do nothing more than constantly pat each other on their virtual backs and reinforce their own worldviews and twisted near-conspiracy theories, ignoring any and all other sides of the story while simultaneously thinking of themselves as "open minded" and the only revealers of "the truth".

Blogs have a place in the world of information. And, like all sources of information, I'll concede that some can, in general, build a reputation for trust and accuracy. But many, particularly political blogs, have no regard for anything but the furtherance of their own agendas, taking things wildly out of context, and going on vindictive missions to build a one-sided case to paint the target of their ire in the worst possible light, without any consideration for any other motivations or other sides of the stories.

And they think they're the future of the media?

No fucking thanks.

Re:Couldn't be more true

[trs9000 (73898)]

I agree with most of what you say. The open bias of blogs does not bother me. However, there are other shortcomings. Namely, the thing I don't like about blogs (or, usually just the portrayal of blogs) is the treatment of them as writings. Indeed, I have read many posts that could be considered an article, though usually those are even on the short side of things.

All-too-often, some blogger will post an entry regarding a very interesting and thought-provoking idea, but mostly it's a few sentences and a hyperlink. The blog entry is just an arrow, a finger pointing at the moon. Why should the blogger get credit? Not only is the idea not theirs, they also didn't even offer an in-depth analysis of it (or more often: any analysis). Quite commonly, blogs are devoid of real content. When I look at a lot of the blogs--even professional ones--and they are essentially just posting summaries and references, I question the validity of blogs as a writing medium. Which is to say, it might be one for reference or information, biased or not, but not one of substance.

The really funny thing to me is sometimes it becomes circular, or even recursive. This blog posts about a concept via another blog which posted something they found over here which was just a little blurb about Apple buying out TiVo. Again, the idea proves very interesting--the short degrees of separation and locus of interest allow for quick news online--but it is not very weighty.

There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. Plenty of bloggers, especially those with a political bent can get long-winded. And, furthermore, this is not to discredit the weblog as a medium. I think its pretty great and has quite a bit of potential. But I use blogs (or more specifically, their rss feeds) as information harvesters, not as sources of well reasoned, well written articles.

What liberal media?

[gad_zuki! (70830)]

Correct. Everytime I hear the ignorant claim of "the liberal media" I politely ask the person who said this to tell my how Judith Miller got all those NYTimes (you know the big gay liberal paper) front page pieces about Iraq's WMD from anonymous sources. If they plead ignorance I then ask them to show me ANYWHERE in say, Harpers or The Nation, where those liberal stories intersect at all with what's presented on CNN et al. If they again plead ignorance then I ask them to debunk the propaganda model of media [wikipedia.org] as described, with many examples, in Manufacturing Consent. [wikipedia.org]

The "liberal media" is a nice meme that helps right-wing politicians get their way and keeps their supportoers from experiencing too much cognitive dissonance. its also completely and utterly false. Bias for all commercial media outlets can be traced to the ownership of that media outlet, profitability, nationalism, and fads.

Shouters?

[Grendel Drago (41496)]

I dunno; at least on TV, the right seems to have the edge (*cough* Bill "Shut Up" O'Reilly *cough*) on angry shouters. You can certainly find yammering harridans on both sides of the fence, but I don't remember any major CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN figures screaming at their guests to shut up.

Then again, I don't have TV, and I hear about these things second-hand through blogs.

--grendel drago

To be fair...

[el-spectre (668104)]

There are a lot of EDUCATED people (nationality is not important) that just like to think they are right.

Like just about everyone. The 'Confirmation Bias' is a characteristic of human psychology.

That said, my problem w/Fox "news" isn't that I disagree with the politics, it's the cheap pandering to the masses.

Example: Just before the invasion of Iraq, most news channels were, reasonably enough (given that most americans at the time, when polled, were against an invasion) discussing the 'should we/shouldn't we' issue. I flipped over to fox news and every commercial break ended with a big animated flag / F-16 / eagle montage and big shiny "Freedom on the March!" banner. C'mon guys... let's try for a semblance of restaint.

"Blog people"

[panth0r (722550)]

Look out! The "Blog People" are going to burn books!

Random Facts

[pintpusher (854001)]

It is entirely possible that their intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs.

Not sure what

a random

paragraph is. The temperature here is 33 degrees
fahrenheit. I took a walk today. My HP

doesn't like talking to CUPS.

There are 3,472 green M&M's in the

jar.

Complext Texts?

[by Anonymous Coward]

"I doubt that many of the Blog People are in the habit of sustained reading of complex texts."

Read complex texts? Ha! /.ers can't even be bothered to RTFA.

ALA People

[splatg (672684)]

I'm not to fond of these ALA president people. From what I have superficially seen they make broad sweeping generalisations and knee jerk statements about others who they do not take the time to understand. I also heard that they don't shower very often and are cruel to puppies. There was a rumour going around that they get their tertiay education from discarded tissue boxes and glue sticks.

heretics

[pintpusher (854001)]

I do not have contempt for heretics who do not share my beliefs. I merely beat them mercilessly until they do.

share that is.

Slashdot ad?

[Romancer (19668)]

"It is entirely possible that their intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs."

Kind of like slashdot readers?

Work harder at uncovering the good ones

[BWJones (18351)]

Given the quality of the writing in the blogs I have seen, I doubt that many of the Blog People are in the habit of sustained reading of complex texts.

Yo is sure to get schooled from my mad skillz. Oh by the way, this 3l33t haxor had oatmeal for breakfast this morning. Oh and here's a picture of my cat.

It is entirely possible that their intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs.

On one level, blogs are intended for brief communications or thoughts that often revolve around a central theme, but not always. Often they are intended as a means for maintaining communication with family and friends or as a creative outlet. However, this guy has obviously not been very informed or is lazy about finding informative/interesting blogs out there like:

Kevin Sites [kevinsites.net] whose reporting pioneered the use of the blog in combat reporting.

Dan Gillmor [typepad.com] whose new efforts are targeted at grassroots journalism from sources exactly like blogs.

Or Chris Anderson's blog The Long Tail [thelongtail.com] which discusses businesses, economic, cultural and political models whose goals are to take advantage of the significant portion of those populations underlying the distal distributions of a curve.

And many others whose careful investigation, research, thought and reporting go into the content on their blogs.

Oh, and then there are the blogs like mine [utah.edu]........

Librarians are bitter

[rrs (113451)]

He's just bitter because the idea of mapping IP addresses to the Dewey Decimal System never caught on.

I don't know that he is an antidigitalist...

[miu (626917)]

...but he certainly doesn't get it.

My piece had the temerity to question the usefulness of Google digitizing millions of books and making bits of them available via its notoriously inefficient search engine. The Google phenomenon is a wonderfully modern manifestation of the triumph of hope and boosterism over reality. Hailed as the ultimate example of information retrieval, Google is, in fact, the device that gives you thousands of "hits" (which may or may not be relevant) in no very useful order.

If he is opposed to "inefficient search" then the Dewey Decimal system must infuriate him. Google is great for getting a rough idea of what is out there, occasionally it may lead you to something really worthwhile - but most of the time it only cuts down on the early legwork, something very worth doing.

Re:I don't know that he is an antidigitalist...

[Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)]

I think it's pretty clear that this guy doesn't understand how to use search engines properly and doesn't have the patience to learn.

I think you've never used a good search engine. So far, by their nature, they are mostly limited to specific niches. But he is absolutely right when he says that google is inefficient. Scaling the functionality of the niche search tools to something as broad as the entire net or even just the "blogosphere" is damn hard, but librarians are on the cutting edge of that research. Google may be the best tool at what it does today, but that doesn't mean it is even close to the best possible tool.

Comparing google to a tool like lexis/nexis is like comparing a bicycle a formula 1 race car. The bicycle can go pretty much anywhere but it is going to take a heck of a long time and you'll be pretty sore by the time you get there. The formula 1 car isn't much good off the track, but on track it's orders of magnitude more powerful than any bicycle.

For a high-ranking librarian...

[Sivar (316343)]

...He's actually a pretty funny guy:

For the record, though I may have associated with Antidigitalists, I am not and have never been a member of the Antidigitalist party and would be willing to testify to that under oath. I doubt even that would save me from being burned at the virtual stake, or, at best, being placed in a virtual pillory to be pelted with blogs. Ugh!

I hope he realizes that while most blogs aren't worth the bytes they are printed on in terms of content, there are enough gems that one can't write the entire concept off as a bad idea. In any case, judging bloggers by the quality of their writing largely misses the point--blogs aren't supposed to be a regulated, edited, meticulously researched medium of writing--they are a means of sharing thoughts with the world without having to jump through hoops. Whether the world listens, complains, enjoys the blog, takes offense to it, or feels that the author should have gingerly lucubrated every detail as if each entry were a Nobel Prize acceptance speech is beside the point entirely.

Ignorance breeds arrogance Wisdom breeds restraint

[whjwhj (243426)]

Haven't we all been in a social situation (out to dinner or a bar, for example) where a serious conversation starts up about a serious topic and what ends up happening is that the folks with the least informed opinions do much of the talking, whereas the ones with a more enlightened view say very little? There must be some facet to the human condition that predicates that ignorance breeds arrogance, and wisdom breeds restraint.

Our current U.S. political climate bears this out.

There are plenty of articulate and educated bloggers, certainly. But there are many many more who aren't. We should slow down and think more about the quality of our information, not just the quantity.

Can't replace a good book

[PingXao (153057)]

"It is entirely possible that their intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs."

Hey, it was good enough to score a few million for Ken Jennings!

But seriously, who thinks blogs are where great literatire is to be found anyway? The best blogs-with-a-purpose seem to be the ones that report news stories the mainstream media won't cover. The blurring of the Tinfoil Hat as it were. Anyway, when I want good literature I usually turn to a book. For example in the wake of last weekend's suicide by one of my favorite writers, Hunter S. Thompson, I decided to finally crack open a copy of Hey Rube given to me last year which I had not gotten around to reading. I found this in the Author's Note at the very beginning:

"What has gone wrong with our communication system since then? Why are we more ignorant and less informed today than we were in 1941? ... If World War III can start in a vacuum of silence and stonewalling by the White House, we are doomed like rats in a maze of fear. We are slaves to mendacity and hostile disinformation. Bread and circuses were not enough to sustain the Roman Empire and they will not be enough for the United States of America."

You don't need to wear a Tinfoil Hat these days to see that the plutocracy now in power in the U.S. controls the message and the media. Bloggers who attempt the lost art of Journalism can become a powerful force for truth and justice, keeping the old-guard media whores honest (if that's even possible anymore). But I don't think the ALA has to worry about dumbing down Americans' interest in literature. For 90% of the masses television finished that off decades ago.

this guy is hurting his cause

[wintermute1000 (731750)]

I'm no blogging cheerleader, but the patronizing tone he uses is bound to alienate a less enthusiastic booster of the blogosphere than I. He comes across as an arrogant prig who's using his (extremely limited) bully pulpit to bash those about whom he admittedly (and rather proudly) knows little. I have nothing but regard for the ALA and love my local libraries, but this mocking, snobbish attitude isn't going to win anyone over to his side.

What I got out of it is that the president of the ALA is afraid that his way of life and his preferred methods af acquiring information are becoming less relevant, and rather than changing the way he and his association do business, he figures he'll stand up and mock the people who are changing things in hope that others wil listen. Nice try, man.

"Blog"

[DarkZero (516460)]

A blog is a species of interactive electronic diary by means of which the unpublishable, untrammeled by editors or the rules of grammar, can communicate their thoughts via the web. (Though it sounds like something you would find stuck in a drain, the ugly neologism blog is a contraction of "web log.") Until recently, I had not spent much time thinking about blogs or Blog People.

The word "blog" has existed for years now and has become so ubiquitous that most news channels, TV shows, magazines, and newspapers don't even feel the need to define it, let alone pick apart a word that practically everyone already knows the root of by now. This is like a radio DJ ranting about MTV in the '80s and starting his speech off by defining the term "television".

If you're just now learning what the word "blog" means and believe that the people around you have no clue what it could mean or where it comes from, you're at least a couple of years behind the times, and are far less qualified than the average American to speak about the subject. If Tom Brokaw could regularly use it during the news coverage the presidential election a few months ago without even bothering to define it, it's pretty damn mainstream.

Mr. Gorman misses the whole point of Google

[Eric Smith (4379)]

His criticism of Google digitizing books is based on the idea that it's better to read entre books, preferrably on paper, rather than snippets served up as Google search results. I can agree with that part. But he fails to see that the value that Google aims to provide is the means to readily find what book you need.

I have on several occasions tried to find a book that covers some particular detail of something, and failed, only to later find it by accident in a different book that I wouldn't have expected to cover it. Mr. Gorman must never have had this experience, or he would welcome new tools to help him find relevant books.

I suspect that this is what the bloggers understand and have not been successful in conveying to him. But since I don't know specifically which blogs and bloggers he's referring to, it's hard to say.

Context

[jbolden (176878)]

I think we could use a little context here. Gorman had written an article [infomotions.com]. for the LATimes questioning the value of Google's search engine for books (as contrasted with say spending the money on a library). The position of the article is that information in context (i.e. in a book written by a researcher) is worth far less to someone doing research than a far greater quantity of facts without the organizational structure of a book.

Bloggers who focus primarily on
-- putting together collections of obscure references
-- often don't have formal training in their areas
objected to the classical approach to research that Gorman advocated.

I see this article as written response the blogs which attacked Gorman. As a society we could wonders on the library front for a fraction of the cost of projects like Google's; this is a point that no one questions. The real issue is what is the relative value of libraries as contrasted with digital information repositories.

Blogging proposes a very democratic model of information evaluation that any intelligent person given access to the information will be able to derive the correct conclusions quickly and easily. The classic approach argues that a guided program of study is highly advisable prior deviling into raw sources of information. In feeds in which you are an expert which approach do you think is more correct?

Did anyone else notice ...

[ggvaidya (747058)]

That here we are, creating an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs, with no attempt to build up to a complex document ...

Did Mr. Gorman just troll Slashdot??

noise issue

[ethank (443757)]

I think what he fails to realize is that the benefit of blogs over mainstream press is that the amount of noise present directly equates to more information from which to sift.

In the sense of traditional information theory, noise is information (to simplify a bit). Without noise there is homogenization of signal equating to a lack of movement toward chaos or entropy. Information therefore is created by breaking down communication channels, altering the signal (in this case news) between source and destination. The creation of noise hence creates a dynamic system of information in which all elements are going toward a state of complexity.

Complexity = good.

When extrapolated toward blog vs. popular press, blogs present a situation in which subjective filtering and emergence from it creates the content, rather than content coming from one source.

It is a distributed publishing model which puts the onus of interpretation, use and distillation upon the reader rather than the propagator of said content.

So taking information theory and applying it to blogs, blogs create more dynamic states from which useful information can be gleaned, but it changes the practice of information dispersal to the extent that the hierarchy which typified the dissemination of information pre-Internet has been flattened and in some sense elimnated. No longer is there a differentiation between the reductive properties of grass-roots press and large press.

The issue I see with this guy is not that he is a Luddite, but that he is threatened by the breakdown of the hegemony imposed previously be the hiearchy created by movable type and the publishing industry.

Who should be allowed to write?

[Per Abrahamsen (1397)]

SMS, instant messaging, E-mail, message boards and blogs are all from time to time trashed by professional writters for not containing the same standard of writting as the traditional media, like (paper) letters, newspaper letter columns, and diaries (by grown-ups).

That is probably true if you look at average numbers. Well, apart from newspaper letter columns, which I find slightly below Usenet posts in quality. And we don't really know about the private media, we tend only to see written diaries and letters from famous people.

However, they also mean that a lot more people are writting than ever used the old media. Honestly, how many in here would ever consider writting to a newspaper letter column? And would you write long, carefully formulated letters to friends and family if you could not use SMS, IM or email? And how many of the bloggers among you would write a diary instead?

What the professional writters are really complaing about is that they no longer have a virtual monopoly on writting. It is now for everyone. And of course, we are getting better at it. Much of the communication (like here) is done in public, and we can see which formulations get the point across and which doesn't. So while the writting may not become beautiful, it slowly becomes effective. At least for those who have anything at all to contribute.

The other part of it is that we become less impressed by the written word, now that it has become a daily tool of our own. We are much less likely to believe in something because it is written (in a a paper or book) than our parents were. Since we know no special skills are required to write and publish, we intuitively know that the written word is no more trsutworthy than the spoken word.

This also annoyes the professional writters, even if they don't know it.

Remember, if you're not part of the solution...

[po8 (187055)]

What amuses and annoys me about Michael Gorman's comments (and yes, I did read them and understand them) is how arrogant they are. Gorman, as President-Elect of the American Library Association, is not just proud enough to say how much smarter he is than other commentators about managing information. No, he's proud enough to dream of telling Google how to manage their money. He's proud enough to characterize a whole class of people intelligent enough to operate a computer as mouth-breathing idiots.

Best of all, he's very proud of how the Universal Bibliographic Control [ifla.org] scheme he endorses will solve the world's information access problems. Now please understand: UBC doesn't actually give anyone access to source materials. In point of fact, it seems to be a scheme for trying to assemble a meta-bibliography---in other words, a list of what printed materials you could read if you could get your hands on them. This is unlike Google, an organization crass enough to actually digitize the text of books, to put you one click away from the primary source of the information it indexes, and to maintain backup copies of that information against the loss of the primary source. It is unlike Project Gutenberg, an organization that has already published a huge number of digitized texts that are now available to anyone with Internet access. It is unlike even the bloggers, who at least make their own work fully available online. Gorman apparently has the more limited goal of indexing materials without providing access to them, while mocking the efforts of these other organizations to provide access.

On the offhand chance that Michael Gorman is reading this, let me make my position as clear as possible. I am a scientific research and (if I do say so myself) a fairly literate writer. I use Google, Wikipedia, Citeseer, Project Gutenberg, and other online information resources on a daily basis, because I've found them to be quite effective for me. I read about five fiction novels a month. The last time I used a library card catalog was about 6 months ago. The reasons for this have nothing to do with the comprehensiveness of my University library's bibliography, and everything to do with the paucity of its actual content.

I support our American public libraries, because I think they're an important bulwark in our fight for free speech. In terms of effectiveness in serving my needs and the needs of my family and friends, they are so bad that I fear for their future. Mr. Gorman, please keep in mind that when public library funding comes up for public discussion, your comments, especially given your position, are extraordinarily unhelpful. So, in the jargon of the "blog people" you so despise, please STFU.

By Their Works Shall Ye Know Them

[Ray Radlein (711289)]

A blog is a species of interactive electronic diary by means of which the unpublishable, untrammeled by editors or the rules of grammar, can communicate their thoughts via the web.

If the President of the ALA has such a low opinion of bloggers, perhaps his organization should stop giving so many major awards to them.

I think what he actually meant to say was something along the lines of:

"A blog is a species of interactive electronic diary by means of which the unpublishable -- except for ALA literary award winners such as Orson Scott Card [ornery.org] or Neil Gaiman [neilgaiman.com] or Sherwood Smith [livejournal.com] or David Brin [blogspot.com] or Jane Yolen [janeyolen.com] or Dianne Duane [blogspot.com] or, oh, bugger, you know, all those other ALA award-winning authors who also blog, not that I want to imply that ALA award-winning librarians who blog, like Kathleen de la Peña McCook [blogspot.com], are bad either, and oh, yeah, I definitely don't want to seem to be criticizing PLABlog [plablog.org], the brand new blog of the Public Library Association [pla.org], especially not when we put out a nifty little press release [ala.org] crowing about it, just last month, because that would look pretty stupid, now, wouldn't it -- er, um, what was I saying, again?"

What's More Is, He's Write

[thelizman (304517)]

While his tone is dripping with condescension, not everyone who writes a blog is worthy to have their thoughts read. I write my blog for the sake of friends and relatives, and some people find my words either interesting or infuriating. I wouldn't deign to assume that I am at the vanguard of a new type of media content distribution paradigm as some people do. Over at K5 there's a hack piece on the blogosphere just about every week, and they all have the same conceited notion that blogs will revolutionize the world. I think that often we, the technorati, get so wrapped up in the splendor of what technology can do, that we tend to overestimate what it will do. Todays predictions of a new media format through wikis and blogs are analagous to the flying cars and domed cities of the 50's.

Oh come off it Mahatma

[SweetAndSourJesus (555410)]

In the case of bloggers: "First they don't read your blog, then they laugh at your blog, then that's pretty much it."

Comparing the "blogging phenomena" to the Indian independence movement is a fine way to illustrate your massive sense of self-importance, though.

Oh, no, not the Gandhi quote again!

[ggvaidya (747058)]

I hate how often that quote is used online to support ANYTHING where one organisation ignores/laughs at/fights another one. Not blastingt the parent or anything, I guess it is appropriate to this context, but really ... in any case, I offer a contradictory Carl Sagan quote:

They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

They're both true, of course, but it's silly to forget either one in a debate.

Re:This guy has no right

[Leo McGarry (843676)]

His writing styles is absolutely atrocious.

The irony ... it burns!