Gotham constantly accuses Batman of being the villain even though Batman constantly saves their buns. Nancy Pearl has been saving Seattle's literary buns for years (and she's got amazing shushing action): she deserves a little more faith.
In an agreement benefiting everyone, the books division of Amazon will be acquired by Nancy Pearl and the Seattle Public Library to run as they see fit.
@4 As a fellow librarian you should also find this disturbing since it seems that this will be published in the print version of the magazine of record for the American Library Association (ALA).
The guy who wrote this teaches at the University of Washington School of Information. He is wrong on so many points - the main one being that there is somehow an equivalency to Rushdie's name and online media, and the re-defining of the word "santorum". Just as importantly his interpertatation of what "Google-bombing" is; Anthony or Paul could (and have) refute why these two tech issues are not the same (and it is that level of misinformation in this publication which is really the most worrisome).
The author claims that his "feelings about the senator's views are beside the point" - but it is quite clear that he is biased - and that it is in favor of the poor little santorum-filled senator.
@6: I can usually tell from the first sentence before scrolling down that an unhinged sgt_doom ramblerant is incoming.
@10: "There’s a good old English word for what’s been done to the senator, coincidentally connected to the act in question … but that’s another story."
Mudslinging?
"Apart from Facebook shooting itself in the foot (yet again), I was struck by how differently some people seemed to treat these two phenomena. It’s okay to, um, savage Rick Santorum’s name, but Facebook should let Salman Rushdie be who he wants to say he is. And we thought name authority was difficult."
This guy is a niche expert, but apparently an idiot otherwise.
Clearly not Paul Constant, for whom the issue is not one of books and reading but one of mood affiliation.
http://www.americanlibrariesmagazine.org…
The guy who wrote this teaches at the University of Washington School of Information. He is wrong on so many points - the main one being that there is somehow an equivalency to Rushdie's name and online media, and the re-defining of the word "santorum". Just as importantly his interpertatation of what "Google-bombing" is; Anthony or Paul could (and have) refute why these two tech issues are not the same (and it is that level of misinformation in this publication which is really the most worrisome).
The author claims that his "feelings about the senator's views are beside the point" - but it is quite clear that he is biased - and that it is in favor of the poor little santorum-filled senator.
@10: "There’s a good old English word for what’s been done to the senator, coincidentally connected to the act in question … but that’s another story."
Mudslinging?
"Apart from Facebook shooting itself in the foot (yet again), I was struck by how differently some people seemed to treat these two phenomena. It’s okay to, um, savage Rick Santorum’s name, but Facebook should let Salman Rushdie be who he wants to say he is. And we thought name authority was difficult."
This guy is a niche expert, but apparently an idiot otherwise.
(though I'll be jumping on one Sunday morning)