Monday, December 8, 2008

Wikimedia Commons - How did I miss this?

At least once a week,  I see a site that makes me think, "How did I miss this?"     Wikimedia Commons is that site today...


 
 

Sent to you by verwirrung via Google Reader:

 
 


An announcement from Das Bundesarchiv (German National Archive) and Wikimedia Commons:

Starting on Thursday Dec 4, 2008, Wikimedia Commons will witness a massive upload of new images. We are anticipating about 100,000 files from a donation from the German Federal Archive. These images are mostly related to the history of Germany (including the German Democratic Republic) and are part of a cooperation between Wikimedia Germany and the Federal Archive. [Commons:Bundesarchiv - Wikimedia Commons]

This is another interesting example of a major cultural organization putting materials in an important web destination. Presumably there is some background context which explains why they are going here rather than in the Flickr Commons which has been providing a venue for image collections from several cultural institutions (most recently The National Library of New Zealand and the Imperial War Museum).

A notable part of the arrangement is the use of German National Library authority files.

The other part of the cooperation is a tool for linking people from a list compiled by the Federal Archive to the German Wikipedia Persondata and to the person authority file of the German National Library (something German Wikipedia has already been doing since 2005). [Commons:Bundesarchiv - Wikimedia Commons]

Via my colleague Art Smith.

Quick Bookmarks: del.icio.us  Digg   Google  Reddit   Furl

://URLFAN

It's interesting to look at the top 100 sites and see how many you've visited...

 
 

Sent to you by verwirrung via Google Reader:

 
 

via ReadWriteWeb by Richard MacManus on 11/30/08

://URLFAN is an indexing service which ranks websites by popularity, based on blog mentions. It's been around for a while, but we think it's reached the point now where it's a very useful tool to measure influence on the Internet. ://URLFAN is similar to Alexa and its measurement of popularity is reminiscent of Google's PageRank. ://URLFAN also has similarities to Technorati, except that instead of indexing just blogs - ://URLFAN indexes all websites.

Sponsor

://URLFAN states that it parses "the millions of blog posts that are generated everyday, literally counting every mention of every website we come across." It claims to filter out spam, broken links, and "other various material" in order to come up with its rankings. As of right now, it claims to have ranked the popularity of 3,783,534 websites by parsing 124,732,102 blog posts from 2,068,929 blog feeds. Here is the top 10 currently:

  1. en.wikipedia.org
  2. flickr.com
  3. youtube.com
  4. google.com
  5. imdb.com
  6. myspace.com
  7. nytimes.com
  8. apple.com
  9. twitter.com
  10. washingtonpost.com

The entire top 100 is listed here. Where the comparisons to Alexa and Google fall down is that ://URLFAN doesn't measure how many people visit a website, only how many blogs mention it. So the resulting ranking list will inevitably be biased towards users of social media and in particular bloggers - which is still a relatively small proportion of the world. So although ://URLFAN states that "unlike Alexa, there is no approximating in our ranking system since we're using concrete data to generate the results", it's also fair to point out that the concrete data they're using is from a small subset of the population.

Still, we do think ://URLFAN is an interesting measure of influence. The social media users of this world are known to be highly influential when it comes to products, opinions and so on. So in that regard ://URLFAN's index is a decent measure of influence and therefore potentially valuable to marketers. We can see for example that Flickr and Twitter are being used a lot by influencers, which is good to know if you want to attract the attention of those people.

In terms of blogs, there are just under 10 independent ones that we counted in the top 100. ReadWriteWeb is one of them, in at #97.

Note: we noticed that many of the websites listed had a big jump in "positive mentions" in October-November, making us think that perhaps ://URLFAN's index increased markedly at that time.

Other independent blogs that make it to the top 100:

  • techcrunch.com #25
  • engadget.com #28
  • boingboing.net #29
  • huffingtonpost.com #32
  • arstechnica.com #50
  • lifehacker.com #63
  • dailykos.com #82
  • mashable.com #91

This is pretty good company to be in. It must be said too that there are a lot of mainstream newspaper websites in the list, so clearly 'old media' is still pretty influential!

Discuss

You're Leaving a Digital Trail. What About Privacy?

I'm convinced that the only way to have privacy is to be relentlessly boring...

via NYT > Technology on 12/1/08

An emerging field called collective intelligence could create an Orwellian future on a level Big Brother could only dream of.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Notes on Sources and Library Instruction

I'm going to ponder the idea of improbable sources. Sometimes it's difficult to tell if you're dealing with an improbable source or a failure in your research intuition...

 
 

Sent to you by verwirrung via Google Reader:

 
 

via Academic Librarian by Wayne Bivens-Tatum on 11/10/08

I wanted this post to be about "the space between the sources," but after writing it I see I've meandered. Maybe I'm groggy from overwork this week, which would also explain why I keep looking at the word meander and think how silly it sounds. Still, I'm putting out the notes, because I'm trying to think through the issue to perhaps write something more substantial later. Please forgive the meandering. In fact, you might want to just stop while you're ahead.

I've been encountering more students who seem to be disappointed that when doing research for an essay can't find secondary sources that already do their work for them. Or, as they put it to me, "I want to write on this topic but can't find any sources!" So, for example, if a student wants to write an ideological analysis of a cultural object, they want sources that already ideologically analyze that cultural object, or at least one pretty close to it. It's a version of the improbable source I keep being asked for, and it's endemic to a certain kind of course, typically those involving some kind of contemporary cultural studies.

Even after discussion, it doesn't always seem to be clear to the student what sorts of sources might inform their research if no one has written on this exact topic before, and to get them to understand that in many ways it's a good thing that no one has already written their essay. Perhaps they want an authoritative source to have already done what they're doing so they know they're doing it right. But they want to ride on the sources rather than inserting themselves into the space between the sources.

We had a class today where we did some sample searching around a specific painting and modeled the way one can build a topic out of many different pieces: an exibition catalog, a work of history, a study of an art movement, etc., but it still wasn't apparent to everyone. It comes up enough in the library instruction I do that I'd like to create some kind of guide, but I'm not sure what the best way to present the information. Perhaps some sort of map.

In some ways, this is the appropriate role of the writing instructors, and I know they already address the issue in class, but I meet with enough students who still want me to find them the source that does their work for them that my research sessions sometimes go back and forth between discussing library research and writing strategy.

I'm curious if this happens with other librarians. I do a lot of work with our freshman writing students, and I've been teaching freshman writing for longer than I've been a librarian. Sometimes it's difficult to tell when I'm responding as a librarian and when as a writing teacher. (The distinction even blurs for the students sometimes, as I discovered when someone else's student was asking me for permission write on X topic.)

Based on the many library research guides I've looked at over the years, this doesn't seem to be the kind of thing librarians address much. Though not written by librarians, books such as The Modern Researcher or The Craft of Research address the use of sources somewhat, but most library guides naturally focus strictly on the finding of sources rather than how they'll be used. This makes sense, as technique and an understanding of the geography of information are necessary and complicated in themselves. Yet it seems natural to think about how the sources will be used  or the types of sources one needs before one even knows what to look for.

Type of source might even be the wrong terminology, because I'm not thinking about books, articles, or encyclopedia entries. Perhaps the role of sources is better. What are they doing for the essay, or what do the students need them to do? These seem essential questions when teaching students about research, but they're more complex questions beyond the "Find Background Information - Search for Books - Search for Articles" approach that is the necessary but perhaps too easy road we're often forced to take because of time constraints.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Humor in the Classroom, or Wherever - Academic Librarian

A little levity never hurts...

Humor in the Classroom, or Wherever - Academic Librarian

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Wikipedia Getting Makeover For First-Time Editors -- Wikipedia -- InformationWeek

Wikipedia received a $890,000 grant from the Stanton Foundation.   I'd say they are taking Wikipedia seriously.

Wikipedia Getting Makeover For First-Time Editors -- Wikipedia -- InformationWeek

I had students in my Information Literacy class research alternative forms of energy this semester.   Wikipedia's Energy Portal outperformed most of our traditional sources.

How To: Pronounce Names Correctly

I could have used this for some of my students in past semesters...

How To: Pronounce Names Correctly

Very useful!