USE THIS LIBGUIDE for an Assignment, but NOT Wiki!
Showing posts with label Wiki. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wiki. Show all posts
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia
Extract:
A Wikipedia trustee and a Wikipedian In Residence have been editing the online encyclopedia on behalf of PR clients. Add the discovery of an SEO business run on the side, and this tempest is out of its teapot. continue reading
Why not Wikipedia
USE THIS LIBGUIDE for an Assignment, but NOT Wiki!
USE THIS LIBGUIDE for an Assignment, but NOT Wiki!
Friday, October 29, 2010
Sale of Wikipedia's material as books on Amazon - Wiki in news again
PS. See the previous posts on the Wikipedia in news.
Extract from Wiki:
But in my experience, these sites simply take any article that is uploaded to them and add it to their directories, without any verification or confirmation that the content is not plagiarized. I have found content from FoxNews, Investopedia, and Wikipedia as well as my own content all reprinted without permission on reprint sites. In fact, in one case, the owner of the reprint site advertises how to "ethically steal" content (I'm not sure he knows what the word "ethically" means). "
Extract from Wiki:
A German information portal for consumers (Preisgenau.de) has criticized Amazon for selling tens of thousands of print on demand books which reproduced Wikipedia articles. Amazon did not acknowledge this issue raised on a blog and some customers that have asked the company to withdraw all these titles from its catalog.See also on the same shelf:
By Jennifer Kyrnin, About.com Guide
"Another tempting place to get content is from an online reprinter. Online reprinters are companies that solicit articles that they then offer for reprint (and sometimes translation). On the surface, these reprinters look legitimate, often with long terms and conditions including dire warnings if authors post copyrighted material that is not their own.But in my experience, these sites simply take any article that is uploaded to them and add it to their directories, without any verification or confirmation that the content is not plagiarized. I have found content from FoxNews, Investopedia, and Wikipedia as well as my own content all reprinted without permission on reprint sites. In fact, in one case, the owner of the reprint site advertises how to "ethically steal" content (I'm not sure he knows what the word "ethically" means). "
- Printed Without Permission (A comment at Amazon.com) @ Adoption Is Another Word for Love [Kindle Edition]
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Citing, Citations, Siting, and Sighting the Wikipedia
"Oh in regards to the Wikipedia citations for a given article, this is no guarantee that that citation was actually used to research that article. I've found several instances of Wikipedia citing pages on my site that have NEVER existed (strange but true)."KenB: Why Is Wikipedia On Top in Search Results?
A Long List of Disclaimers @ WIKI:
WIKI in Progress:
Fake Wikipedia editor unmasked in Webmaster General
Where Wikipedia Ends - Yahoo! News
Is Wikipedia a Victim of Its Own Success? - TIME
New Amazon wiki and citation features
Wikipedia popularity from a citation analysis point of view,
Alireza Noruzi, http://www.webology.ir LibraryCrunch: "a Wiki citation is toilet paper"
Tools of the Trade:
Wiki citation maker -- Wiki and Blog citation maker:
A Long List of Disclaimers @ WIKI:
- Use Wikipedia at your own risk
- Wikipedia articles may contain nonsense
- Wikipedia is a work in progress
- Wikipedia articles may have (numerous) spelling and grammar errors
- Wikipedia articles may have errors of fact and errors of omission
WIKI in Progress:
Alireza Noruzi, http://www.webology.ir
Tools of the Trade:
"This page helps you create biomedical citations to use as references when writing on wikis such as Citizendium, Medpedia, Wikipedia, and others. This page also helps create citations for biomedical blogs hosted on Blogger, Wordpress, and other sites."
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Uneasy tensions in LIS Education
This article covers the training and education of librarians.
Education for 21st century librarianship continues to face many of the uneasy tensions that have been present since its beginnings in the 19th century. Some of the tensions facing Library and Information Science Education:
Tension # 1: Generalization versus specialization
There's always been a tension between specialization and generalization in the history of the development of Library Science as an academic discipline (at least in the United States). I guess you could say both have won or maybe they co-exist uneasily? For example, one can still get a graduate degree in Library and Information Science with just about 12 courses. In some schools such as the University of Arizona's School of Information Resources and Library Science the generalization-specialization is exhibited in the following ways: graduate students can specialize in an area of study such as Knowledge Organization. The specialization is a core intellectual problem area of LIS - see this article in D-Lib Magazine for more. Or they can specialize in a particular information environment such asSchool Library Media certification.
Tension #2: Practice versus Theory
Tension #3: 1 year versus 2 year graduate degree
Tension #4: Education for Information (the I word) versus Education for Library Science (the L word) or is it LIS Education?
Tension #5: Cataloging education versus Knowledge organization (or organization of information) approaches
Tension #6: Distance learning versus classroom delivery
The Williamson report on library education chastised librarians and called them "prejudiced" even in this regard for failing to take advantage of new technologies that would provide access (to library education through DE - distance education) to rural areas.
Tension #7: Crisis Criers - if we believe some folks LIS education has been in crisis now for over a hundred years in the US (since inception in fact). continue reading @
Education - LISWiki
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Nine Questions on Technology Innovation in Academic Libraries
In February, 2007, an invitation to an informal survey of "Nine Questions on Technology Innovation in Academic Libraries" was posted to the WEB4LIB, NGC4LIB, LITA-L, COLLIB-L, ACRL-NJ and New Jersey academic library listservs, and it was mentioned in the national ACRLog blog.
The following is a brief summary of the informal survey results with links to more complete information:
***
The survey received 136 responses in total, and 75% said that their library is not the center of technology innovation on campus, while 23% identified the library as the center of technology innovation on campus.
Overall, the majority responded that:
*Recent technology innovations in the library included blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, IM reference, and digitization projects.
*The driving force behind tech. innovation is student needs, followed by an Information Tech. Chief or Dean with vision, and the initiative of individuals.
*The biggest obstacle to tech. innovation in libraries is lack of money, staff, and time, with an unsupportive administration cited as one of the top four obstacles.
*The Library's approach and the Library staff's approach to technology innovation were both overwhelmingly described as "cautious but willing," though the staff were more often described as "resistant and blocking" than the Library itself.
*Faculty and librarians were most cited as the introducers of disruptive technology on campus, followed closely by students.
*The most disruptive technology for academic libraries today is "Web 2.0" or Social Computing technologies with Google/Google Scholar coming up second.
*The Top Ten Models of Technology Innovation cited by the libraries that answered that their libraries are centers of technology innovation were very similar to those cited overall. The Top Ten Models identified were:
1) North Carolina State University – Endeca Project
2) University of Pennsylvania - PennTags
3) MIT – DSpace
4) University of Michigan – Digital Library Production Service (DLPS)
5) University of Minnesota – Primo library system
6) Cornell University – Digital Library Research Projects
7) University of Virginia – Fedora Open Source Institutional Repository 8) University of California – California Digital Library (CDL)
9) University of California, Santa Barbara - Alexandria Digital Library Geospatial Network
10) Oregon State University – LibraryFind Project
For more information on these Top Ten Models of Tech. Innovation in Academic Libraries, links and abstracts are posted on the ACRL-New Jersey Chapter Website
Separate analyses for the libraries that answered "yes" they are the center of technology innovation and the libraries that answered "no"
The overall quantitative results of the survey and the text of the nine
questions are posted online
NB. Info courtesy: Mary A. Mallery @ [Web4lib] & College Libraries Section [COLLIB-L@ala.org ]
Technorati tags:
ACRL
college and research libraries
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Blog Taxonomy
Walt Crawford is preparing his new study of library blogs, and that got me to thinking about the wonderful world of bibliotekblogging. Inspired by his example, I thought I would come out with my own taxonomy of library blogs. I'm sure his study will be thorough and insightful, because he likes to work hard and do useful things for the profession. I, of course, don't. So what follows is my exhaustive analysis and classification of library blogs, arrived at by carefully scrutinizing Walt Crawford's Bloglines subscriptions for about 10 minutes.
[view these taxonomies]
Library Blog as Personal Diary
Library Blog as Personal Diary Written by Andy Rooney
Library Blog as Professional Therapy
Library Blog as Personal Cry for Help
Library Blog as Pathetic Cry for Attention
Library Blog as Counter-Librarian Blog
Library Blog as Professional Self-promotion
Library Blog as Serious Library Report
Library Blog as Witty Library Report
Library Blog as Book Review Medium
Library Blog as Book Free Zone
Library Blog as Librarian Cheerleader
Library Blog as Cynical Library Critic
Library Blog as Informative Library Analysis
Library Blog as Unpaid Technology Advertising
Library Blog as Informative Technology Selection Tool
Library Blog as Future Manifesto
Library Blog as Business Manifesto
Library Blog as Left-wing Propaganda
Library Blog as Right-wing Propaganda
Library Blog as Fair and Balanced Political Analysis
Library Blog as Inoffensive Satire
Library Blog as Offensive Satire
My previous posts:
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Wikipedia and Academia Hit News Headlines Again
Poor Wikipedia. Professional Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing one of its contributors for a defamatory cyber-attack. And last year, television host and comedian Stephen Colbert urged his audience to vandalize a Wikipedia entry about elephants to prove the point that in a model where any user can edit encyclopedia entries, those entries are only as good as their source. Look Who's Using Wikipedia, Mar. 01, 2007, By BILL TANCER, Time / CNN [info courtesy, David Dillar]
Current News Stories:
"...places like the blogosphere or the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, people no longer treat or respect each other as individuals." Web 2.0's 'digital mobs' attacked: Jaron Lanier tells BBC World Service's Culture Shock
Middlebury: Middlebury College history students are no longer allowed to use Wikipedia in preparing class papers.
The school's history department recently adopted a policy that says it's OK to consult the popular online encyclopedia, but that it can't be cited as an authoritative source by students.
The policy says, in part, "Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a citable source."
History professor Neil Waters says Wikipedia is an ideal place to start research but an unacceptable way to end it. Read another source
As Wikipedia has become more and more popular with students, some
professors have become increasingly concerned about the online,
reader-produced encyclopedia.
From News Archives:
The other side of the coin:
Related resources:
My previous posts:
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Pull and Push Communications: Ranganathan's Laws re-interpreted
I strongly feel that Ranganathan's Second and Third Law of Library Science have a direct relationship with pull and push communications strategies. A clarification on this is necessary (to avoid any clash of ideas). There is a bit of overlap in the implications of these two laws. This overlap may sound logical, because, the Second Law is about the choice of information (including seeking behavior and end-user's priorities), and the Third Law is about the choice of medium (including skills) for outreach of the message.***
In short, in both these situations, whether you try to pull or push, you are aiming at establishing a network between the messenger, message, medium and end-user--albeit, with a balance (lest, the Guru, Marshall McLuhan said, message is lost in the medium)
And, here is an excellent piece on the pull strategies, in relation to library marketing situations:
In communications there are two primary models for reaching target audiences. One is called "pull" communications and the other is called "push" communications. We'll outline pull communications now, and in the next issue of Marketing Treasures, we'll talk about push communications.
In talking about the push and pull models, we are not referring to the underlying technology such as RSS, but instead, on the user experience. To embark upon a pull communications strategy is to allow members of your target audience to "pull" your communications at their discretion. In the brick and mortar world, pull communications are used by advertisers to draw customers into retail establishments to receive messages. People elect when and how they will act on the messages in the pull model of communications. In the virtual world, pull communications is exemplified by blogs, wikis, and web sites. Continue reading Marketing Treasures July 2006
Related approaches to understand Web, Marketing and the nexus:
1. The Law of Dead--End Street
2. The Law of Giving and Selling
3. The Law of trust
4. The Law of Pull and Push
5. The Law of the Niche [continue reading [pdf]]
... should therefore be seen to some extent as reflecting the ‘Pull-Push Effect’ of ... Ranganathan who infused scientific method in the field and that marked ...
I am going to suggest that Ranganathan's five laws are as valid today and ... of automated push and or pull services from libraries and from a distance. ...
See my other posts:
--------
*** Thus spake the Law Giver, Ranganathan:
Second Law: Every Reader His or Her Book
Clearly, it is the business of librarians to know the reader, to know the books, and to actively help in the finding by every person of his or her book.
Third Law: Every Book its Reader
This law addresses the fundamental issue of open access. Open access means that the collection can be examined with as much freedom as if it was the reader's private library.
Source
Prof. A. Neelamgehan was kind enough to add a few words to this post:
Dear Dr. Md. Taher:
As you are aware in most library’s only about 75% of the collection get used frequently. Dr.S R Ranganathan’s Third Law is more concerned with those documents that are not frequently used; what measures that the library / librarian should undertake to push and bring those items to the potential users’ attention – including special exhibitions, lectures by scholars about these resources, etc.
Best wishes
A. Neelameghan
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Library 2.0 Theory
This is a running post: Updated March 10, 2007:
Michael Stephens on The Culture of Trust
"The best libraries of the future will be those that...will seek to make that personal, emotional connection with users. It might be online, it might be in person, it might even be at Panera Bread. Walk through your library today and look at the story your library is telling with its space, signage, and ambience. Share yourself. Be human. Feel good about the difference you can make in your role as a guide for your users through this crazy, information-inundated world."
Listen to this article ...
Library 2.0 : An Academic's Perspective
I am quite excited to see a fellow SUNY librarian and a nationally known librarian blogging about Library 2.0 from the perspective of an academic. I have known Laura Cohen for may years and have served with her in the SUNY Librarians Association. Her new blog, Library 2.0: An Academic's Perspective, will be worht the time to read it. Her introductory post provides a good introduction and overview of Library 2.0. She quotes this list, from LITA President Bonnie Postletwaite, of what Library 2.0 basic concepts cover:Flexibility and nimbleness to enable rapid change
Commitment to continuous improvement based on assessment
Interactive and collaborative services driven by users needs
Taking the library to the users AND making the library a destination
Embracing radical trust
Use of new technological tools to accomplish the above
Laura then comes to the conclusion that "the last item is optional." I am in complete agreement.
Thanks to Bill Drew @ Baby Boomer Librarian for this reference
Interesting, thought provoking and synchronizing article by Maness. Thanks to Sukhdev for this info.
Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries, by Jack M. Maness, Webology, Volume 3, Number 2, June, 2006
Abstract
This article posits a definition and theory for "Library 2.0". It suggests that recent thinking describing the changing Web as "Web 2.0" will have substantial implications for libraries, and recognizes that while these implications keep very close to the history and mission of libraries, they still necessitate a new paradigm for librarianship. The paper applies the theory and definition to the practice of librarianship, specifically addressing how Web 2.0 technologies such as synchronous messaging and streaming media, blogs, wikis, social networks, tagging, RSS feeds, and mashups might intimate changes in how libraries provide access to their collections and user support for that access.
I love this - if you are looking for Library 2.0 ideas for your library, be sure to check out the Library 2.0 Idea Generator. This site randomly generates such gems as:
"remix Ranganathan's Laws using del.icio.us"
"engage microformats using LibraryThing"
"re-evaluate Stephen Abram using the Netflix model"
"repurpose Inter Library Loans just to annoy Michael Gorman"
"A library service on the web that is a combination of LibraryThing, Netvibes, IM-reference and Aquabrowser adapable to the individual needs and of course it should not be library dependent, but could incorporate content and services from all kinds of library-enteties.... Library 2.0 = MyLibrary? by lib1point5, 12 Apr 2006
See Also:
In an article, “Libraries urged to embrace Web2.0″, Mark Chillingworth makes the point that “that existing library catalogue standards, such as MARC and Z39.50, need to be replaced by XML technology “...
Here are some baby steps libraries can take.
1. Decide on what information a library wants to publish - catalogs, events, services, resources etc.
2. Design one or more Microformats for publishing the information
3. Integrate it into the current library web sites
continue reading
Technocrati Tags:
Web 2.0
Library2.0; and Library 2.0
Streaming media
Library Education
See also my previous post:
Monday, August 07, 2006
Nexus between Knowledge Management and Library Science
knowledge management and librarianship resources, Maryam, April 13, 2005
Welcome to KmWiki a collaborative persistent 'conversation' on all matters related to knowledge management.
My own previous post on KM - a librarian's perspective
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Market Research Techniques for Libraries
I begin this post with my own effort to create a Webliography on:
Market Research Resources via Libraries and
Focus Group Technique for Research on Libraries
While the above two are extensive sources, I came across a term: Environmental scanning. Googled and found one interesting post in a blog, called, Science Library Pad, by Richard Akerma
And incidentaly, two different, albeit related resources, inspire me to write this post: First is on Environmental Scanning and the other is ALA's marketing Kit.
- Competitive Intelligence Workflow: The Self-Service Continuum from Ad Hoc Research to Environmental Scanning, by Arik Johnson
- Environmental scanning for libraries, by Richard Akerman
[cites: OCLC staff 's article on environmental scanning, and Wiki's article on the subject, Environmental Scanning]
First thing first. Richard identifies the meaning and usage and how this term, environmental scanning (also known as business intelligence, competitive intelligence, etc.), has evolved. Nevertheless, there admit fact that the LCSH does use the subject heading competitive intelligence (and not environmental scanning).
NB: What surprises me is, there are many citations that have same and / or similar works in the literature (including works that deal with market surveys conducted to assess needs, log analysis to capture the tacit and tangible, etc., community surveys, and so on). If someone coins a term, does it mean that whatever was done in the past is all written off. At least one scholar comes to my mind, not cited by Richard and the OCLC citation, viz., Prof. Chun Wei Choo.
Based on this random citation behavior and usage of terms that look appealing, I wonder, like all other attempts to be innovative and creative, is this another attempt to present, old wine in a new bottle?
Any comments? What do the Library Marketing Gurus opine on my note? Any one would like to respond? Does scanning sound, better than research, search, and survey? [search for environmental scanning on the web and you will find medical, environmental, ecological, and other resources. Are we, then, short of terms that we are looking for more?]
See more on Market Research * libraries
The second resource, I came across today is:
PUNCHLINE:
Marketing of Evil' opposed by the gay community is locked out of over 99% of college libraries
The Virginia Tech librarian ran a database search on "The Marketing of Evil" to see how many libraries worldwide had a copy, and came up with some surprising results. He searched WorldCat, an online database of the Dublin, Ohio-based Online Computer Library Center, or OCLC, which is accessed by more than 53,548 libraries in 96 countries and territories worldwide. "According to WorldCat," he said, "only 188 libraries worldwide report owning a copy of 'The Marketing of Evil.' I'm pleased that Virginia Tech is one of only eight libraries in Virginia that reports owning the book. I had requested it because I wanted to read it. One of my colleagues saw to it that it was purchased. We are now pleased to see that it is currently checked out."
"'Marketing of Evil' locked out of college libraries," World Net Daily, April 26, 2006 --- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49921
[source: Tidbits on May 5, 2006]
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Searching Is Polarized; Will The Five Laws Get a New Revised Version: Every Search Engine Its Searcher
This is a running post: Updated 2 Oct, 2006
Is it all-ad-about polarization or an opportunity for libraries for re-invent the
wheel. Read the following and don't miss a survey result: Library Catalogue Users Are Influenced by Trends in Web Searching, Susan Haigh
Search Engines in 2006 are in news:
Thus observes Karen Schneider in her discussion of Top 10 Tech Trends:
Faceted Navigation – “any decent search engine for 2006 has faceted navigation.” Endecca as the example. source More on Faceted Navigation and Guided Navigation, see details
As seen from a recently published work, cited at the end of this article, the demand for library-based Web resources is yet to catch up. "The survey findings indicate that 84 percent of information searches begin with a search engine. Library web sites were selected by just one percent of respondents as the source used to begin an information search."*
Given this state-of-the-art of the library marketing and outreach, let us ponder on what is at stake. It looks like we are not sure of the problem:
Polarization is obvious in this information age. But who is causing and who is facilitating this. Consider the following:
i. Is the free Google-enabled search engine revolution leading the searchers to go astray (than be faithful customers of their own tax-based information centre); or
ii. The fee-based and IP-based (restricted access) offered by the libraries to their own community resulting in this state-of-affairs; or
iii. The libraries have not yet found the true meaning of every book its reader?
And, a related question, then, is about a spirit of live and let live. I think the librarians will consider moving a recommendation for the following as a New Revised Library Liturgy. I hope they will take up, at least, this issue in their respective annual general meeting (wherever it is held):
Search Engines are for Use,
Every Searcher His / Her Search Engine,
Every Search Engine its Searcher,
Save the Time of the Searcher, and
Search Engine is a growing organism.**
I will deal with this polorization in another article. Or, will respond to your comments, based on how you see this whole picture.
Let's now look at a terminological issues about this business of information searching.***
What are the words that express this business?
Supposing one says: online searching and database searching. Is it all about only one activity, viz., online search using the synchronous Web-based resources. Or, is it about first, searching the Web, and second, searching the library resources?
Or, if some one says I am looking for a tool "illustrating the differences between online searching and using the library databases.." Are these terms clear, and communicative or confusing and vague?
Libary of Congress Catalog has a title: online searching (1996).
The subject headings assigned are:
Information storage and retrieval systems--Science.
Information storage and retrieval systems--Technology.
Online bibliographic searching.
Science--Databases.
Technology--Databases.
Another title: Online searching (1990):
The subject headings are:
Online bibliographic searching.
Database searching.
Yet another title: Searching the World Wide Web (1998):
The subject headings are:
Internet searching--Problems, exercises, etc.--Juvenile literature.
Web search engines--Problems, exercises, etc.--Juvenile literature.
In LISA database there is an article with a title: online searching
And the subject headings is:
Online searching
[LISA does not have subject headings, such as, database searching, bibliographic searching, etc]
Incidentally, there is more systematic debate going on on elsewhere and follow that as well.****
Despite this problem with the terminology, I searched the Web for some comparative studies of these two worlds, viz., (a) free domain (WWW), and (b) whatever is facilitated by the libraries. In other words, a) search using the Internet; and b) search using the library-based tools.
And, I have failed (despite Googling, Yahooing, MSNing, AltaVistaing, AllTheWebing, Lycosing, HotWireding, Exciting, etc.) to find any thing specific.
In short, I am looking for a research work that compares online information search with searching the library databases. May be it is too much to expect audio, video, webcasting, blogging, wikiing, podcasting, etc. on this subject. If you know please guide me. I will cite you with personal gratitude.
The Punch Line:
Lest we forget, libraries had all the information at their disposal; and they did try to publish this collection in their own bookish style (Library Websites is a fashion tody). Is it ture that libraries forgot to index the contents, and published a book As-Is? May be. Then the Guru has a verdict for this scenario. Please Note.There is no greater authorial sin than releasing a book without an index. It should even be made an indictable offense. [S.R. Ranganathan in Library Book Selection] source:ALL THE "COOL QUOTES" FROM EX LIBRIS ABOUT LIBRARIES, BOOKS, AND KNOWLEDGE.
--------------
* Making “E” Visible, By Lesley Williams Library Journal, June 15, 2006
Recently OCLC released “Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources” (www.oclc.org/reports/2005perceptions.htm), a survey of a representative sample of over 3300 online information consumers and their information-seeking behavior. The survey findings indicate that 84 percent of information searches begin with a search engine. Library web sites were selected by just one percent of respondents as the source used to begin an information search. Only two percent of college students start their search at a library web site. In fact, only 16 percent of respondents had ever used an online database and only 30 percent had ever used a library web site. Yet, 72 percent had used free search engines like Google. The report concludes, “…the majority of information seekers are not making much use of the array of electronic resources (online magazines, databases and reference assistance, for example) libraries make available to their communities.” Survey
See also:
PERSPECTIVE Sure, there is plenty of great content on the open Web, but it's far from "everything." Plus, even if what you're looking for has been crawled and indexed by Google or Yahoo, there is no guarantee that you'll create the proper search to have it appear at the top of the results page. To find what you are really looking for, all you need is a library card.
Most searchers only look at the first page of results, and as large Web databases grow even larger it will become even more of a crap shoot to find what you're looking for by just entering a couple of words. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, for many searchers time is a massive issue. In other words, if they can't find it in a few minutes or even seconds, it might as well not exist. Sad but true.
Google Print does not "change everything" regarding the need for professional cataloging and classification of books; its limitations make cataloging and classification even more important to researchers. Google’s keyword search mechanism, backed by the display of results in "relevance ranked" order, is expressly designed and optimized for quick information seeking rather than scholarship. Internet keyword searching does not provide scholars with the structured menus of research options, such as those in OPAC browse displays, that they need for overview perspectives on the book literature of their topics. Keyword searching fails to map the taxonomies that alert researchers to unanticipated aspects of their subjects. It fails to retrieve literature that uses keywords other than those the researcher can specify; it misses not only synonyms and variant phrases but also all relevant works in foreign languages. Searching by keywords is not the same as searching by conceptual categories. Google software fails especially to retrieve desired keywords in contexts segregated from the appearance of the same words in irrelevant contexts. As a consequence of the design limitations of the Google search interface, researchers cannot use Google to systematically recognize relevant books whose exact terminology they cannot specify in advance. Cataloging and classification, in contrast, do provide the recognition mechanisms that scholarship requires for systematic literature retrieval in book collections.
**My previous entries relating to the Five Laws:
a) Save the Time of the Godly: Information Mediators Role in Promoting Spiritual & Religious Accommodation
b) Case Studies from India: Evidence-based Librarianship
c) The Reference Interview Through Asynchronous E-Mail and Synchronous Interactive Reference: Does It Save the Time of the Interviewee?
d) Information Visualization: Innovative Practices to Connect Every Book, Its Reader, A Survey
e) Every Book Its Reader - Ranganathan's Law Visualized
***apology for this trivia: words, words and words, all lost in the medium; it is all-ado-about searching, browsing, online, on-line, information storage, information retrieval, thesaurus, indexes, library databases, commercial databases in libraries, free versus fee, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
