Comments on: Cites & Insights 7:8 available

By: walt

walt — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:13:31 +0000

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.

By: Peter Murray

Peter Murray — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:33:03 +0000

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

Hereâ€™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.

By: walt

walt — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:51:08 +0000

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.)

By: John Mark Ockerbloom

John Mark Ockerbloom — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:43:58 +0000

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.)

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 23:35:00 +0000

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

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:34:59 +0000

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.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:34:38 +0000

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.

By: Steve Lawson

Steve Lawson — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:50:38 +0000

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.”

By: Jerry Stephens

Jerry Stephens — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:51:15 +0000

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.

By: walt

walt — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:21:07 +0000

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.