Post #3: The Assault on “The Sleep of Reason”

ALA president Michael Gorman’s two-part post on the Britannica blog has incited a host of criticism from library and information professionals. Part one, titled “The Sleep of Reason,” argues the value of print resources over the “often-anarchic world of the Internet.” It’s hard not to miss the irony of Gorman using a blog to put forth his opinions, especially considering this.

 

Gorman loses me in the first paragraph, where he compares “citizen journalists” to a “citizen surgeon.”

 

The life of the mind in the age of Web 2.0 suffers, in many ways, from an increase in credulity and an associated flight from expertise. Bloggers are called “citizen journalists”; alternatives to Western medicine are increasingly popular, though we can thank our stars there is no discernable “citizen surgeon” movement; millions of Americans are believers in Biblical inerrancy—the belief that every word in the Bible is both true and the literal word of God, something that, among other things, pits faith against carbon dating; and, scientific truths on such matters as medical research, accepted by all mainstream scientists, are rejected by substantial numbers of citizens and many in politics.

 

Doesn’t this country have a long and valued history of “citizen journalists?” Michael Gorman is not even attempting (and I’m being charitable here) a reasonable argument to support his thesis that Web 2.0 lacks credibility and expertise. It would be so easy to give some good examples. Gorman seems to equate everything on the internet by the same simplistic standards, that if we have people doing journalism on their own, then the next thing you know they’ll be removing their own gall bladders or spanking their wives.

 

And that’s just the first paragraph. I know that Gorman is criticizing Web 2.0 mostly on the basis of its value to academic and scholarly discourse, but I can’t help comparing his “sleep of reason” postings to Al Gore’s new book, “The Assault on Reason.” Gore contends that popular civic dialogue for Americans is greatly enhanced by the internet. He has faith in us, where Gorman, it appears, does not.

 

A well-connected citizenry is made up of men and women who discuss and debate ideas and issues among themselves and who constantly test the validity of the information and impressions they receive from one another—as well as the ones they receive from their government. No citizenry can be well informed without a constant flow of honest information about contemporary events and without a full opportunity to participate in a discussion of the choices that the society must make.

 

Sorry, Gorman, but you’re the one who brought up the whole “citizen journalist” thing. By your own standards, I wouldn’t consider you a credible source.

 

 

 

 

I’m in Kentucky

Hello to all my fellow classmates who are toiling away at Grayslake this weekend. I hope to be at class on Sunday, but I will miss Saturday’s class. My grandmother passed away this week and I am in Kentucky for her funeral. She was 93 years old and greatly loved by her family and friends. As a tribute to her, I am posting this digital story about my family that I made in media services class.

Post #2: The Smithsonian Imposes Copyrights on Public Domain Images

The Smithsonian Images website is built on a repository of 6,288 images from Smithsonian events, exhibits and historical collections. An incredibly rich and valuable resource, the majority of these images are old enough to be in the public domain. In fact, all of the images — no matter their age — are fair use, since works of the United States government are in the public domain and have no copyright protection whatsoever.

The Smithsonian doesn’t see it that way. Not only do they impose copyright restrictions on each and every image, the Smithsonian charges a hefty fee for high resolution images. Visitors can browse categories of photos and download low resolution watermarked images for personal and educational use. High resolution images without the watermark can be downloaded for a fee — as much as $200 for a 600 dpi 8 x 10. Restrictions even extend beyond copyright. According to the Smithsonian, images may be protected by copyright and by “other restrictions as well.” In the case of some images, the Smithsonian notes that, “even in the absence of copyright, Smithsonian still reserves all rights to image use.”

In order to circumvent the lack of copyright protection for US government works, the Smithsonian distinguishes between federal employees and trust employees. Beyond the legal issue of whether or not the Smithsonian can copyright and restrict images that are already in the public domain or have been produced by public employees, the question also is whether this practice is within the mission of a tax-supported public institution. Shouldn’t the American public have free and unrestricted access to American historical images produced within the scope of a taxpayer supported institution?

One nonprofit group is challenging the Smithsonian on this practice. Public.Resource.Org has downloaded all 6,288 images onto Flickr, and has purchased several high-resolution images to make them available for use without copyright restrictions. Some legal experts sympathize but don’t necessarily agree that the restrictions imposed by the Smithsonian are illegal. Personally, I applaud the challenge by Public.Resource.Org and hope the Smithsonian agrees to full and unfettered public access to our nation’s historic images.