Comments on: Google’s Values http://madisonian.net/2006/02/22/googles-values/ a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:59:42 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: madisonian.net » GoogleBooks http://madisonian.net/2006/02/22/googles-values/comment-page-1/#comment-21426 madisonian.net » GoogleBooks Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:06:29 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=555#comment-21426 [...] I’m struck by the staggering passivity of Vershbow’s implicit model of the reader/user/consumer. Certainly, Google (in all its manifestations) is a form of social software, but it’s far from the only social software out there, or the only social software yet to be. I’ve blogged about this before; maybe the problem with Google Book Search isn’t so much that it’s internal working aren’t transparent, but instead that it doesn’t go far enough in creating interfaces to the rest of the world, interfaces that emerging reader and user communities can use to build new communities and conversations. [...] [...] I’m struck by the staggering passivity of Vershbow’s implicit model of the reader/user/consumer. Certainly, Google (in all its manifestations) is a form of social software, but it’s far from the only social software out there, or the only social software yet to be. I’ve blogged about this before; maybe the problem with Google Book Search isn’t so much that it’s internal working aren’t transparent, but instead that it doesn’t go far enough in creating interfaces to the rest of the world, interfaces that emerging reader and user communities can use to build new communities and conversations. [...]

]]> By: peter brantley http://madisonian.net/2006/02/22/googles-values/comment-page-1/#comment-21149 peter brantley Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:24:58 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=555#comment-21149 Mike - Google largely has not, yet, although it is conceivable that they might. More importantly, it is conceivable that we will see support for these kind of service infrastructures more broadly in the future; the range of applications that could be constructed is very exciting, and is attracting attention from a diverse set of actors and organizations. In partial response to re: privacy, I think the larger point is that it must be up to organizations representing discrete communities - e.g., digital libraries, the greater e-book industry, educational institutions, etc., to gather *amongst themselves* to discuss the particular needs that each would like to meet, and to obtain consensus, direction, and economic guidance -- including e.g. grants, entrepreneurial self-funding, or VC support -- on how they could be pursued. Some groups may opt for privacy-respecting applications, in which individuals might have the ability to control the release of descriptive personal attributes in trade for enhanced service provision. (Or, alternatively, choose to not release that information.) The marketplace and the social matrix in which organizations make choices for their institutional members could then determine the desirability of such offerings. That's one of our visions. We need to work to get there. Mike – Google largely has not, yet, although it is conceivable that they might. More importantly, it is conceivable that we will see support for these kind of service infrastructures more broadly in the future; the range of applications that could be constructed is very exciting, and is attracting attention from a diverse set of actors and organizations.

In partial response to re: privacy, I think the larger point is that it must be up to organizations representing discrete communities – e.g., digital libraries, the greater e-book industry, educational institutions, etc., to gather *amongst themselves* to discuss the particular needs that each would like to meet, and to obtain consensus, direction, and economic guidance — including e.g. grants, entrepreneurial self-funding, or VC support — on how they could be pursued. Some groups may opt for privacy-respecting applications, in which individuals might have the ability to control the release of descriptive personal attributes in trade for enhanced service provision. (Or, alternatively, choose to not release that information.) The marketplace and the social matrix in which organizations make choices for their institutional members could then determine the desirability of such offerings.

That’s one of our visions. We need to work to get there.

]]> By: Mike Madison http://madisonian.net/2006/02/22/googles-values/comment-page-1/#comment-21146 Mike Madison Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:39:20 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=555#comment-21146 Peter -- I agree entirely. The question is this: If Google were to do this (and I'm assuming, right now, that Google has not), then would that take some of the edge of the criticism of the project that Siva articulates? Mike Peter — I agree entirely. The question is this: If Google were to do this (and I’m assuming, right now, that Google has not), then would that take some of the edge of the criticism of the project that Siva articulates? Mike

]]> By: copy this blog » Google and Library contract http://madisonian.net/2006/02/22/googles-values/comment-page-1/#comment-21145 copy this blog » Google and Library contract Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:29:33 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=555#comment-21145 [...] There has been more discusson about Google on Madisonian.net and Sivacracy. [...] [...] There has been more discusson about Google on Madisonian.net and Sivacracy. [...]

]]> By: peter brantley http://madisonian.net/2006/02/22/googles-values/comment-page-1/#comment-21144 peter brantley Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:14:23 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=555#comment-21144 Mike - For these new online book repositories - joining those that already contribute a significant amount of often freely available journal content - one leverage point (and potentially an important transformative one, in the Fair Use sense) - is merely to publish or embed enough useful information in the books and their descriptions to provide the ability for others to build new services layered upon them. With minimal agreed upon standards, users and businesses could build cross-repository linking services, citation management, alerting services, social searches, and more. It is not incumbent upon Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft to build or provide these services themselves; they just need to agree that feeding this kind of ecosystem is a Good Thing. Mike – For these new online book repositories – joining those that already contribute a significant amount of often freely available journal content – one leverage point (and potentially an important transformative one, in the Fair Use sense) – is merely to publish or embed enough useful information in the books and their descriptions to provide the ability for others to build new services layered upon them. With minimal agreed upon standards, users and businesses could build cross-repository linking services, citation management, alerting services, social searches, and more. It is not incumbent upon Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft to build or provide these services themselves; they just need to agree that feeding this kind of ecosystem is a Good Thing.

]]> By: cjovalle http://madisonian.net/2006/02/22/googles-values/comment-page-1/#comment-21141 cjovalle Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:19:47 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=555#comment-21141 I agree with the idea that users can use both libraries and Google to find information. That's been my contention for awhile (see my earlier comments ^_^). They are both means to an end that can complement each other. Google and libraries are not mututally exclusive, when looking at the issues of classification and access. I think that the transparency mechanism that you mention would be helpful in alleviating problems relating to those issues. There are other issues, directly relating to Google. As you mention, one of those is privacy. Another is the contract. Why can't the University of Michigan share information in the public domain with the public? Why can't Michigan use Interlibrary Loan with those documents like they can with other digitized documents? I view those as problems. I think allowing such lawful activities would also help alleviate some of the criticisms of Google's project. The mission of the library, though, is also not necessarily only to deliver the content (depending on the library). The mission may include things such as collection development, organization and preservation. Now, I don't think the contract with Google necessarily precludes those aspects of the library mission, except in terms of what the library is allowed to do with access to the digital copies it receives from Google. As far as delivering the content, the question becomes, who are the patrons that the libraries can deliver the content to? Some issues are related to how the existence of the project affects libraries. I have on good authority that some librarians appear to be under the impression that because Google is digitizing books, similar digitization by libraries would be redundant. I do not think this is the case for a variety of reasons related to the privacy, access, classification, and transparency issues that currently exist. The other issue, of course, is the perception that Google is a substitute for a library. ^_^ I agree with the idea that users can use both libraries and Google to find information. That’s been my contention for awhile (see my earlier comments ^_^). They are both means to an end that can complement each other. Google and libraries are not mututally exclusive, when looking at the issues of classification and access. I think that the transparency mechanism that you mention would be helpful in alleviating problems relating to those issues.

There are other issues, directly relating to Google. As you mention, one of those is privacy. Another is the contract. Why can’t the University of Michigan share information in the public domain with the public? Why can’t Michigan use Interlibrary Loan with those documents like they can with other digitized documents? I view those as problems. I think allowing such lawful activities would also help alleviate some of the criticisms of Google’s project.

The mission of the library, though, is also not necessarily only to deliver the content (depending on the library). The mission may include things such as collection development, organization and preservation. Now, I don’t think the contract with Google necessarily precludes those aspects of the library mission, except in terms of what the library is allowed to do with access to the digital copies it receives from Google. As far as delivering the content, the question becomes, who are the patrons that the libraries can deliver the content to?

Some issues are related to how the existence of the project affects libraries. I have on good authority that some librarians appear to be under the impression that because Google is digitizing books, similar digitization by libraries would be redundant. I do not think this is the case for a variety of reasons related to the privacy, access, classification, and transparency issues that currently exist.

The other issue, of course, is the perception that Google is a substitute for a library. ^_^

]]>