Robbins Library Notes

Good morning, readers!

I found a few items on Google and searching yesterday that you might find of interest:

• Google SearchWiki – A Beginner’s Guide
• Google Introduces SearchWiki, But Does It Have a Downside?
• Can you ditch Google for a metasearch engine?
• The future of search: Do you ask Google or the gaggle?

A hat-tip to Garrett Eastman and the Rowland Institute at Harvard’s Library News & Notes, December 12, 2008 for these links.

Good morning, readers!

Many of you are likely aware of, and perhaps are (heavy) users of, Google Book Search.  For those who don’t know, Google Book Search allows users to search for full-text, scanned copies of millions of books, many of which are out-of-print or hard to find.

However, Google Book Search has not been without controversy.  Some of the books which have been scanned into the database are still in copyright.  This hasn’t made the publishing industry or authors happy, because they view Google Book Search as a violation of copyright, which means no revenue from royalties and such that authors and publishers are owed.  Google, on the other hand, saw their scanning project as falling under the “fair use” clause of copyright.

Needless to say, the upshot of this led to a lawsuit filed by the Authors Guild against Google.  Two days ago, after a few years of negotiations, the Authors Guild and Google reached a deal.*  All sides have come to an agreement that allows Google Book Search to continue while paying authors and publishers (back) royalties for their work.

Why is this important to philosophical research?  Well, from what I’m reading, it looks like the deal will benefit all the interested parties — Google will be able to keep the books it has scanned in the database, and continue to add even more books to its database, which means that more texts become available to researchers.  It also means that publishers and authors will get paid what they’re due, and which may make them more amenable to contributing to the database.

Additionally, beyond the mere pragmatic aspects of the settlement, it also raises some interesting questions about the nature of texts, and our interactions with texts, something touched on in a slightly different context by Peter Brantley, in “Homes for Good (Orphan) Books.”

How do we, as philosophers, engage with and access philosophical texts in pedagogy, writing, and research?  There are some interesting and as yet barely discussed questions around these issues.

Thoughts, readers?

Update 11/03/2008: There has been some additional discussion on Peter Brantley’s blog, which is worth reading.

*A hat-tip to the family member who forwarded this on to me.

Good morning, readers, and happy Friday!

Doing my usual daily perusal of Bookforum.com a few days ago, I found the following articles.

The first is “The society of the query and the Googlization of our lives: A tribute to Joseph Weizenbaum,” by Geert Lovink. The abstract reads:

“There is only one way to turn signals into information, through interpretation”, wrote the computer critic Joseph Weizenbaum. As Google’s hegemony over online content increases, argues Geert Lovink, we should stop searching and start questioning.

Lovink offers some interesting insights and criticisms of the Google model, and why we should question it, as Google moves into its second decade of existence.

In the second article, “Early response to false claims in Wikipedia,” P.D. Magnus writes:

A number of studies have assessed the reliability of entries in the Wikipedia at specific times. One important difference between the Wikipedia and traditional media, however, is the dynamic nature of its entries. An entry assessed today might be substantially extended or reworked tomorrow. This study paper assesses the frequency with which small, inaccurate changes are quickly corrected.

I’m not sure that this article will sway skeptics, but it does offer some additional empirical evidence that minor errors in Wikipedia are corrected quickly.

You get a two-fer deal this morning, readers — with an additional post!

Yesterday, I was sent a list of 101 Google Search Tips.  There are some great tips in this list, and you may find it useful.  Enjoy!

Good morning, readers!

Yesterday, while looking at the business news, I found a most intriguing bit of news.  It seems that Google is launching a Web browser of its own, called Chrome.  Chrome is Google’s attempt to capture the browser market, still largely dominated by Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, though Firefox has made significant inroads in recent years.

You can download a beta version of Chrome, if you want to try it out. (I plan on doing so myself, to see what it can do.)  At present, it only works on Windows machines with XP and Vista, though apparently Mac and Linux versions will be available in the near future.

After downloading Chrome and trying it out, I must say that I’m not that impressed with it.  Having the search box and address bar in the same place is a nice feature, but you really can’t do very much else with the browser at present.  There are no plugins, from what I see, like those you can add to Firefox.  And, it doesn’t appear to be open source, like Firefox.  My thought is that this will become a specialty browser, useful for certain things, in its present form.  Otherwise, it’s so bare-bones and stripped down that you can’t do very much with it at present.

Taking a broader perspective Google seems determined to capture as many facets of the online market as possible, from search engines to software to online encyclopedias (i.e., the Knol) to browsers.  They appear to being moving very aggressively to become deeply embedded in the online lives of many, which will bear interesting repercussions for online searchers.

Thoughts on Chrome?

Update: Here’s a review from CNN.com/technology, which echoes many of my comments, above, and adds a good deal more insight.

Update 2, 9/4/2008: A more positive review, from Tech Crunch.

Update 3, 9/5/2008: An article from Time on Chrome, and a review from CNNMoney.com/Fortune.  Also,  here’s a link to The Googlization of Everything, a book in progress on the rise, power, and ubiquity of Google, with possible implications and worries.

I was sent this link to a short piece of fiction, “Engineers’ Dreams,” which is a fascinating look at Google, artificial intelligence, and concepts like the Turing machine.  It really makes you think about Google and search engines, among other things, in a whole new light.

I include it on this blog because it is much in the same vein as using Batman and other pop culture figures to discuss philosophy and philosophical questions.

What do you think, readers?

Good morning, readers!

I’m choosing a provocative headline today, in light of Nicholas Carr’s recent article in The Atlantic, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?“  Carr’s article is a thoughtful look at how Google (and the Internet in general) is shaping and changing the way we read and interact with words, thoughts, and ideas, and not always for the better.

Needless to say, Carr’s article has provoked a firestorm of criticism, about some of which you can read here, here, and here*. All of these posts show that there are some very serious issues to consider here, and the very real potential for some terrible things to happen, if technology is embraced blindly and thoughtlessly.

Carr’s points are not minor, especially for those of us in academia, where the traditional liberal arts/humanistic model of education is undergoing change, and in some cases, dismantled, in favor of a more vocational preparatory model.  Furthermore, the changes that Carr suggests bear great relevance for philosophy and philosophical education — philosophy is a discipline that requires deep reading and reflection, something not fostered or encouraged by the Internet.  How does philosophy survive and adapt to this new environment?  Are there things we should strive to retain?

Thoughts, readers?  Where do you stand on this?  Do you think that Carr is right?  Or his critics?  Comment away!

Update 7/28/2008: Along the same lines — “Online, R U Really Reading?*,” by Motoko Rich, New York Times, 7/27/2008.

Update 10/22/08: From The Last Psychiatrist — “The Dumbest Generation Is Only The Second Dumbest Generation,” which addresses Carr’s article, and more.

*A hat-tip to Bookforum.com for these articles.

I recently received, from a family member, a link to a Slashdot.org article titled, “The Knol Hypothesis.” As I skimmed over the article, the author referenced Google’s announcement of the development of a product called the “knol.” A “knol” — what is this? A misspelling of “knoll”?

Now, generally when I hear the word “knoll,” I think of Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, most of which involve a mysterious “third gunman on the grassy knoll.” This suggestion usually includes the involvement of Cuban exiles, LBJ, the CIA, the Mafia, the KGB, or some combination thereof. (For the record: I endorse none of these theories.)

All humor aside, I did not having a clue as to what a “knol” is. So, I linked over to the Google press release, where I learned the following:

Earlier this week, we started inviting a selected group of people to try a new, free tool that we are calling “knol”, which stands for a unit of knowledge. Our goal is to encourage people who know a particular subject to write an authoritative article about it. The tool is still in development and this is just the first phase of testing. For now, using it is by invitation only. But we wanted to share with everyone the basic premises and goals behind this project.

The key idea behind the knol project is to highlight authors. Books have authors’ names right on the cover, news articles have bylines, scientific articles always have authors — but somehow the web evolved without a strong standard to keep authors['] names highlighted. We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of web content. At the heart, a knol is just a web page; we use the word “knol” as the name of the project and as an instance of an article interchangeably. It is well-organized, nicely presented, and has a distinct look and feel, but it is still just a web page. Google will provide easy-to-use tools for writing, editing, and so on, and it will provide free hosting of the content. Writers only need to write; we’ll do the rest.

A knol on a particular topic is meant to be the first thing someone who searches for this topic for the first time will want to read. The goal is for knols to cover all topics, from scientific concepts, to medical information, from geographical and historical, to entertainment, from product information, to how-to-fix-it instructions. Google will not serve as an editor in any way, and will not bless any content. All editorial responsibilities and control will rest with the authors. We hope that knols will include the opinions and points of view of the authors who will put their reputation on the line. Anyone will be free to write. For many topics, there will likely be competing knols on the same subject. Competition of ideas is a good thing.

As an academic librarian, this announcement got my attention quickly. Why? Because, as the Slashdot.org article notes, this Knol Project sounds a good deal like Wikipedia, though nowhere in the release does Google mention Wikipedia. Is Google trying to compete with Wikipedia? It seems that this is indeed the case, even if Google isn’t admitting it openly.

The remainder of this article looks at what might be going on here, and how Google could compete with Wikipedia, especially in terms of the quality of the knols, or, at least in the perception of quality.

Why is this article worth reading?

1. Dependency of Google & Wikipedia. For one thing, we’ve become used to, even dependent on, Google and Wikipedia, among other things, to do all sorts of academic research. research. Looking at their evolution and new products is a good way to keep on top of them.
2. Keeping Abreast of the Digital Revolution. For another, we are still in the very early stages of the digital revolution. The way that we do research, think about and organize knowledge and information is changing in ways that we can’t even imagine, and how it will all shake out in the end remains to be seen. Knol v. Wikipedia is merely one of the opening feints in this chess game.
3. Real Quality vs. Perceived Quality. Real quality vs. the perception of quality is a third matter — if Dr. Joseph Diplomamill at Podunk State University signs off on an article, does that give it more authority and quality than an unsigned Wikipedia article? There have been a number of questions raised about the quality of the articles on Wikipedia — will a knol be any improvement?
4. Quality vs. Share of Ad Revenue. Finally, the juxtaposition of knols with ad dollars raises some troubling questions: are we going to get mediocre “experts” signing off on articles cribbed from Wikipedia and other free sources just get a share of the ad revenue? (Again, we’re back to real quality vs. the perception of quality.)

I strongly recommend reading the Slashdot.org article, along with the comments following it, because I get the sense that we’re going to see a lot of more of Knol in the very near future. And when it does go live, make sure to evaluate it critically if you do use it.