In its frenzy to digitize the holdings of its partner collections, in this case those of the Stanford University Libraries, Google Books has pursued a "good enough" scanning strategy. The books' pages were hurriedly reproduced: No apparent quality control was employed, either during or after scanning. The result is that 29 percent of the pages in Volume 1 and 38 percent of the pages in Volume 2 are either skewed, blurred, swooshed, folded back, misplaced, or just plain missing. A few images even contain the fingers of the human page-turner. (Like a medieval scribe, he left his own pointing hand on the page!) Not bad, one might argue, for no charge and on your desktop. But now I'm dealing with a mutilated edition of a mutilated selection of a mutilated archive of a mutilated history of a mutilated kingdom — hardly the stuff of the positivist, empirical method I was trained in a generation ago.
A random spot-check of other Google-scanned books has yielded some better results, but the general drift is clear: good enough for our mutilated view of the past, rushed through the scanning process so that Google could lay claim to as many artifacts of our cultural past in as short a time and with as small a budget as possible.
But why complain? What's left over is more than enough. Like anyone else, I can now glean dozens of Latin archival documents while in my slippers. Of course, if I wanted reliable texts, I would be at the Columbia, Fordham, or Princeton library, poring through the print volumes, and would make sure I could see the surviving archival remnants. But the point is that Google Books has represented to us that its massive digitization project will offer a valuable, reliable, open-access research tool that would make the digital at least the equivalent and — through its ubiquity and ease — the clear superior of print. It is, after all, the "public good," not the "public good enough," that lies behind all of Google Books' claims for fair-use rights to its digitization schemes.
If Google Books were undertaking this for the few dozen of us knowledgeable and interested in a particular specialized field, why do so at all? Those are not its claims. Its claims are that it is providing the most knowledge for the most good, in the best available form, with the best available means. Thus its right to turn copyright on its head.
But that's just not so.
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education
Hat Tip: :LISNews
A family of resources to help information workers be more effective, raise the value of information in their organisations and contribute to success. Read more »
Recently I have found myself cooing over visualisation maps (and heat maps) of health and well being resources. The content rich data is overlayed with mapping technologies, and some interesting themes and patterns are emerging.
A lot of the talk around social media in the last year has been around information overload. Social media has provided us with new and exciting ways to create content. But it has also meant learning new ways to manage and engage with social media tools. Are we teetering on the edge of an information overload precipice?
Information overload is a figment of your imagination. Or a failure of your filter. Or a symptom of your technological submissiveness. Depends on who you ask.
What if you had to sort through 3.5 million articles and social media posts a day and try to pull out the most relevant items for your organisation? What if you then had to cobble it all together into something readable for your top groups and executives in your organisation?
Alacra Compliance saves time by aggregating information from both free and fee-based sources and enabling users to conduct an accurate federated search across these sources (coined “simultaneous search” by Alacra).
FreePint Family
Quilting big data threads
The fallacy of information overload
Information overload: fact, fantasy or filter failure? 
