Week 11 Reading Response

I really liked this week's articles on government documents and libraries. Sometimes with the readings we have, I'm left wondering how to connect the information given to librarianship, but with these readings the connection was clear and informative. Two of the articles seemed to promote the traditional library goal of greater access to information. One article, however, seemed took the more interesting stance that government communication could be dangerous.

The first article I read, "Examining the Role of Website Information" was very well laid out, with clear objectives and findings. Basically, the authors, Eschenfelder and Miller, advocated for greater use of textual information on government websites. More than that though, they propose that website information be constructed and evaluated not just on quantity but on type and quality. I agree that it is important not only to have basic information on government policies and actions available to the public, but that there should also be information regarding information behind those policies, how the government came to the solutions it is proposing, and alternative theories and actions that could be taken. This allows for greater citizen involvement in the workings of government, which is essential to a democratic society.

The article "Documents for a Digital Democracy" also emphasized the importance of disseminating government information to the populace in general. This article emphasized the importance of digitizing printed government documents, and the proper management of digitized and born-digital information from government sources. I enjoyed the section that described how librarians should rethink their roles. The role of the modern librarian, in a simple sense, is to provide people with access to information. To do this in the context of government information, librarians must assist with the digitization of records and keeping of digital records, as well as be familiar with all of the varied types of information made available by governments and how users can access them.

I honestly wasn't really sure what to make of the final article, "The Nerves of Government." It had some good elements, but overall it seemed to lean a little on the side of paranoia/conspiracy theory stuff. Generally, government communication with citizens is seen as a positive thing, something that encourages democracy. In this article though, government communication is seen as a propaganda tool, a way of indoctrinating Americans into thinking the way government wants them to think. I can see that sometimes the government uses communication tools in an attempt (that is probably somewhat successful) to influence citizen's opinions. But we can't simply ask the government to stop providing information, as much of it is useful or even essential to functioning in our private lives and as a country. As I said, I'm not sure how to make sense of this article in terms of the other articles assigned or in terms of librarianship in general.

Week 10 Reading Response

Let me begin by saying that I have no background in law whatsoever, and my knowledge of copyright, at least until this week, involved discussions of plagiarism in my undergraduate history classes, and the fear of being caught downloading music I didn't pay for. With this base knowledge, I had mixed feelings about the readings for this week. All of them were interesting, but I probably read them at a pretty basic level, and may not have picked up on the more nuanced aspects of the discussions of copyright.

The first two readings, the excerpts from Shamans, Software, and Spleens and "Cultures and Copyrights" really helped me to understand more about what copyright law is and how it developed. I also thought Michael Brown's analysis of the Bulun Bulun case was very interesting. I find it both fascinating and confusing the many ways that copyright can be used in a modern context, such as in this reading where an aboriginal Australian group used copyright law to assert their rights and autonomy as an indigenous people. The final reading, "Telling Tales out of School," demonstrated another legal argument based on copyright based around academic research and scientific data. After reading it though, I was left wondering how the information contained therein is specifically applicable to librarianship. I look forward to our class discussion on these topics.

The article that I enjoyed reading the most was "Revising Copyright Law for the Information Age," by Jessica Litman. I really couldn't agree more with her assessment that we, as a nation, desperately need to radically revise, if not completely overhaul, our copyright laws. As she points out, today's digital technologies make basing copyright law literally on the right to make copies obsolete. Her discussion of the public's misconception of what copyright is, combined with my own similar misconceptions, make it obvious that copyright laws are so confusing and cumbersome that they are not practical in an age when almost anyone can gain access and easily copy almost any original work. And when people are being sued for millions of dollars for downloading a couple dozen songs from the internet (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-18/justice/minnesota.music.download.fine_1_jury-instructions-fined-sheryl-crow?_s=PM:CRIME), its pretty obvious there's something wrong with the system.

I can't pretend that I have the expertise to judge Litman's suggestions on how new copyright law should be constructed, but as an average user of copyrighted materials, her solutions seem viable. I think this is something that I, and all future librarians, should look into in greater detail. If copyright law is actually to be revised for the digital age, librarians should and probably will play a role in its construction, or at least the dialog surrounding the change. We are often the intermediaries between the general public that Litman describes in her article, and the copyrighted works they need access to. I think it's part of our job to help the public gain access to the ideas encompassed in copyrighted works without infringing on the rights of the creators of those works.

Week 9 Reading Response

For me, reading Literacy in American Lives by Deborah Brandt after Skloot's Immortal Life was like watching a freshman communications student give a speech immediately after a motivational speaker. Brandt's book had some interesting material, but the density of the text and the narrow focus of the subject matter was hard to get through after reading Skloot's fast-paced narrative. I felt as though it would have been at least somewhat helpful if I had had any sort of background in literacy studies before approaching this book, because I have no intellectual context in which to place it. Is her perspective of literacy as a resource novel, or standard for the field? Is her use of individual case studies instead of large, anonymous surveys considered less accurate, or innovative? Are her conclusions valid according to others who study literacy? I just think some more general background information in literacy studies would have been helpful for me in contextualizing this book.

One basic premise of Brandt's book that I found noteworthy was her idea of sponsors of literacy. It is easy to think of literacy as an all or nothing thing, a skill taught to you by your grade school teachers that remains the same thereafter. But as Brandt describes, literacy exists on a continuum, and it people's literacy levels are affected by institutions and people they interact with throughout their whole life. Considering literacy in this way, looking at what elements in people's lives that effect and promote their literacy, is essential for the goal of improving people's literacy. No matter how good a child's grade school education is, they will not gain a high level of literacy if the basic places in their life they gain and practice such skills, like in church, are ignored.

Week 8 Reading Response

So, I totally forgot to do my blog post on last week's reading of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot. Which is especially strange, as it was basically the first reading assignment in this class that I completely enjoyed and finished well ahead of the due date. Please forgive me this lapse in memory.

As I just said, I LOVED this book. Perhaps it's because I am a die-hard fiction reader, and to me this book read like a well-written novel. Actually, I think the flow of the narrative and its accessibility to a wide-range of readers was its greatest asset. The class discussion on this book, understandably, focused on the issues of privacy, autonomy, and ownership that surrounded Henrietta's cells and family. Although I realize these are obviously important issues, I simply can't become excited about them. Rather, what I found to be the most important and basic element of this book was its wide appeal to general readers.

The Immortal Life can be read on a variety of levels, and has several important themes or concentrations. The fact that all of these are brought together in an engaging narrative is its greatest asset, because it allows even a reader with little background knowledge to engage intellectually with issues as wide ranging as scientific cell research, ethical dilemmas of consent and autonomy, historical and modern racial disadvantage, and many others. Sure, Skloot could have written at a more intellectual level, or included more facts and less conversation between her and Deborah Lacks. But to do so would have removed the book from the ability or interest of less-educated readers. People who have higher education backgrounds in those issues have plenty of scholarly material available to them on the topics. But for many lay readers, this book may be the only exposure they've had to issues such as cell research and privacy issues. This book could be a baseline for those readers to find more in-depth information on topics they were previously unaware of. Especially from a librarian's standpoint, I think that the greatest strength of Skloot's book is bringing information and inspiring research in the general public.