Saturday, October 07, 2006
I recently watched Birth of a Nation on Google Videos, and it was great. I could've rented it or purchased it, but instead of doing all that, I simply typed in the title and voila, 3 hours of history right within my grasp. (Google even entertains as well). While such a phenomen probably deserves a plethora of articles from a communications, information science, sociology, economics, business, and just about any disipline's view point, what is most pressing to me is its place in Web 2.0.
Doesn't it feel like something this good probably crosses some legal ramifications? According to GigaOM's post, yes. In fact, a number of Bollywood hits can be seen online right after its theatre release -- and it's a matter of time that it's going to get out of hand. But in the meantime, isn't it ironically strange that open access is challenging both studios and DVD piracy? I wonder how much Kung Fu Hustle costs out in the black market these days...
Seeking to increase milkshake sales, a fast-food company interviewed customers they had identified as key to the "milkshake demographic." Based on that research, they changed their recipes, but sales remained about the same. Further research showed that 40% milkshakes were purchased early in the morning.
They learned that customers facing a long commute wanted a breakfast that would be both filling and easy to eat in the car. Bananas would not hold them until lunch; bagels and breakfast sandwiches were too messy. Milkshakes, despite their relative lack of nutritional value, served these consumers’ needs.
In Christensen’s language, the customers "hired" milkshakes to do a particular job. The company responded by providing milkshake dispensers in front of their counters, where customers could buy them with a simple swipe of a credit card, and created new flavors with chunks of fruit, making the product more fun to eat. Milkshake sales improved. The point of this story is that creators of a new product must ensure that is does what their customers need—and the needs assessment may reveal some surprises.
McCormick makes a strong case. Sometimes, we assume that open access is such an inherently good thing that it's a given that people will eventually come around and realize the future of publishing. Perhaps McCormick reminds us that before we reach that stage, we should explore possible avenues in welcoming others to join us first.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
As this example reveals, there's nothing very revolutionary about mashups. The technology is there. The real ingredients comprise a pinch of creativity and a cabinet of curiosity.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Amanda Spinks told us at a talk that search engines usually have a 5% overlap in terms of hits. What this means is that searching is an art more than anything else -- what we come up with really depends on the tools, techniques, experience, and expertise of the searcher. (And dare I say, a certain element of luck, too).
Take a look at GahooYoogle, a nifty search engine which allows us to see results of both search engines, side-by-side. Does this make searching easier? Not really. In my opinion, if you want to do that, then go for a meta-search engine. But if you want to see how the magic of the Google algorithm works compared to another "normal" search engine which uses keyword searching, then try this out.
Do you notice something? One can simply type in the article's full title (or even parts of it, provided it's wrapped around with "quotations"), and wham! there you go, the first few hits will usually lead you to the full or abstract, whereas in a search engine such as Yahoo!, you'll have to work a lot harder to find what you're looking for.
Ah yes, what can't Google do? Another reason why it's still the information professional's best friend.
Monday, October 02, 2006
A majority of medical organizations employ a symbol of a short rod entwined by two snakes and topped by a pair of wings. Known as the "caduceus" or magic wand of the Greek god Hermes, conductor of the dead and protector of merchants and thieves, the caduceus came to be associated with a precursor of medicine, based on the Hermetic astrological principles of using the planets and stars to heal the sick in the 7th century.
However, recent medical observers and physicians have been critical of the symbol, for Hermes also happens to be the god that leads the dead to the underworld and is not only associated with wealth and commerce, but happens to be the patron of thieves (a larcenous figure in Greek mythology). Some medical purists suggest we should go back to the staff of Aesculapius, which is depicted as a single serpent coiled around a cypress branch.
In 2003, Wilcox and Whitham further ignited controversy in the medical community when they published an article in the Annals of Internal Medicine, arguing that the design is derived not from the ancient caduceus of Hermes but from the printer’s mark of a popular 19th-century medical publisher. Because of this mishap, the modern caduceus became a popular medical symbol only after its adoption by the U.S. Army Medical Corps at the beginning of the 20th century. The authors contend that a misunderstanding of ancient mythology and iconography has led to the inappropriate popularization of the modern caduceus as a medical symbol. As they argue, the Asklepian is a medical symbol with a heritage stretching well over two millennia while the modern caduceus became a popular medical symbol only in the early years of the 20th century. Scandalous, you say?
Saturday, September 30, 2006
One question that we debated about was how to monitor the postings. As Stephen Colbert's now infamous Wikiality monologue reveals, not everyone appreciates the power of wiki. Not everyone will have the faith of a democratic wiki. According to Wikipedia, astroturfing:
consist[s] of a few people discreetly posing as mass numbers of activists advocating a specific cause. Supporters or employees will manipulate the degree of interest through letters to the editor, e-mails, blog posts, crossposts, trackbacks, etc. They are instructed on what to say, how to say it, where to send it, and how to make it appear that their indignation, appreciation, joy, or hate is entirely spontaneous and independent; thus being "real" emotions and concerns rather than the product of an orchestrated campaign.
There have been cases reported of astroturfing. It's a serious matter, particularly for a Health Libray Wiki which relies on both updated and accurate information. It should be taken into consideration, particularly if there are a few unruly who want to leave a legacy by giving false information to hurt the many. Can a few wiki masters constantly monitor such a wide net? That will be a challenge that we will face as we move into the information grassroots democracy. With open access, open collaboration, open authoring, open platforming, and open searching in Web 2.0 comes hurdles which we have to face bravely and heads-on.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
A fascinating but rather dated article caught my attention as I was taking my daily dip into the blogosphere. It brings up an interesting debate that continues to rule the realms of both the corporate and information world: is Google taking over Microsoft's reign? Or are they even competitors in the first place?
According to Why Microsoft can’t best Google, the answer is yes, Google will rule the day (which is tomorrow). Here is why Phil Wainewright thinks so:
(1) Microsoft wants everyone to have a rich desktop experience, Google wants everyone to have a rich Internet experience.
(2) Microsoft's business model depends on everyone upgrading their computing environment every two to three years. Google's depends on everyone exploring what's new in their computing environment every day.
(3) Microsoft looks at the world from a perspective of desktop+Internet. Google looks at the world from a perspective of Internet+any device.
(4) Microsoft wants computers to help individuals do more unaided. Google wants computers to help individuals do more in collaboration. In the Internet age, who wants to work alone any more, when all the unexplored opportunity is in collaborative endeavor?
(5) In a few year's time, who's going to still be working at a desk anyway?
The most interesting food for thought comes from the blog comments. Take a look. Apparently, the reactions are mixed; not everyone thinks that Google and MSN are competitors. One commentator argued that it's comparing "apples to icebergs." In my opinion, Google is certainly moving into MSN's dominance and in many ways (but not all), has surpassed it. However, one piece of technology which has never taken off has been Googletalk, which is supposed to be the rival to MSN Messenger. On the other hand, Gmail is slowly but surely equalling MSN Hotmail in terms of popularity (and definitely ease of use). Time will tell who will win, or whether winning is the end goal...
Monday, September 25, 2006
I'm anxiously anticipating her upcoming blog entry, as she has promised to write about mashups and their potential applications impact in the health sciences. The Krafty Librarian's most recent entry introduces us to Library Elf - a personal library reminder service that lets create their own username and password then they select their library and then they give Library Elf their library card number and pin number. If the patron's library is not listed they can recommend it to Library Elf to have it listed. Thus, the users then can receive emails, text messages, and RSS feeds for renewal reminders, overdues, and hold items at one click of the mouse (or a few). What do you think? Is it viable?
It's this sort of "mashing" up of different programs and applications through API that makes the future of online technology that much more intriguing.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Prior to coming across Tim O’Reilly’s “What is Web 2.0," I was still lost in the maze that is now referred to the new web 2.0. Blogging, Wiki's, podcasts, etc. etc. were merely a rehash of previous technologies. (I realize I've been harping on this point for ages - so I apologize for the repeat). However, O'Reilly allays my suspicion with the opinion that Web 2.0 is not meant to be a radical transformation - it is not meant to systematically alter the internet as we know it. Rather, Web 2.0 is a progressive and more interactive approach to online information.
The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between Tim O'Reilly and MediaLive International. O'Reilly, who actually majored in Classics but moved onto the computer manuals business, realized that companies that had survived the collapse all had some things in common. To O'Reilly, the dot-com collapse marked a turning point for the web.
But there's still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people asserting that it as a marketer's buzzword, while others take it as the holy grail. (I was somewhere in the middle). O'Reilly's article is definitely worth a read for those uninformed about social software or skeptical about its applications. Here are some of his main points:
Web 1.0 ------verus ------- Web 2.0
DoubleClick ----------------> Google AdSense
Ofoto ----------------------> Flickr
Akamai ---------------------> BitTorrent
mp3.com -------------------> Napster
Britannica Online ------------> Wikipedia
personal websites ------------> blogging
evite ------------------------> upcoming.org
domain name speculation----> search engine optimization
page views ------------------> cost per click
publishing -------------------> participation
content management ---------> wikis
directories (taxonomy) -------> tagging ("folksonomy")
stickiness -------------------> syndication
Does this look eerily similar to the modern/postermodern dichotomy so hotly contested within academic circles? Sure does to me. But this is a good thing, and a worthwhile discourse in LIS. I see the future of library and information science, and it is headed in the direction of Web 2.0. I feel that we are on the cusp of something great, something that is only starting to unfold. However, there is no "true" concise definition for "Web 2.0" - nor should there be. It should continually contrast and challenge the way we perceive and use information as librarians and information professionals. The next stage in this evolution? Mashups. More on that to come....
Monday, September 18, 2006
Prior to SLAIS, I never had an inkling of the importance of social software, let alone its application in LIS. Is it a radical new development? Depends on what perspective one takes. In my view, social software is nothing new: it has been in the market for a while. ICQ, Geocities, online forums & message groups, and mailing lists, just to name a few. The only difference is that it never quite got categorized under one rubric. Currently, they are repackaged as MSN, blogging, and wikis in a different form (but basically a similar function). Regardless of it being new or old, social software is a powerful tool in communication, particularly for the health sciences since up-to-second information is often crucial for health professional.
Robert S. Kennedy’s “Weblogs, Social Software, and New Interactivity on the Web” offers an intriguing discussion into the importance of Web 2.0 in the health sciences. As he contends, the online environment is undergoing an interesting evolution. Many health professionals are increasingly taking advantage of this new connectedness to experiment with expanding our intellectual and social networks.
Interestingly, he echoes something which many in the library and information circles have been arguing for years now. Blogs offer the possibility of transforming publishing and traditional media into more personal and interactive experiences in which the individual is not just a passive consumer but an active participant. In fact, blogs in medicine and the neurosciences are unique publishing tools that are beginning to have an impact, one in which it has become both personal and professional journals or commentaries that have morphed into a distinct style of communication. Amazing. And we are only on the cusp of these emerging technologies. Can you imagine how much more it will be 10 years from now? I sure can't.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Quick! Put that muffin down! Here are the instructions. You have exactly 30 min's. You have no time to explain to the user your search strategy. You have no idea what sources your user already has in hand. And also, you are not to list the resources available. You are to search, search, and search. And come up with the most relevant articles as possible. (This isn't a reference interview). Now Go!
- I'm writing a paper for another project I've been working on, and I'm looking for a reference or two to bolster my claim that primary care physicians are insufficiently trained in assessment/referral practices for mental health and/or substance use disorders, and that they aren't adequately integrated with specialized care professionals for these problems. I've found a couple of papers but I thought I'd check with you anyway . . . I'd much appreciate any studies you could throw my way.
What did I do? Google Scholar. Fortunately (or, unfortunately, depending on what perspective you take), when it comes down to finding a quick and dirty way of coming up with scholarly sources, Google Scholar does the job, and does it effectively. For this search, I basically had to cut down the jargon and come up with the key terms.
Because this inquiry pertains to psychology, I have to use a multidisciplinary approach. Of course, if I had more time, I may be able to use CINAHL, PubMed, Medline, or PsychInfo and play around with controlled vocabulary MeSH terms. But we're on a strict time budget! Onwards!
The terms I used were: "primary care physicians" and "mental health" and "insufficient training" and "lack." Surprisingly, despite this unscientific approach, I still came up with some useful sources. Now, it all depends on context. If this were a reference desk search, it would probably be a terrible failure. However, in my case, it's for a researcher who desperately wants a few sources thrown her way. So, it works. Not the best way, but good enough for the moment.
I used G.S because I felt it covered a wider range of databases, compared to doing searches using just PubMed or Medline. Another reason why I used G.S. is that it's freely accessible online. Just like PubMed, I don't need UBC access. Moreover, I also liked G.S. because of its related articles feature; it allows me to continously spread my search to articles which are similar to the one at hand. Ah yes, the power (or horrors) of Google Scholar . . .
Monday, September 11, 2006
The upcoming "Mission in the Mountains: Believe and Achieve" is the Western MLA Chapters 2006 Annual Meeting, which will be hosted by the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the MLA in Seattle. Whereas in the past, the annual meetings had only the PNCMLA, this year promises to be the most exciting event to date since all four Western chapters of the MLA will be meeting together, including Hawaii-Pacific Chapter (HPCMLA); the Medical Library Group of Southern California & Arizona (MLGSCA); and the Northern California & Nevada Medical Library Group (NCNMLG) at a meeting hosted by the Pacific Northwest Chapter (PNCMLA) of the Medical Library Association.
Events will include presentation from speakers, continuing education sessions, roundtable luncheons, and poster sessions. (It's not too late. There's still time for signing up!)
Saturday, September 09, 2006
We are attempting to build a scale out of our
Attitudes and Expectancy data. A starting reference point is Brown, Christiansen and Goldman 1987 – Journal of Studies on Alcohol Sept. 48(5), 483-491.
If these references fully explain the methodology for the development of the Alcohol Expectancy questionnaire, you can move on to…
Other attempts at building an expectancy profile exist around the Iceberg Profile – from the Profile of Mood States questionnaire.
You can also look at scale development in Item Response Theory information…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Item_response_theory
We are looking for scales that have been developed in the exact same way as we hope to, and/or the Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire was developed.
After a few gin & tonics, and some LIS training and search experience under my belt, I thought it would be interesting to take this on as an information professional at the ref desk. Here is what I did: (1) Find the article. Read it. Analyze it. I used PubMed, which has a "single citation match" feature which allows us to enter a the author's name, volume, issue, and page number to find the article, if a title is not provided. And wouldn't you know it, PubMed indeed came up with the title I needed, plus an abstract!
(2) I then moved onto the the UBC Library Subject Guides. The challenge is that the multi-disciplinary nature of the topic at hand. My first inclination is to start off in Psychology. Yet, other life sciences topics are equally pertinent (i.e. nursing and social work). Even within medicine, different disciplines are relevant.
(3) Thus, starting with PsychInfo, I eventually cover what I feel are the other main indexes & databases: CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and Web of Science. I also cover the free online databases: Google Scholar, SCIRUS, and Tripdatabase. Interestingly, Academic Search Premiere, a multidisciplinary database proved to be one of the most useful as numerous useful hits came up.
(4) With the search tools mapped out, the next step is to come up with some search terms. It took quite some experimentation, using many different combinations of terms. But in the end, I used (1) "alcohol expectancy questionnaire" and "scale development". (2) "Iceberg profile"; (3) "profile of mood states questionnaire" and "scale development"; (4) "Item response theory" and "scale development". Some interesting results did come up. Any ideas on how to improve upon this fairly rag-tag approach?
For my first posting, I'd like to go historical and introduce Andreas Vesalius, who was an anatomist and author of one of the most influential books on human anatomy, De Humani Corporis Fabrica (translated, it is "On the Workings of the Human Body"). This expensive piece of work can be found at UBC's Woodward Biomedical Library's Charles Woodward Memorial Room.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Something looks different with Google Scholar. I had a quizzical frown when I made a search on Google Scholar. Along with the usual result hits was a "related articles" feature which look surprisingly similar to PubMed's. While its citation analysis feature matched Web of Science's, Google Scholar had always lacked a function which allows searchers to find related articles.
But it's here now! And it's here to stay! The searching just got a little easier, and much more comprehensive. To read more, you go to Google's Blog for further analysis. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/exploring-scholarly-neighborhood.html
And if you look closely, Google's blog has linked this posting. Amazingly, it only took a few hours for them to crawl it, too.