unread
Here is the list of books tagged "unread" in LibraryThing. I'm not going to tell anyone which ones I have and haven't read...my life is depressing enough in that department. I am going to Amazon and buy a copy of Ambient Findability so I can a) return the library copy I have been trying to read since December and b) possibly underline things. It's one of those books that, if I try hard enough, I might get it...I occasionally see glimmers of what it all means...but I'm just not quite smart enough.
5 comments:
I wouldn't worry too much about getting a specific overall message. Largely, it's a broad overview of many phenomena happening now, in terms of what changes in information technology means for librarianship.
Having said that, here are some helpful pointers for you to get a feel for some of what's going on inside Ambient Findability:
* The Metaverse technologies: http://www.metaverseroadmap.org/overview/
* longer-term information management challenges for the internet: http://www.longnow.org/projects/seminars/ (Clay Shirky's talk in particular, although there is a ton of good random stuff here)
* spimes/blogjects/ubicomp (http://www.vimeo.com/769193)
I know you didn't ask, but don't waste your money.
Ambient Findability is a piece of crap. If we had 15-minutes I'd nuance that towards the positive a bit more, but all-in-all it is crap.
And there really isn't anything to get unless it is to understand how ethically challenged Morville is.
I guess I should shut up now before he takes this as another personal attack.
Hi Mark,
I have never heard that before, and I think it is very interesting. People might accuse Moreville of occasionally being a little boring or (in the case of Ambient Findability) unfocused, but I've never heard anything like ethically challenged. I'd like to understand it, because I'm working in a similar area, and I'd like to rid myself of all avoidable ethical problems. Could you elaborate on the ethical problems you find in Ambient Findability?
Thanks,
John
Hi John,
I will give it a minor stab. First thing to know, my vision of what constitutes ethics and its reach/impact is far broader than many people would accept. Perhaps its the 20 years in the Army and then a good college education in Philosophy which I have continued to build on. Anyway ...
Things like the following stick out to me (easily findable since I write in my books):
"Imagine the ability to track the location of anyone or anything from anywhere at anytime. Simply affix a tiny sticker to your TV's remote control or to the bottom of your spouse's shoe, and then fire up your Treo's web browser" (3).
"Ambient findability describes a fast emerging world where we can find anyone or anything from anywhere at anytime. ... Most importantly, findability invests freedom in the individual" (6-7).
OK, the 1st quote ought to be self-evident of a questionable ethical character. As for the 2nd, while many might simply dismiss the 1st sentence as hyperbole I find it also unethical. To spout such clearly utter nonsense (without ant qualification) is in my world unethical. As for investing freedom in the individual it is quite clear that by freedom Morville only means the kind of freedom we are sold when our President tells us to go shopping after 9/11. Freedom in today's world is simply consumer choice. Nothing more or less.
I have written quite a bit on that topic on both my blog and before that in graduate-level sociology classes. Consumer choice is enslaving and not liberating. And to equate freedom with such is beyond appalling.
"Try reading a white paper or typing an email message on a Treo while walking on the beach on a sunny day with your three-year-old daughter. Watch out for seagulls and hold on tight. Treos aren't waterproof, yet" (68).
All I can say to that is WTF? There are so many things wrong with that thought. I realize that many will just consider that a "cute" or "funny" passage. I find it to be neither.
There is more but that's a taste. He is very big on the positives but completely ignores any negative consequences of his vision. And they are legion and of serious import. That to me is unethical.
And while I am NOT going to go so far as to accuse him of plagiarism, if AF was written for an academic press or peer-reviewed journal then it would certainly have been rejected for seriously failing to credit a large number of ideas that are not his nor common facts.
I do realize that it is a "popular book" and that (more) footnotes would reduce sales, but is intellectual honesty or sales more important? Well, we see the answer to that. And that is unethical.
Again, I am well aware that many people might brush most of this off. Fine. But we see unethical behavior everyday around us, and at the highest level. To use the sort of language Morville might, we are becoming immune to them, with the implication that they thus do not matter.
Well, to me they matter.
It is not his subject that is unethical. Not at all. It is his way of treating it.
Best of luck with your work!
Hi Mark,
Thanks, that's very helpful. I did find the lack of critical engagement worrisome, but at the same time I think that terrifying ideas introduced cheerfully is a very useful technique for introducing a certain "future shock" based engagement in the readership. I don't know whether to engage the statements at face value, or presume that this ironic enthusiasm is more deliberate. I'll try a second reading and see how I feel.
I also think it can be read rewardingly if one thinks "work in this field will be very exciting, important, and rewarding, if I take an active effort to have issues turn out as I might wish" instead of "the work of this field will necessarily be exciting and good," which is a view that one should bring to all reading, no matter how critically nuanced.
And I think the seagull paragraph was just sloppy editing.
Again, thanks for your comments, and I'll be sure to take a more critical look.
Take care,
John
Post a Comment