Will I use what I’ve learned?  Maybe.  I’ll keep on using my personal blog and the blogs at work.  I’ll look at other people’s pictures/videos on Flickr and YouTube, but doubt that I’ll upload my own.  I’ll keep on avoiding RSS.  I’ll enthusiastically use one-stop search and IM at work, but avoid them at home.  I’ll use Wikipedia whenever I need a quick answer to something (unless it’s etymological.  Then [brace for geek] I’d have to use the OED, which, yes, I do actually have a paper copy of).  I’ll avoid ebooks (except for that one that I’ll be using for a program in the fall) and social networking sites because I don’t like them, but not because I think they’re bad. 

Voila: three months of technological learning.  Over and Out.

One might think that since I’m so bad at social (and work-related) networking in real life that I’d be thrilled at the idea of doing it online, which at least allows me the ease of schmoozing while not making me actually interact with anyone in person.  But alas, no.  I’m not interested in reading about strangers and their interests, and I’m somewhat horrified at the idea of posting my religious and political beliefs where everyone can see them. 

(That said, anyone who asked me in person would get a very straight answer about both of those things–I’m not trying to hide them.  However, I’ve gotten a lot of really nasty and vitriolic comments on my personal blog, because of such innocuous things as a remarkabout my husband’s allergies, and heaven help me if I ever post anything on my own medical dietary restrictions.  I’ve had people tell me that my husband doesn’t love me because it’s obvious that he’s faking his food allergies [allergies that could kill him, by the way] and that my own doctor-mandated dietary restrictions are evidence of a severe eating disorder.  And, of course, the usual you’re-going-to-burn-in-hell comments that end up on almost any blog, these days.  Given my experience with all of that, I’m a little leery of posting anything as food-for-the-fire-esque as political and religious affiliations).

BUT ANYWAY.  Hooray for social networking: just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean that it isn’t useful/fun.  It’s certainly a great tool for anyone who does want to interact with strangers and make friends with them.  And it would be a fun way to build support for an author’s new book, or to keep track of everyone in one’s high school graduating class.  Personally, I prefer to read about authors on their blogs, but that’s just because social networking site profiles seem to resemble real-time personal ads, or centerfold likes/dislikes lists.  (Especially because, on MySpace, for instance, one can browse for members of whichever sex you’d like, within a certain age range, with a specific relationship status and for only those profiles that show a photo).

Sites like these are great for teenagers, particularly disaffected ones.  Teenagers need to feel special, and having a webpage that they design themselves, that expresses their own unique (they think) tastes and personality helps with that.  And if, like so many kids, they’re unpopular or feel like they can’t find anyone else like them, a big, world-wide site where they could find people like them would give them a big mental boost.  Everyone likes to belong, and everyone likes to feel important; social networking sites hit those buttons, and who’s to say they don’t actually make people important?  They certainly do make them part of a group.

I did search for people on Facebook — specifically for people who had graduated from my high school in the same year that I did.  I found several people that I used to know, and while I was interested in what they were doing these days, I was far too embarassed to contact them.  I’m afraid, fuddy-duddy that I am, that if someone ever tries to contact me through Facebook I’ll recoil in shock and dismay.  I know this is irrational, but I haven’t been able to talk myself out of it.

Social Networking: I’m underwhelmed, but not wrought up.

Sorry, guys, it’s true.  I just can’t listen to them.

It’s not that I think that listening to audiobooks is cheating–one is getting the exact same story (assuming it’s unexpurgated) as one would in a print book–it’s that I don’t have sufficient concentration to listen to an audiobook while doing anything else. 

I grew up listening to audiobooks while falling asleep at night (I can still recite most of the first half of Alice in Wonderland or Peter Pan from memory), but when I tried to listen to them during the day–while driving, or cleaning or cooking, the way that other people do–I found it completely impossible.  I have to concentrate so hard to hear and understand all the nuances of the story, and catch every detail, that I can’t do anything but sit completely still and stare into space, listening intently.  This is not condusive to safe driving, I must say.

So it was with great relief that I discovered that my work computer does not have the capacity to download the Overdrive eAudiobook reader–I didn’t have to listen to an audiobook!  Instead, I downloaded a regular ebook, the kind that you read with your eyes.

Based on the fact that I’m planning to do a series of cooking programs during the next school year, I downloaded The Kids Party Cookbook from Overdrive.  It had a lot more relevant recipes than I thought it would, and Iwill definitely remember it when it comes time to plan my programs.  The reproduction quality of the pictures is not the greatest–it seems to be based on a scan saved at a very small size (rather odd)–but the text is perfectly clear.  

I read all of my newspapers online, and have been known to read an entire novel posted by The Gutenberg Project.  In spite of this evidence–even proof–to the contrary I still subconciously believe that it might be somewhat tiring to read an entire novel on a computer screen.  In the case of a cookbook, which has plenty of white space and little subtle nuance of tone, though, I’m comfortable. 

I don’t know that I will download another ebook to check out from the library, but I wouldn’t be averse to browsing the website from time to time, to see if anything looked interesting.

Although I do have a personal AIM account, and a Meebo one as well, I never use it.  I have a lot of friends that use IM as their only method of communication, eschewing even email, but they all live in different time zones and have vastly different daily schedules than I do.  (How can adults with full-time jobs keep a 12 noon to 2 am schedule?  It boggles the mind).  Thus, I’d never have anyone TO instant-message, even if I wanted to, so I don’t. 

As a component of my job, however, I’m gaining more and more experience with IM.  During our two major homework research sessions (1: history and origin of various foods in Spanish-speaking countries.  2: festivals in various towns in incredibly obscure African countries), I–and the rest of the CS staff–had to juggle instant messages from more than one child at a time, and we became quite adept at sending both messages, links, and even images. 

*******

I was reluctant to use the Ask-a-Librarian email service, mostly because I knew that, since my question was made-up, it would be a waste of time to the librarian who had to answer it.  Learning how to use technology is important, but not abusing the goodwill of the people that provide the technology is also important.  Luckily, therefore, the Ask-a-Librarian section of this assignment allows for IMing a question up to one of those departments. 

I have used our desk Meebo accounts (AskPRKCS1, AskPRKCS) to contact the Reference desk on innumerable occasions, usually to ask a question about who is working there, but occasionally to let them know that a patron with a question was making his or her way up (though Reference has done this to me more than I’ve done it to them), or to ask a question about the way to use a certain resource.

Of all of the Web 2.0 tools that we’ve learned about so far, IM/Ask-a-Librarian is the one that I feel is the easiest to work into an ‘old-fashioned’ idea of reference work.  In spite of the fact that the technology might be slightly different, it’s just another way for patrons to ask us questions and for us to respond.

Here, though, I probably don’t have to defend wikipedia quite so much.  (I will say, though, that I’ve used it at least 5 times in the last month, and one of those times resulted in a child getting a 105% on a paper). 

For this assignment, I looked first at Wikipedia, the wiki with which I am the most familiar.  I looked up ‘cats’, on the assumption that it would be something I might need to help kids find information about (leaving aside the fact that it would be incredibly easy to find reputable websites on that subject without using Wikipedia, or, indeed, that it would be incredibly easy to find books on that subject, without ever using the computer at all).  The Wikipedia article on cats was very informative and complete, and, more importantly, it had an extremely long bibliography which I could hypothetically use to find a child researcher some cite-able sources.

I used Wikihow to find information on how to sew a stuffed animal, something that our department will need to do in the next few months, to create the SRC mascot.  (Kate has volunteered to do this herself, but my feeble brain was unable to come up with any other ‘how-to’ search that I could make on the site).  The instructions were rather simplistic–the project certainly could never be undertaken by someone who didn’t already have a lot of experience sewing–but the article did include a list of required materials, which was a plus. 

I checked out a couple of other sewing “how-to’s”, using the Related Links section at the bottom of the page.  I found that most of them were just as sketchy in their instructions–one of them even began “1. Learn basic sewing skills”!  (At least they were honest).  I branched out into the Food and Entertainment section of the wiki, and discovered more sketchy instructions, along with some pages that I hope were just pranks (How to Eat Pumpkin Pie, for instance.  Warning: the fact that I am annoyed by that may mean that I have no sense of humor).  Additionally, most articles–at least most that I encountered–do not contain pictures.  Even with incredibly detailed instructions–which most of these articles are lacking–a picture-free tutorial on how to fix a car or make an elaborate dessert is less than useful.

The last wiki to look at for the assignment was Wetpaint.  Wetpaint differs from the others in that it seems much more like a collection of message-boards, or a really elaborate blog than what most people think of as a wiki, given the universality of Wikipedia.  The collaborative aspect of wikis is much more in evidence, here–a number of fan sites and keeping-in-touch-with-my-high-school-friends sites appear on this wiki, making it slightly less useful to librarians, at least for research purposes. 

Nancy Pearl, though, does have her BookLust page as part of Wetpaint, though hers is one of the elaborate-blog-style wikis.  It was the most relevant of the results that came up when I searched ‘books’ and ‘book reviews’, but even though the book reviews and related RSS links are very up-to-date, other, front-page-link sections of it don’t seem particularly current.  (Also, it appears to have been hacked by a bot advertising a divorce attorney).

I can’t say that I found anything to like or dislike about working in Wikipedia’s sandbox–it was just like editing a webpage, or working with WordPress.  I would be hardpressed to find a topic that I know enough about that I would actually have something to contribute to a wiki article, tough–even an article on the Park Ridge Library! 

I’ve always (always being a relative short time, given how long wikis have existed) thought that wikis would be an excellent tool for creating in-library databases for various departments, for frequently asked questions, or encyclopedic lists of programs.  In the children’s department we have a blog of storytime resources, but I’ve always thought that a wiki would have been a better fit for what we’re trying to do with it.

I will continue to use Wikipedia, given that its encyclopedic form is so close to an ordinary reference tool.  Wikihow and Wetpaint I can’t see myself ever going back to.  If we ever wanted to do a patron-and-staff collaborative book review site, Wetpaint would be a good fit, though. 

(I’m not entirely sure that I’ve answered all the questions the way I was supposed to, but hopefully it’ll be all right).

In spite of that, though, I decided to do the exercise as if I were specifically helping a child look for information for a report.  I decided upon the topic of the black plague (something I do get one or two request for per year). 

I started out by searching using the “All Databases” category, and used several different search terms: “black plague,” “black death,” “bubonic plague,” any of those phrases without the quotation marks, and then just “plague” by itself.  Then I reran all the searches having clicked the “Children’s” category, instead of the “All Databases” one.

In general, searching in the “Children’s” category found me far more relevant hits than the “All Databases” category–not just because I was looking for something at a child’s level.  The “All Databases” category all too often brought up an article in which the black plague was mentioned off-hand, as a sarcastic descriptive term or comparative reference.  The “Children’s” search, most likely because the children’s databases we have area almost universally academic or information-oriented, brought back only results that were actually about the black plague. 

That said, the simplistic nature of the children’s databases that was helpful in returning relevant hits, also worked to make it hard to find the hits in the first place–variation in search terms is less likely to come up with results.  Whereas, when using “All Databases” all of my search terms brought up hits that, with winnowing, could be useful, when using “Children’s,” “black plague” brought up far more hits than any of the other terms. 

(Also, a side note–it was almost impossible to get any of the ‘view’ links or boxes to open.  In many cases, it took more than five minutes for the dialog box to open, even when it was a link to our own catalog.  Possibly this was just because it was Monday morning and we’ve been having computer slowness issues, but still–it would make research rather frustrating, especially for patrons at home).

The children’s database that brought up the most hits was World Book Online, and I received the same number of hits on the official World Book page as I did when using One Stop Search.  (The database that I received the most hits from when using “All Databases” was the historical New York Times).

I was surprised that Searchasaurus had fewer hits than World Book Online, but upon reflection, I don’t know why that should be–World Book, in my limited experience, does have a bit more depth and breadth to it than Searchasaurus, so its hits include more instances of reference to the plague, rather than hits on the plague.

Continuing with the child-research-project-on-the-black-plague theme, when it came time to search a non-affiliated database, I chose Non-Fiction Connection.  I found many books that contained reference to plagues of various varieties, but no books on the plague itself.

I believe that the reason for those databases not being included in One Stop Search is that they don’t match up with what One Stop Search is trying to do–search periodicals.  Booklist, Books in Print, CLD and Non-Fiction connection are book-related, either for reader’s advisory or professional selection.  Auto repair guides and public records don’t fit for similar reasons. 

If I ever do end up with a tricky research question that requires the use of periodicals, I’m sure I will use One Stop Search–I just need to be asked that question!  As it’s meant to be, it’s a good resource when you want to cut down on search time and have one hub from which to search all the spokes of inquiry. 

I’ve had a Bloglines account for a while now–I set one up during a long-ago NSLS class on Web 2.0–but I never use it.  I do read a lot of blogs, both for work and for pleasure, but I prefer to go directly to the blogs themselves, rather than read them in an aggregator.  Because I ignored Bloglines for so long, my membership had frozen, and it wouldn’t allow me to modify my RSS selections with my prpl email address.  I tried for several days to get it to let me in, but nothing worked.

For some reason, though, even though it wouldn’t let me play with the content, it let me change my email address/login.  As soon as I did that (changing it to my personal email address), everything began to work fine.

I added a couple of my usual library/children’s literature-related blogs to my Bloglines account, but not all of them–there are so many that it would have taken far too much time to enter them all.  It would have taken longer to enter than into Bloglines than it does to read them every day.    Also, some of the blogs I read do not offer an RSS feed, and thus, I could not add them whether I wanted to or not. 

In the end, I added Fuse #8 (written by an NYCPL children’s librarian), Educating Alice (written by a private school 3rd-grade teacher who uses literature in the classroom in very creative ways), Unshelved (the well-known web comic set in a library), and the New York Times book section, which I have been reading since I was a teenager.

Two days later, I went back to check the aggregator to see what had been caught in the net.  Almost all of the blogs I read post several times a day, so each of my saved blogs had several entries waiting for me.  (In real life, I’d already read them, because I had checked the actual blogs themselves during the interim).

It was certainly simple to go to one spot and have every work-related blog post in one, easily-clickable place, but, as I mentioned before, I don’t really like RSS aggregators.  They display a blog’s posts in plain black and white text, in a screen filled with different boxes and windows related to Bloglines.  I much prefer to look at an individual blog itself, which often has interesting formatting and pictures related to the individual posts.  The information comes across just fine on an aggregator, but, for me, the personality is lost.  Also, I don’t really save that much time.  So, much like every other new type of technology we’ve discussed so far, I like it fine, but prefer not to use it, if given the choice.  (I think might be a secret Luddite).

For people who prefer using aggregators, though, such as those who find having to go to a bunch of different blogs confusing and/or distracting, a service like Bloglines is very helpful, especially in a work context.  It’s easy for someone to read through the titles of all the new postings about, say, children’s librarianship and to follow only those that are interesting or related to current projects, without wasting time on those that are off-topic. 

(This is not to say that I don’t like helping kids with research questions or completing teachers’ school loans, it’s just that I tend to focus on the recreational aspect of what we do).

That said, it won’t be surprising that my ideas about what to do with YouTube are fun-focused.  Also, they’re ideas that have been floating around in CS departments for long enough that I’m afraid they’re kind of hoary with age. 

1. A supplement to a book review blog with filmed booktalks by staff members, or interviews with patrons about what their most recent favorite book was.  (If we were lucky, we might also be able to interview local authors).

2. A television show-like program update, hosted by a pair of local kids or teens.  (Full disclosure–this idea was proposed by two of the regular 8th grade patrons at the DDR program on Wednesday.  They said it would be SO AWESOME).  The update could include footage of recurring programs (shots from the past DDR or Guitar Hero programs, or shots of storytime or Little Tykes).

Also in direct contrast to normal people, I already do use YouTube at work, but almost never use it at home.  I primarily use it for finding videos to show at history or ‘experiment’-type programs.  We recently did an American Girl program based on the Molly doll, whose books are set during the 1940s.  As part of the program, I wanted to show the kids a YouTube clip of swing dancing, and then teach them some basic steps.  I found several YouTube videos that I almost used (this one being the funniest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyZhyRLi6tM), but in the end, decided to use a DVD that we already owned–entirely because I found a clip of it on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDxa24Bjw9c).

I also use it to keep up on the lives and publishing history of current YA and CS authors.  In 2007 the YA author John Green (Looking for Alaska, An Abundance of Katherines) and his brother Hank started a video blog on their own website  and also posted all of their vlog entries on YouTube.   Through watching their posted videos, I became privy to John’s comments on the writing process (his newest book will come out in the fall of 2008), the process of turning books into movies (both of his novels have been optioned) and censorship debates (his first book has been challenged in several placse).  I can’t deny that the videos are also incredibly funny.  (An example here–no literary merit, just funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBV16QCRDfw). 

Additionally, John Green is friends with many other current YA authors, who occasionally made appearances in his videos.  (John and Hank now post at http://nerdfighters.ning.com/, but it’s a bit confusing in layout, since all of their fans post, as well).

I do enjoy looking at my friends’ Flickr galleries, especially if the photos are of events I’ve attended; my choir has a Flickr group, and we post photos from our concerts there.   Sometimes I enjoy looking at pictures of various hobbies of my own (for instance, for this assignment I looked up some pictures of reconstructed medieval clothing, based on my tag on the picture I upload of myself in a reconstructed 16th century English kirtle), but not enough to spend a lot of time at it. 

(In the event that I end up uploading more than one picture, you can view them here).

That said, Flickr is a great resource for libraries, if for no other reason than that it provides an easy place to store multiple photos online, especially for those libraries that don’t want to save them all as part of their patron-access website.  Also, Flickr provides a slide-show option that makes for a great, rotating-photo focus on, say, a children’s services web page. 

I think that Flickr has a lot of potential for use for library marketing — we could take pictures of library events and put the slideshows, or even still images, on our website.  A redesigned website could take advantage of this.  As for tags, we should at least include “Library, PRPL, and Park Ridge Public Library.”