LibrarianActivist.org

Wikipedia allows anonymous edits but it does track the IP of anyone who makes the edit. So a Cal-Tech computer grad student, inspired by news last year that Congress members’ offices had been editing their own entries, and curious whether other organizations were doing anything similar, developed a program to make it much easier to see the affiliation of anyone who made edits to any Wikipedia page.

This has led to numerous revelations about corporations like Fox News, organizations like the CIA and individuals such as staffers for a current US Presidential candidate abusing the intent of Wikipedia

(via MetaFilter which has lots of other links I didn’t include in this post)

- JH

Anyone familiar with UofT’s flagship humanities and social sciences Robart’s library knows that it’s the target of a lot of well earned potshots. Here are a few of its better known claims to fame:

is it sinking?
‘Brutalist‘ architecture
it’s a peacock … !?

The ‘prison’ analogy is another fave, what with the books cloistered into a closed stack system far, far away from the scant selection of windows.

Since 2005 however, quietly in a room in the library at St. Michael’s college, UofT’s partnership with the Open Content Alliance has been digitizing public domain works (books and more) for the Internet Archive. Blackfly magazine published an article (which inspired the heading for this post) in which Carole Moore, head librarian at the St. George campus spoke to UofT’s foray into digitizing public domain works in its collection to make them more accessible and the library more democratic. Articles also appeared at the outset of the project in the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.

Owen Jarus at Blackfly spoke to how digitization can democratize and transform information through improved access, where WP and WSJ spoke to the business angle, mainly comparing the OCA’s initiative to the Google Books/copyright lawsuit situation. The subtext of course is ‘will we still need libraries’ if all the materials are online?

This week, I finished an intensive course on “Rethinking the Library” taught by guest instructor, Dr. Joseph Janes of the University of Washington’s iSchool. It gave a handful of lucky students the opportunity to have a forum to dialogue on where ‘the library’ is/can/should/isn’t going, and engage with the tough question of what was well coined by the University of Toronto Mississauga’s chief librarian, Mary Ann Mavrinac [a guest speaker] as defining our ‘core’. While this question is an ongoing subtext to librarianship, having a sit down in a course environment was a great move. So kudos to the Faculty of Information studies at UofT for offering a full course on this important subject.

The content for me is still percolating … more discussion on this later. In the meantime, if you have burning thoughts on the matter, please chime in!

-PC-

*Scroll down for news about the London Public Library’s decision to implement internet filtering*

Not that I want to interrupt the letter you’re writing to the LPL board of directors, but as luck would have it, this would be the week that Canadian representatives decided to make life difficult at the World Intellectual Property Organization Development Agenda meetings in Geneva.

Fortunately, Michael Geist reports a positive update today on his blog.

Update: Reports this morning indicate progress with inclusion of the access to knowledge language. A welcome development, though Canada should be leading on these issues, not aligning itself against the developing world.

Apparently the Harper government needs a wake up call. If the Access to Knowledge issue is new to you, have a look at the Wikipedia community’s summary of A2K/Access to Knowledge. It also includes a long list of organizations active in the A2K movement.

The CIPO mission statement is also worth a look. I’m not seeing anything about Canada’s role internationally.

Keep up to date on IP news through IP Watch and Sarah Bannerman

via the CLA discussion list a la Heather Morrison

-PC-

Oy, librarians! No doubt you’ve already heard. But in case you haven’t, the push for direct-to-consumer advertising in Canada is marching on. However, if you like acronyms, it’s DTCA.

CanWest Global Communications Corporation stands to increase its profits should a lawsuit they are waging in the name of ‘freedom of expression’ succeed. While the public health system is strained under the weight of increasing costs that are largely the result of pharmaceutical expenses, CanWest seems to be thinking to themselves … why should Pfizer get all the cash? How can we get a piece of this action?

I say “they” because a corporation such as CanWest Global is not an individual. It is a group of individuals. If you’ve seen The Corporation, you will know the importance of this distinction. Despite this, under the law corporations are viewed as having the same rights as individuals. This lawsuit is claiming that CanWest Global’s right to freedom of expression is being violated. Does a corporation have this ‘right’? Meaning, do they have the ‘right’ to ‘freely express’ an advertisement on behalf of another multi-million dollor corporation, especially when they stand to profit from airing that ad? What about a corporation’s moral responsibility to society? Or the responsibility of the people who run that corporation?

Still reading? Back to direct-to-consumer advertising. The basic skinny is that it is legal in the US and New Zealand, Canada not so much. It gets muddy. Canadians have been exposed to drug ads through the American media, and in Canada ads for over the counter medications are permitted, as are ads that don’t recommend a drug for a specific condition. Americans and New Zealanders are exposed to the “feeling X? ask your doctor and buy Y” kind of marketing. According to the Toronto Star, US spending increased 10x over the course of 11 years, from 1994 -2005. Open Medicine, the British Medical Journal, Toronto Star, a recent CBC podcast, the Canadian Pharmacists Association and the CMAJ all have good information describing how direct-to-consumer advertising impacts health spending. No one seems to be a fan.

Direct-to-consumer advertising is not ‘free speech’. Advertising messages are carefully constructed bids to pitch products. They are created by talented, creative and well-compensated advertising teams. Legalizing direct-to-consumer advertising would permit profit-seeking corporations to compete with public health interests and public (as in your tax) dollars. As librarians, we can inform/remind the public that for safe and effective medical and health information, ads are not credible sources given that they are rife with branding strategies and backed by well-funded market research. Even if some ads are deemed ‘legal’ and hit the airwaves, they are in fact not ‘health information’. Unfortunately, the research suggests their impact is still huge.

Your Media notes that it is not safe to assume that it will be easy to prove that CanWest Global does not have a case. So you may be thinking, what can a librarian do in a situation such as this. Let’s consider some options …

First, whether you are a health librarian, academic librarian, public librarian, or special librarian - make your patrons aware of this issue:
a) CanWest Global is attempting to encroach on the public’s rights and they/we have a right to be informed about it
b) from an media/information literacy standpoint, DTCA exemplifies what NOT to use for informative purposes.
c) Tell your patrons about this film: Big Bucks, Big Pharma
(’c’ added June 10.07)

While I’m all for seeking alternative sources to health information, DTCA stinks. Freedom of expression being the wonderful thing that it is, you can exercise yours by talking to your Member of Parliament, sending a dirty note to the CRTC, and ccing whatever you do to the CanWest Global turkeys.

Oy, that was long. Thanks for hanging in there.
-PC-

The Internet Library of Early Journals is a digitized collection of journals from the 18th and 19th centuries.

(via MetaFilter)

- JH