Catching up on #9.

In trying to find some library related blogs I came across http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/category/books/
I was impressed as there are no blogs about My Chemical Romance, kittens or Britney Spears. Oh it's so organised and actually useful. I do in fact need to know which libraries in the world are haunted (can't get more library related than that) then I know which ones to skip on my "libraries of the world" tour. (Places are limited, book early.)

This brilliant site then led me on to learning about sustainability in the book printing industry.
http://www.greenpressinitiative.org/index.htm
I feel twice as good now, having not purchased the unsustainable "Harry Potter and-the-whatsit-something". I guess I assumed that books would naturally be printed on recycled paper.
But then some people need brand new paper pulp, bleached with toxins and embossed with flowers, toilet paper to wipe their precious butts with.

And... back to task. There's a new policy for ACL, purchasing sustainable books over the unsustainable. It only remains to see if there is New Zealand based information on the subject.
Oh, but I feel so good having found useful information in a blog format! That's put a spring in my step.

Beware of unchecked thinking

So web 2.0 is the great democratiser. There has always been a hierarchy of knowledge, scholarly thinking has always been held in high regard. Blame the ancient Greeks I guess.

Library 2.0 recognises that information and knowledge isn't always in a printed format. (Written, but not printed.) In someways, 2.0 harps back to a time when printed material was not vastly available. The printing press paved the way for democratising knowledge, making the dissemination of information cheap and quick. Like a historically verbal tradition, 2.0 takes advantage of community knowledge. Except in the 21st century, literacy rates are already established. So society doesn't have to overhaul itself to use the information. Which might be it's problem. Why adapt if it isn't critical?

However, in general, a population inherently has to believe that those inhabiting the upper echelons of that society have somehow earned their place. That anyone above you warrants respects, (that the parents knows more...) the web throws out these notions. Knowledge is no longer slowly acquired, but pours in. My scepticism of web technologies is that is it too democratic. Everyone is an expert, and has valid opinions. Myspace is a testament to stupid people with web access.

Are we in fact getting stupider by our increased supply of information. And is information enough? We receive information, but need knowledge. I can't remember who said

"don't speak, unless you can improve the silence".

Information is a lot like junk mail, you can't not be subjected to it. Information no longer has to be of any substance. Scholarly thinking, mediated, and acquired gradually has become the rude dictator. Preventing us all from our destinies as great philosophers.

Here's another quote I found, while trying to credit the previous one

"If you wouldn't write it and sign it, don't say it". Earl Wilson