Cites & Insights 7:8 available

Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large v.7, issue 8 (July 2007) is now available for downloading.

The 26-page issue (PDF as usual, but essays other than My Back Pages are available in HTML form) includes:

  • Perspective: Pew Do You Trust? – “Pew Internet & American Life owes me an apology.”
  • ©1: Term and Extent – PermaCopyright and other extremes, including my Modest Proposal for permanent copyright for truly original works
  • Making it Work – Commentary on personal balance and library service balance.
  • Interesting & Peculiar Products – Six products (and product groups) and another six Editors’ Choices/Best Buy roundups.
  • Library Access to Scholarship – more of the “opposition literature” and notes about money.
  • My Back Pages – seven snarky little mini-essays, exclusive to whole-issue readers.

Two quick notes: This was all written before ALA Annual (but with some touchup work and copyfitting done this week)–and there’s nary a word about my own future plans.

11 Responses to “Cites & Insights 7:8 available”

  1. Jerry Stephens Says:

    Your piece — would rant be a better description? — on the Pew Internet report is one that is unworthy of the usual analysis you give your avid readers. Perhaps, even, the piece ought to be retitled “Does a Rose Actually Smell as Sweet Under Any Other Name?” Actually I’m somewhat amused by your taking such offense at Pew’s identification of one category of users as “lackluster.” First of all, you’ve chosen to define “lackluster” as you choose, but you seem to have purposely ignored the way Pew chose to define the same category. “Frequent users,” “less avid,” and “not thrilled” with ICT connectivity might actually describe many of us. I found it fairly accurately describing my own ICT use. Second, the “lackluster” group still fall in to Pew’s identification of “elite tech users,” a group considered to amount to about 31% of American adults. Even through self-identification or self-classification that still remains a fairly select group. Certainly a group that is worthy of being considered as something of an elite group under most senses.

  2. walt Says:

    Wow. “Unworthy of the usual analysis.” I quoted the dictionary definitions. There is simply no way that the word “lackluster” can be used as a neutral or positive descriptor, and I offered several alternatives. As you say, Pew had other things to say that weren’t so judgemental–but they used Lackluster Veterans repeatedly, at least three dozen times. That, to me, is clear indication of bias.

    You may be amused. I’m offended. And no, I don’t think it was a rant. It was a Perspective–an opinion piece. I think insulting 18 million people deserves a response. That you choose not to be insulted by being called lackluster is your privilege.

  3. Jerry Stephens Says:

    The Oxford American Dictionary defines “lackluster” as “lacking in vitality, force, or conviction; uninspired or uninspiring ….” That seems to sufficiently characterize Pew’s definition of this one segment of ICT users. It is only in Oxford’s secondary definition, where the definition’s context is given as the hair or eyes, that “dull” becomes a factor. I rest my case on the three points I made: a useful retitling, the use of Pew’s definition of “lackluster,” and the much broader categorization of “elite tech users.” Even with this terribly minor disagreement, I still believe two things: you are a superb analyst and one worth reading each and every time you write; and you chose this time to make too much of an issue of an unworthy matter.

  4. Steve Lawson Says:

    Walt, I tend to agree with your analysis on the Pew survey, and I would likely feel insulted if I were in that category, too.

    I was trying to figure out “what the heck were they thinking” when they came up with “lackluster veteran.” I don’t want to apologize for them or give them too easy of an out, but I wonder if they were trying to get across the idea that people in this category felt that their online *experience* was lackluster, not that the people were themselves lackluster.

    But maybe I’m wrong and “Lackluster Veterans” was chosen as a more polite alternative to “Lame Old Dudes.”

  5. Jeff Says:

    I think the analysis of the terms is excellent. I think in the library blog world we have a tendency to say there are people that are for technology or against technology. I also agree wit Steven. This report furthers the debate and simply states, those who like technology are amazing, the rest are just old fuddy duddies. The words chosen due make all the difference.

    On a personal note, thank you for the mention. When I started blogging my test for relevancy was to be mentioned on two sites. This Week in Library Blogland and in Cites and Insights. Thank you for that.

  6. Jeff Says:

    I think the analysis of the terms is excellent. I think in the library blog world we have a tendency to say there are people that are for technology or against technology. I also agree wit Steven. This report furthers the debate and simply states, those who like technology are amazing, the rest are just old fuddy duddies. The words chosen due make all the difference.

    On a personal note, thank you for the mention. When I started blogging my test for relevancy was to be mentioned on two sites, This Week in Library Blogland and Cites and Insights. Thank you for that.

  7. Seth Finkelstein Says:

    Have a contest for better terms (yes, I saw “Experienced Skeptic”). But how about:

    Jaded Cynics

    Burnt-Out Seen-It-All-Befores

    Have-A-Lifer’s

    Tech To Live Not Live For Tech

  8. John Mark Ockerbloom Says:

    TIJAGDT? (As distinct from TIAWOL, of course. The last T is for “Tool”, as “Hobby” doesn’t really fit as well.)

    (Terms borrowed and twisted from fandom– if the above is gibberish to you, google “fiawol” and “fijagdh” for background.)

  9. walt Says:

    John, Sure, I can go with that. (I’ve been out of SF fandom for so long that I did have to Ask about it.)

  10. Peter Murray Says:

    Hey, Walt. There is a posting and comment in the Chronicle of Higher Education blog that is along the lines of your copyright proposal:

    Here’s a market-based solution: create a copyright tax. After a tax-free period of a few years (14?), materials would lapse into the public domain when authors no longer feel their creations have commercial value and fail to pay the copyright tax.

  11. walt Says:

    Peter: Except that the comment proposal is, I believe, serious–and it’s actually along the lines of a Lessig proposal, albeit with a much shorter starting point. It would also appear to require registration. The combination of registration and any fee at all is anathema to photographers and some others, to be sure–and their opposition to orphan works legislation suggests a desire to play Copyright Jackpot.


This blog is protected by dr Dave\\\\\\\'s Spam Karma 2: 104369 Spams eaten and counting...