News Report #3

This article describes how a city’s economy is actually shrinking public libraries. Because of Seattle’s loss in revenue budget cuts are being made to make up for the loss in money. One of the first cuts in budgets is of course the library. The mayor intends to cut the public libraries budget by 8.5 percent. This plan will essentially remove certain positions as well as downsize the number of other positions. Plans for the cut are also being made to transform some of the libraries into circulating libraries. Also to make up for the loss in funds libraries intend to increase fee and fines as a small compensation. It is hoped that with the increase in prices this will not necessarily make up for the loss in money, but at least attempt to put a dent in it.

The article is just another example of how local officials are willing to sacrifice whatever will not affect their pocket to make up for money they are losing. One of the main reliefs in a bad economy is being a state or federal employee. This is because the jobs are pretty much set in stone. Now that is not the case. The mayor is trying to generate more money in the economy by removing a substantial amount of money from the public libraries, which is effectively remove citizens positions and leading to an increase in unemployment. Also, where does education as a concern when libraries are being down sized to compensate for lost revenue. I doubt in the mayor’s budget cut plans they chose to downsize from a Lincoln to a Buick or take one less vacation.

News Report 2

“Library by Design: DC’s 21^st-Century Branches”

Rebecca Miller

September 14, 2010

http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/886533-264/library_by_design_dcs_21st-century.html.csp

The new innovations being constructed by the DCPL are designed to keep libraries up to date with the changing world and its technology. The newly constructed library now offers features that were once not available and not so much geared towards the American library setting. The library’s new design offers a much more open and spacious library that is not closed off and cluttered with walls and towering shelves of books. There are numerous rooms in each building now that are specifically designed for one on one tutoring and/or study groups. Each room is also equipped with WiFi so internet access will not be a problem. Also each building now has a Meeting Room with a capacity of one hundred people. The new design and features are geared toward bringing a new desire to venture to your neighborhood library.

These features do have the possibility to attract new consumers into libraries. Now rather than having a large meeting at an expensive restaurant or in a stuffy office building you can have it at a state of the art library with no interruptions or distractions. Also the offering WiFi in every study room is a plus. There are still a lot of public libraries that do not offer their own wireless internet which of course is a deterrent from going there to study. The separate study rooms I think is a wonderful idea. In most cases reading area are the same as study areas creating lots of vocal static and can be distracting to both the readers as well as the studiers.

Reading # 2

I feel the article is the realization that the internet “buzz” is simply just like every other fad that has come into play. Eventually things in certain genres will die out. For example, the genre of music, every decade or so a new way of buying/listening to music comes out and the old way simply disappears into stories told buy your parents. My parents can’t remember the last time they bought an eight track, I can’t remember the last time I bought a record, and the new generation won’t remember the last time they bought a CD. Wikipedia sky-rocketed and was a very unique idea. With this said, so was instant messaging: which became MySpace, then Facebook, and is now turning into Skype. There is always something better coming but with the unreliability of Wikipedia’s sources and constant editing from anyone this is the first time something on the internet will simply “die.”




I think that the major default that Wikipedia has that other internet dinosaurs have is the lack of personal satisfaction. Unlike MySpace or IMing there are little personal touches. With MySpace and Facebook you place your own individual fingerprint on the internet. Yes other people can message you or put photos of you on your page but they can’t actually change it. With Wikipedia your fingerprint might be altered within the hour of your original posting. It is still your post only with modifications from any and everyone. Also, and possibly most importantly, it is not truly a reliable source of information. Yes there are facts and great information on Wikipedia but you never really know if what you’re reading is factual without further research. I feel if you’re going to have to research the facts you just read then why read those facts at all? This may very well be the first eight track of the world wide web. This could be interesting to see the Wikipedia replacement though, if video killed the radio star then what new concept will kill the Wikipedia star?

Reading Assignment 1

I actually learned a couple of things from this article. First I didn’t realize how much time people really spend creating fictitious sites. Also, I never thought about the variety and cleverness of these sites. The Martin Luther King site for example: I never really thought of racist people actually creating a fake site to lure people away from supporting his ideals and beliefs. The one thing that did bother me a little was the misinformation site about things like AIDS and cancer that professors made. Regardless of whether or not they post a disclaimer on the site I don’t think those are the most ethical subjects to choose when conducting a study. That kind of offended me to think someone whose job is to educate would choose such dangerous subjects to mislead people. I wasn’t aware there were so many websites dedicated to researching and discovering false sites. I honestly never thought about such a site existing.


What I truly found amazing is how the internet has changed even the way people wage war. All those countries instead of using snipers and assassins have hackers. The fact that they use fake websites of their enemies and send viruses to the actual sites and the opposition’s supporter’s sites is amazing. To think that instead of attacking buildings they chose to attack URLs is simply crazy. It makes you wonder if these are tactics used in the mid 90’s when technology was limited to these countries, why would we put every bit of information and control of our military into computers that have already been hacked before?