Gosh darn it, one of my unwritten rules for this blog is not to reference other blogs too often. I often appreciate such referencing in the blogs I read, I just don’t want to do it too much myself. But along comes if:book and I find myself wanting to pass on its commentary every time I read it (perhaps because I don’t see it referenced too often in other places). So please, dear reader, if the tidbits below tickle your fancy, please pop over to if:book and subscribe yourself.
I think there is a lot to be learned by studying the points of dissent; indeed the “truth” is likely to be found in the interstices, where different points of view collide. Network-authored works need to be read in a new way that allows one to focus on the process as well as the end product.
Indeed, what I prize most about the Wikipedia is that it acknowledges the messiness of knowledge and the process by which useful knowledge and wisdom accrete over time.
(“Messiness of knowledge”… I don’t see that phrase too often on library blogs!)
During this period of uncertainty, the OCA seems content to let Google be the legal lightning rod. If Google prevails, however, Microsoft and Yahoo will have a lot of catching up to do in stocking their book databases. But the two efforts may not be in such close competition as it would initially seem.
On Cliff Lynch on computational analysis of scholarly literature
Using the metaphor of Google Earth, where one can zoom out from the entire Earth down to a single home, what can we gain from being able to view the sphere of scholarly literature? …What are the potential insights can we learn from viewing the entire corpus of scholarly knowledge from above?