Idea for book promotion: "Quotes/ excerpts from books"

Thought this was really funny:

When I die, I want to die like my grandfather--who died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in his car." -Author Unknown

First thought was, "Was this from a book? I'd like to read it." Then it struck me - instead of writing reviews all the time, why not extract interesting quotes or excerpts from a book, indicating the page numbers, and Call No.? It might prompt readers to go look for it.

Well, it's sort of like what I'm trying to do with RawNotes. Maybe that's why I started my other blog...

BTW, the above quote was from someone else's email footer... say, that reminds me, why not use the similar concept for all NLB staff's email footer?

Common sense and respect above a Blogging Policy

About 6 weeks ago, I discovered some blog posts about people getting dismissed from their jobs because of their blogging. My impression then: there were a lot of indignant bloggers out there. Most weren't fired but shared a common sense of injustice to the whole issue. Someone even came up with an International Blogger's Bill of Rights, and apparently there's even a term called "dooced" as reported in BBC news.

Ok, that was a few weeks ago. Reading the recent posts and comments, my impression was that the initial sense of indignant righteousness has mellowed and replaced by something more... reflective (for want of a better word). And more rational as well (Hmm... an example of the self-correcting nature of the Blogosphere?). You'd know what I mean if you follow the comments from the same Blogger's Rights blog.

Majority of the recent posts suggest an agreement that the real issue wasn't about blogging, but about how people were seen to conduct themselves as employees. Shel's post "Fired for Blogging or Cause " sums up what I consider as the "reflective and rational" view. I quote:

"People are getting fired for the same reasons they've always gotten fired--for conducting too much personal business on company time, for lying about their employers, for revealing too much about a company's internal mechanizations and so on. Blogging is just another delivery mechanism for making the same employee mistakes. "

I support the view that employers should make their view towards blogging clear to employees who blog. But really, it's a matter of the employee exercising common sense over any written or verbal policy, isn't it?

I mean, if I choose to blog, then I have to be responsible for whatever I post. If I choose to rant over work issues and blog about it, I have to realise that there's a record of my views posted on the Internet. That's equivalent to me standing outside the company headquarters and complaining to any passerby.

Putting it in another way -- would we like our employer to post their complaints about us on a website?

I'm reminded of these wise words from Og Mandino (he writes on self-inpirational and self-motivational stuff) which goes something like this -- "If you have nothing good to say about someone, then say nothing". This is similar to a common advice in books on job interviews: Never bad-mouth your (previous) employer.

As a consumer, I can blog my views (good and bad) about a company, its products and policies. But if I feel like complaining about work issues, I must not forget that I'm doing so in a employer-employee relationship, rather than as a consumer of the company's goods or services.

Some people try to hide behind the veil of anonymity and blog about what they don't like about their employer. Anonymity wouldn't work, really. Things, especially words, have a way of catching up with us whether we like it or not. What we say is a reflection of ourselves. What makes the Blogosphere any different?

Missing the forest for the trees: RFID & libraries

Came across the following headlines: "Berkeley puts $650,000 into library book tracking system - Some raise privacy concerns over technology" (Times-star, 8 Feb 05). Summary of the article:

• Berkeley Public Library feels the investment is justified, as it would reduce library checkout time for users and lessen worker strain injuries.
• Repetitive motion injuries among library employees have cost the library $2 million over five years.
• Automating repetitive tasks would free up library staff to do other more meaningful tasks, like assisting readers.
• Some users worry that RFID technology could be used as a surveillance tool that might intrude on the users' privacy. For instance, a book on some private/ sensitive subject could be linked to the reader.
• In Berkeley, there are also concerns that the RFID system is being implemented at a time when the library is struggling financially.
• Other library users are concerned that increased automation would lead to a more impersonal environment, where users would not feel personally welcomed and safe, and should machines break down, there would be no one to turn to.

The concerns mentioned above were fairly consistent with all other articles and discussions about the implementation of RFID in US libraries that I've come across so far -- the potential abuse and loss of readers' privacy, and the loss of the human touch.

I understand that Singapore's public libraries were the first in the world to implement RFID technology on a large scale (i.e. its entire public library system). We've had RIFD for 22 of our public libraries for about 5 years now. Personally, I can't imagine us not having RFID.

For instance, I do not know of any other technology that would allow library books on loan to be cancelled the very instant they are dropped into the book-drop (i.e. book return bin). This feature of RFID alone has been a tremendous boon to readers and staff alike. After dropping off the items, readers can proceed to borrow more library materials right away (before RFID, they had to wait for up to 30 minutes just to get their items cancelled). In many ways, there's less pressure for staff doing the cancelling of loans. In the NLB public libraries, we have staff doing a manual cancellation of loans in the backroom (apart from this being an additional check to ensure the loans are cancelled, it also allows staff to retrieve reserved items and spot any damaged items).

So far, I do not know of any NLB members (or non-members) raising any concerns about loss of privacy with RFID. I'm not sure if Singaporeans are less concerned about privacy issues that say, readers in the US. Or perhaps those Singaporeans who are concerned simply do not use our libraries.

My take on the privacy issue is this: Any opposition to RFID on the grounds of intrusion of privacy is really a case of missing the forest for the trees. The benefits far outweigh the risks, in my opinion. Even without RFID, there are already ways for the library to (for lack of a better word) intrude on "readers' privacy" if the library really wanted to. For instance, the circulation program could easily be modified such that the system retains a record of the books borrowed by a library member -- and the library does not even have to tell you that they have this capability.

As for the loss of the human touch, the real issue is about the increased level of automation in libraries rather than RFID per se, isn't it? Staff salaries are a huge part of the total operating costs of any organisation (unless its predominently volunteer-run) so as usage of the service increase, the need to automate repetitive tasks is really a given (I mean, check out this article as well -- Robots being developed to retrieve library books. And you'd inevitably have people who are less enthusiastic about using automated services.

I wouldn't say that these people are the older folks, because I know many "old people" who embrace technology wholeheartedly. Perhaps the people who say they don't use libraries because of new technology are those who don't use libraries in the first place, i.e. as an excuse for not using the library. Honestly, I've not come across any regular reader who has to give up going to the library because we introduced more self-help services.

Could these people (voicing the issues) be a "vocal minority"? Maybe. Which could be why some libraries may decide to put the RFID issue to a vote. I wouldn't go for a vote for one main reason -- unless you have a very comprehensive prototype, most people would not be able to envision what the new technology might be. They would therefore cast their vote based on their understanding of current technology, which may be very far off from the real thing.

Seems like trying to stop RFID implementation in libraries could be like trying to dam a river with only a few twigs at a time. It's going to be inevitable. The moment the cost of RFID tags come down, it will be unstoppable.

The potential loss of personal privacy and the loss of the human touch is something larger and not limited to just RFID in libraries. Consider how banking and shopping is done nowadays -- even interpersonal relationships at work, school, play etc. Hence those issues should be dealt with from a systemic point of view, i.e. how we carry out social and commercial transactions between people and organisations.

E-books in China & North America: Notes from LAS talk by Dr. Anthony Ferguson

Some notes that I took at a recent talk, organised by the Library Association of Singapore, by Dr Anthony Ferguson, (Head) Librarian of Hong Kong University Libraries. Tony was in Singapore for about 5 days, of which I had the pleasure of showing him around places like our HDB heartland, makan (i.e. eat) at a Hawker Centre, the Night Safari (Singapore Zoo), and a whirlwind tour at a few public libraries like Library@Orchard, Library@esplanade and Jurong Regional Library.

NOTE: Any inaccuracies posted here are entirely my own. The notes were taken during the talk, and done so selectively. Posting them here is just a way of sharing, and hopefully soliciting more comments and conversations on this topic. Be advised that I'm not an authority on ebooks. :)

=========================================
It's generally recognised that the adoption rate for ebooks has been much more successful in China than in North America. The North American ebook sales model was initially based on sales to individuals. That didn't work (mostly because of the existence of free alternatives like libraries). The business model then switched to libraries as primary customers of ebooks. Some ebook players in North America:

• Questia
• Netlibrary
• Mightywords (note: URL is no longer accessible)
• Borders (online books), which partnered with Amazon.com, while Borders stuck mainly to print

(I was thinking that geographical size should not be a factor, since both countries are huge. So what was the difference?) In both countries, they faced about the same major ebook challenges: Copyright issues, publishing standards, issue of subscription Vs. ownership.

There are 3 major e-book players in China (i.e. subscribed by the top 10 academic libraries in China):

• Apabi ebooks (spun-off from BeiDa - Beijing University. Here's the English write-up from HKU Libraries)
• Super Star Digital Library
• Scholar (shu sheng zhi jia)

Smaller e-book projects include:

• "Collectanea", i.e. "Passages selected from various authors, usually for purposes of instruction; miscellany; anthology" (definition from Hyperdictionary.com)

• Non-commercial digitisation projects, like those of major libraries (National Library of China, I think) and university libraries. Tony also mentioned a project called the "Million Book Project" (several universities in China are in this collaboration with Carnegie Mellon Libraries. Here's a FAQ)

The success factors in China include:

• A booming economy, hence good funding for ebook projects and proliferation
• China libraries wanting to grow faster & bigger (i.e. playing catchup from the loss from the cultural revolution)
• Chinese citizens embracing web technologies - they read on the web rather than handhelds, whereas in North America, ebooks are associated with the use of Handhelds, whose sales is slowing down by the way).
• People in China seems to be much more passionate about reading than people in North America. Tony felt that the mainland Chinese were "radically different" with regards to book consumption (of course as China gets more developed, with more quality entertainment and alternatives, it could be a matter of time that people shift away from books towards TV etc... which reminds me of this recent blogpost)
  
• Copyright is "not as big an issue" in China, meaning, the people are "less squeamish about potential copyright infringements" -- whereas in the US, people may become fanatical about copyright issues that things don't move as fast.
• It's possible that publishers in China are making money from ebooks
• License agreements for ebooks are less of an issue, and often cheaper than subscriptions for English ebooks.

Tony also commented a bit about the Google digitisation project (hey, which librarian isn't nowadays?). Technically, it's feasible because he's seen an automated scanning machine at Stanford. However, Tony suggests that the Google project isn't going to make libraries obsolete, because up to 80% of libraries' circulation comes from new books rather than old ones. What the google project means is to make more free books on the web than in any one individual library. Then individual libraries could focus on acquiring contemporary books and on user education, instead of say, preservation and archival issues.

As for the future development of ebooks in China, funding would be the key to sustained growth. Should the economy slow down, the market for ebooks would become more selective.
========
[BTW, here's something relevant to the discussion above: "Latest thing in hi-tech: a book". Article by Leo Lewis, for Timesonline.co.uk - last accessed 31 Jan 05]

Reflections of stuff read in 2004 (part 2): Information Cascades

My continuing reflections of books read in 2004. This one's called Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age by Duncan J. Watts (New York : Norton, c2003 - 368 pages). Here are some additional notes which were not included in the original RawNotes posting.

• p230 - Author gives suggestions on how to exploit knowledge to enhance the likelihood of a cascade.
• p235 - About "cascades & percolation" - conditions necessary for global cascade.

What's "percolation" you ask?

My understanding is this: Imagine cooking a raw egg, and filming it in slow motion. You'll probably see the egg white still in a gooey mess, but in an instant, the protein parts become white. Something like that... Watts explains it way better than I have.

Which then made me think that perhaps the role of libraries & librarians is to:
• Create a "percolating cluster" (see p236 - "no complete general solution exists")
• Target the "ripe" or "vulnerable" cluster
• Identify & even create the connections ("axions") - "beyond a certain point, percolation occurs (define)

Maybe I could paint you an IMAGINARY SCENE -- set in the future, describing LIBRARIANS at WORK:
=====================================
Liblogarian1: I have Idea Cluster marked Two-one-zero-niner online, Sir. Its network has expanded beyond initial range. Percolation probability above one. Looks like percolation is eminent, Sir.

Liblogarian2: Isn't that the cluster our folks at Outreach did a 30-sec Net-session last month? On "Traditional Asian Cuisines of the late 20th century: Their inpact on primary school education today"?

Liblogarian1: No Sir. That was two-TWO-zero-niner. We did the Comic Book routine for cluster 2109, called "What if Superman wore his underwear the right way?". The kids loved it.

Liblogarian2: Oh yes. The same session the folks at (Readers') Advisory chipped in with their Flash-Vid segment.

Liblogarian1: Sir, Advisory is asking if they can tag along again to try their enhanced Group-share chip for this mission.

Liblogarian2: Sure. The kids loved them the last time. Invite George from Acquisitions as well. I know he's dying to get his nose off his Flex-screens & have his Info-Gear out.

Liblogarian1: Roger that. A-Team 6 is on the way.
=====================================

I don't blame you if you didn't understand a word of what went on. It's more than a little cryptic. Must have been reading Vernor Vinge I guess. I suppose if you are a practicing Public Librarian, you might know a little of what I'm saying.

Ok, last thing on why you should read the book. There's a really interesting case study of the Toyota-Aisin crisis in 1997. It's about how a fire at the Toyota factory almost ruined the company -- certain of its original production moulds (found no where else) were all destroyed in the fire, crippling production. The crisis was severe enough to have affected Japan's economy. Yet intriguingly Toyota was able to recover back to normal production levels within days, even though there were no contingency plans in place.

One conclusion was that the more "networked" we are, the more subseptible we'd be to risks . But conversely, this disadvantage is also a strength, i.e. it allows us to recover faster than if we were not linked. Similar parallels with regards to the Sept 11 incident, which affected businesss in New York City.

Reflections of stuff read in 2004 (part 1)

I'm not sure how you choose to mark the passing of the old year. Me? I close the chapter to the previous year by publishing a list of (mostly) books read in the previous year.

The stuff I read in 2004 proved to be pretty much the same as previous years -- military-related fiction & non-fiction; Sci-Fi; Business & Management; a smattering of library/ book-related non-fiction. But I picked up a few YP fiction books and Graphic Novels though, to better acquaint myself with the YP collection. Also read one novel by Sandra Brown because I wanted to know why it was popular with women (hey, I always say, "A good salesman must know what he has to offer!")

A few colleagues asked if publishing a personal reading list would mean a loss of personal privacy. I suppose it depends on the individual's viewpoint. Frankly, I don't see it as a problem at all. So what if people know that I read certain stuff?

As a Mandarin phrase goes, “高兴都来不及”-- poorly translated as "Can't wait to be happy, let along being worried". Besides, one could always leave out any sensitive or controversial stuff (if any). Publishing a personal reading list does not make one's life an open book, does it? Which begs the question, "Does it matter if your life is an open book?"

Oh, contrary to certain public perception, Singapore is NOT a police-state. No one gets arrested if they read things like Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" or Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf". These are available in our public libaries, by the way.

Reading Vs Computer Games: Thinking out of the (X)box

Christmas came and went. Xbox was pretty hot this year, or so it seemed to me. Past few weeks, while shopping at various locations, I noticed that adults were snapping up Xboxes where they were being sold. Not surprising, considering that Xbox testing stations seem to be in every corner of Singapore (bet the marketing people's motto was "To be even more pervasive than Starbucks").

Computer retail shops seemed to be doing good business, with adults and kids buying PC games too. That made me wonder to what extent was Reading for Leisure (i.e. borrowing from public libraries) affected by Computer Gaming.

It's a given that those two activties compete for our time. I'm repeating the obvious here: If you are a voracious reader, chances are that you'd spend time a significant amount of your personal time reading -- at the expense of other activities that you could do (say, playing on your computer or Xbox, if you own one). The reverse is also true -- if you are a fervent computer gamer who spend at least 4 hours trying to outrace, outgun, outbuild or outwit whatever that has been programmed, then you'll have less time to read (assuming you do that in the first place).

The computer games are getting more fantastic. I'm sure part of the growing appeal is due to Multiplayer options that come along with most games nowadays, where players go online and interact with other online players. To get a taste of the numbers, try Bungie.net (the developers of Halo & Halo2). As of this post, there were 331,315 unique players in the last 24 hours, with 848,268 matches logged. It may not seem like much when we think about the total number of Xbox gamers, but how likely would we have 300,000 readers going online to discuss about the same book in 24 hours? And that's only for Halo2. There are many more Multiplayer servers out there.

Generally speaking, that's not very encouraging if you're in the business of selling books or lending books. The young are picking up computer gaming at a much faster rate than which they pick up the book-reading habit.

My wife had a quirky idea on how to reverse that trend. Her idea was to design computers and gaming consoles such that they were not powered by plugging them into the electrical outlet. Instead, the user would have to first get on a stationary exercise bike (or equivalent exercise equipment) and pedal. Kinetic energy would be converted into electrical energy which was stored for use by the computer/ game console. Simply speaking, in order to play computer games, you've got to work for it first. The less you exercise, the less you would be able to play the computer game. The health benefits are apparent.

I said my wife had a quirky idea. I didn't say it was practical or realistic.

Even if game consoles were built like that, would that make more people take up reading? That's a different issue altogether. I won't even kid myself to say that I have an answer to that.

The death knell for libraries? I don't think so!

On Nov 15, 2004, OCLC and Yahoo! officially launched a toolbar that provides "one-click access to Open WorldCat as well as Yahoo! Search's Web search engine." Here's the press release.

As I understand it:
1) OCLC basically made library catalogue records (US public libraries) searchable by a web search engine. When a user searches on the web, the catalogue record is displayed like how a website search result is displayed. At first glance, you'd think it's a URL link to a website.

2) When user clicks on that result link, it brings user to narrow the search to a particular library. The key thing is that the user sees a typical web search engine page, rather than the typical OPAC search page with lots of options and boxes. Users don't necessarily know they are now searching a library OPAC record.

3) The search then brings them to a library record, showing the book cover, synopsis, loan status and library location (depending on the library system I think).

When I last heard the OCLC president, Jay Jordan, talk about this in May '04, he said they were negotiating with a "search engine company" to market this service. I guess that was Yahoo. I have not tried this new toolbar. Last time I tried the "beta" was in May '04, but I think it works the same.

I see this as another step closer in making libraries relevant in the Internet era. Who said libraries won't be relevant anymore? I like this excerpt from this Information Today Inc. article:
"The co-branded toolbar ... ...empowers users ... to seamlessly search for information that is available in offline databases." A Yahoo! representative clarified that they consider "stacks of books" as "offline databases."

The toolbar is available for download at http://www.oclc.org/toolbar/default.htm

Not-so-Scary-Halloween: What's the point?

My wife and I chanced upon a poster, displayed in a shopping centre, for a "Not-so-Scary-Halloween". Seemed a bit odd to organise a Halloween party that is "not-so-scary". It's like organising a "Not-so-Merry-Christmas" or "Not-so-Happy-Birthday".

The event was for kids aged 4 to 12. Perhaps the organisers decided to offer a watered down programme to encourage parents to sign up their kids for the event -- a kind of assurance that the kids wouldn't be unduly scared out of their wits and hence suffer psychological harm later in life.

I learnt that Halloween falls on 31 Oct, which is the eve of All Saints' Day. They are somehow related. This web article titled The true origin of Hallowe'en from News Shopper seems pretty reliable.

Maybe my wife and I are insensitive to the feelings of parents. Perhaps we've lagged behind the times. But still, a "Not-so-Scary Halloween"? Clearly the event referred to the commercialised version of Halloween. That's like missing the entire point of celebrating (the commercial version of) Halloween, isn't it?

Between the devil and the deep blue sea: Self-studying in the public library

The idiom "Between the devil and the deep blue sea" describes a situation where there are two equally unacceptable alternatives. Perhaps you are more familiar with this other idiom -- "Between a rock and a hard place". Public libraries in Singapore are really caught in a bind where the issue of self-studying is concerned.

Self-studying in Singapore's Public Libraries
The "self-studying" refers to a user occupying the table & chair for study purposes WITHOUT referencing library materials.

Singapore's public libraries are popular hangouts for students (predominently the 13 to 16 year olds). They'd flock to libraries to do their homework (often combined with social activities, like getting to know that guy or gal better) because libraries are air-conditioned, the ambience is excellent, and they're one of those few places where parents have less reasons to object when their kids say "I'm not coming straight home from school 'cos I'll be going to the library."

Ordinarily, there would be nothing wrong with this situation, where a person occupies the seat/ table to do their own research work, homework, class assignment etc. After all, libraries are no longer mere repositories of books. They are touted to be a place for life-long learning. And learning takes many different forms.

What's the problem?
Ok, here's the problem: At the other end, there are users who want a seat while they read the library book at leisure. Naturally, they'll complain about the lack of seats because the darn students have taken up all the seats. "I want to complain! The library should do something about these students who hog the tables and seats. I'm a taxpayer and yet I cannot find a seat in this library. Why isn't the library chasing these people away to let readers who have a REAL need to use the seats?"

"Wait a minute", an adult might say. "I have a right to use the library for self-studying too. I'm taking up the government's call to upgrade myself, so I've enrolled myself for classes. And I need a place like the library to study. I pay my taxes too, so I have a right to occupy the seat for my learning! I'm not doing my homework - I'm learning!"

A change in policy
Up till about a year ago, self-studying was strictly prohibited in public libraries and in the National (reference) Library. Priority was given to readers who were using library materials. However, the policy was somewhat relaxed recently (circa 2003), where self-studying was allowed within specific self-study hours. Kind of like a "Self-study Happy Hour" if you will. But the Reference Section was still strictly "no self-study".

So what's the problem this time?
Both groups still feel that there can be no compromise because they both have the right. It's really a turf issue; a scarcity of space. And maybe, just maybe, some people are just plain self-centered, caring only about their immediate need.

Library staffs are the ones caught in the cross-fire. When library staffs enforce the self-study rule (e.g. tell people to leave when they study outside the prescribed hours), that person gets unhappy at being chased away, as they don't really understand -- or refuse to accept -- the rationale for the policy. Library staff in turn gets a complaint for being "inflexible".

If library staffs were slightly more lenient in enforcing the rule, then the other group would complain that staffs are not doing their job.

Possible solutions - I've been considering the following:

#1 - Expand self-study hours during "Exam Periods"
Like this example from Hong Kong Central Library. In Singapore, we probably need to cater to Secondary Schools in particular. They are the main age group who self-study in the library. The older students in Junior Colleges, Polytechnics and Universities would have their own campuses. During the months leading to the exams, libraries could totally drop the no-study rule (the opposing group cannot complain, and have to accept this as part of the greater good for the country). Once the exams are over, the rules for restricted self-study hours are enforced. Students have to accept that self-study is strictly not allowed outside the prescribed hours. The library would have to get the media involved to help publicise the issue.

Or how about a public forum or debate on this issue? The Self-studiers Vs. The Readers. That might be interesting. At least it would bring the issue to the open and, more or less, allow the public to sort it out

#2 - Create Self-Study Only Rooms
There's something similar being done in Hong Kong public libraries. The room would be strictly out of bounds to users who are NOT self-studying. Or that you can use the room if it's not occupied but the person who self-study would have the priority right. Similarly, self-study would be strictly disallowed outside this room.

#3 - Self-study Allowed Spaces
A variation of #2, where we indicate which are the areas where self-studying is allowed. The difference is that instead of constructing enclosed rooms, we just demarcate spaces where self-studying is allowed and those that are strictly off limits -- kind of like pockets of self-study safe-havens.

Can the library afford to crave out such spaces? Some say that we cannot. I think we can. Afterall, people already sit themselves anywhere, and we are just marking out the boundaries clearly. If restaurants can have Smoking and Non-smoking sections, why can't libraries have Self-Study and Non-Self-study sections?

#4 - A combination of ideas #1, #2 and/ or #3
Hmm. It gets complicated... Probably not such a good idea. The policy must be something that's intuitively fair, so it's got to be simple.

#5 - Take one side, any side
The idea is that if we take no action, or if we try to act as peacemakers, we'd fail anyway and find ourselves tormented by the devil AND still drown in the deep sea. So just choose a side.

BUT, this is actually the worse idea of all. Think about it: (1) If we take the side of students, we ostracise the adults. And students don't borrow books; they just use the space for self-study. No loans = No funding for libraries. (2) If we take the side of adults, we'll ostracise the students. They get peeved and won't come back to libraries in their adult years. Again, poor loans = less funding.

Which means the library cannot afford to just do nothing, and we have to play the peacemaker to ensure an equitable compromise is achieved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Earlier, I wrote that most people who self-study are students. However, I suspect this would change in the years to come because more adults would be taking up long-distance courses, part-time courses etc.

I don't have the statistics right now, but I'd wager that the percentage growth in the adult education industry is significant. The number of paperchasers will increase, and so will the demand for spaces for self-study. Singapore's public libraries are seen as one of the prime institutions for self-learning, so the library would have to act now in anticipation of potential problems.

Ok, so what would you do?