Bibliotheek en het online leven in Augustus 2010

Laat een reactie achter

De 2.1 Android OS  update bleek mijn mobiele internetverbinding te storen,  we hadden veel regen aan t einde van de maand en we kregen wel een geveltuintje maar steeds maar geen kabinet. 13 augustus was  ‘international left-handers day’ niet veel van gemerkt, maar dat ligt misschien aan mijn ‘unique mental abilities‘ 😉 .

Bibliotheek krantjes zijn alleen leuk als ze van jezelf zijn, van een ander zijn ze zelden interessant, tenzij je bijv wilt weten waar de Nederlandse bibliotheekwereld mee bezig is: zie dan het Twitternieuws krantje van NL biblioblogs .
Je Bibliotheek
heeft een nieuw domein (en Wilma een nieuwe baan).
Ik heb me verbaasd over Collaborating and Delivering Literature Search Results to Clinical Teams Using Web 2.0 Tools, Jacqueline heeft daar een heel goed commentaar op gegeven, Christina Pikas ook met Delivering the results of a literature search.


  • In OvidSP kun je een e-alert account met een willekeurig email adres -van een ander bijv- maken. Maar dat dus ook weer opzeggen … raar eigenlijk
  • Als je in Google Scholar een titel vindt, kan het zijn dat je Linkresolver je niet naar het juiste artikel brengt: GS kijkt nl voornamelijk naar titel, niet naar het ISSN …
  • SciVerse wordt het nieuwe geïntegreerde platform waar Elseviers’ ScienceDirect, Scopus en Scirus in samen gaan  (Aankondiging) en is geactiveerd op 1 september
  • Scopus heeft een iphone app maar: “iphone app is … available to users at subscribing institutes only”  euh … this meens also that you have to be there” De Scopus iphone optie werkt dus alleen binnen de IP range van je eigen instituut. Dat is wel heel erg beperkt: buiten de wifi van je instituut heb je geen toegang…
  • In de nieuwe Springerlink site krijg je geen goed overzicht meer van waar je precies toegang toe hebt: je moet de lijst per nummer openklikken om te zien of je erbij kan & dat gaat nog traag ook.


Big G bedenkt aardige dingen -dit is wel het meest uitgebreide lijstje Googleproducten dat ik ken-  maar ze werken niet altijd (meteen): Google’s multiple account sign-in is finally here! jubelt The Next Web en dat zou idd heel handig zijn: aangekondigd begin augustus, maar ik heb hem alleen nog steeds niet. En Google things to do – aangekondigd door Google Tutor – lijkt ook zinnig maar werkt evenmin. Niet te vergeten: Exit voor Google Wave (Dutchcowboys)
Wat erg plezierig is:  Google’s takenlijstje zit nu ook in Calendar. Maar in de Android app komt-ie nog niet mee, helaas.


Research / citiaties / wetenschap

Web 2.0




Sources: Cisco estimates based on CAIDA publications, Andrew Odlyzko

Sources: Cisco estimates based on CAIDA publications, Andrew Odlyzko

Two decades after its birth, the World Wide Web is in decline, as simpler, sleeker services — think apps — are less about the searching and more about the g


etting. Chris Anderson explains how this new paradigm reflects the inevitable course of capitalism. And Michael Wolff explains why the new breed of media titan is forsaking the Web for more promising (and profitable) pastures.

Who’s to Blame:

As much as we love the open, unfettered Web, we’re abandoning it for simpler, sleeker services that just work.
by Chris Anderson

You wake up and check your email on your bedside iPad — that’s one app. During breakfast you browse Facebook, Twitter, and The New York Times — three more apps. On the way to the office, you listen to a podcast on your smartphone. Another app. At work, you scroll through RSS feeds in a reader and have Skype and IM conversations. More apps. At the end of the day, you come home, make dinner while listening to Pandora, play some games on Xbox Live, and watch a movie on Netflix’s streaming service.

You’ve spent the day on the Internet — but not on the Web. And you are not alone.

This is not a trivial distinction. Over the past few years, one of the most important shifts in the digital world has been the move from the wide-open Web to semiclosed platforms that use the Internet for transport but not the browser for display. It’s driven primarily by the rise of the iPhone model of mobile computing, and it’s a world Google can’t crawl, one where HTML doesn’t rule. And it’s the world that consumers are increasingly choosing, not because they’re rejecting the idea of the Web but because these dedicated platforms often just work better or fit better into their lives (the screen comes to them, they don’t have to go to the screen). The fact that it’s easier for companies to make money on these platforms only cements the trend. Producers and consumers agree: The Web is not the culmination of the digital revolution.

A decade ago, the ascent of the Web browser as the center of the computing world appeared inevitable. It seemed just a matter of time before the Web replaced PC application software and reduced operating systems to a “poorly debugged set of device drivers,” as Netscape cofounder Marc Andreessen famously said. First Java, then Flash, then Ajax, then HTML5 — increasingly interactive online code — promised to put all apps in the cloud and replace the desktop with the webtop. Open, free, and out of control.

But there has always been an alternative path, one that saw the Web as a worthy tool but not the whole toolkit. In 1997, Wired published a now-infamous “Push!” cover story, which suggested that it was time to “kiss your browser goodbye.” The argument then was that “push” technologies such as PointCast and Microsoft’s Active Desktop would create a “radical future of media beyond the Web.”

“Sure, we’ll always have Web pages. We still have postcards and telegrams, don’t we? But the center of interactive media — increasingly, the center of gravity of all media — is moving to a post-HTML environment,” we promised nearly a decade and half ago. The examples of the time were a bit silly — a “3-D furry-muckers VR space” and “headlines sent to a pager” — but the point was altogether prescient: a glimpse of the machine-to-machine future that would be less about browsing and more about getting.

Who’s to Blame:

Chaos isn’t a business model. A new breed of media moguls is bringing order — and profits — to the digital world.
by Michael Wolff

An amusing development in the past year or so — if you regard post-Soviet finance as amusing — is that Russian investor Yuri Milner has, bit by bit, amassed one of the most valuable stakes on the Internet: He’s got 10 percent of Facebook. He’s done this by undercutting traditional American VCs — the Kleiners and the Sequoias who would, in days past, insist on a special status in return for their early investment. Milner not only offers better terms than VC firms, he sees the world differently. The traditional VC has a portfolio of Web sites, expecting a few of them to be successes — a good metaphor for the Web itself, broad not deep, dependent on the connections between sites rather than any one, autonomous property. In an entirely different strategic model, the Russian is concentrating his bet on a unique power bloc. Not only is Facebook more than just another Web site, Milner says, but with 500 million users it’s “the largest Web site there has ever been, so large that it is not a Web site at all.”

According to Compete, a Web analytics company, the top 10 Web sites accounted for 31 percent of US pageviews in 2001, 40 percent in 2006, and about 75 percent in 2010. “Big sucks the traffic out of small,” Milner says. “In theory you can have a few very successful individuals controlling hundreds of millions of people. You can become big fast, and that favors the domination of strong people.”

Milner sounds more like a traditional media mogul than a Web entrepreneur. But that’s exactly the point. If we’re moving away from the open Web, it’s at least in part because of the rising dominance of businesspeople more inclined to think in the all-or-nothing terms of traditional media than in the come-one-come-all collectivist utopianism of the Web. This is not just natural maturation but in many ways the result of a competing idea — one that rejects the Web’s ethic, technology, and business models. The control the Web took from the vertically integrated, top-down media world can, with a little rethinking of the nature and the use of the Internet, be taken back.

This development — a familiar historical march, both feudal and corporate, in which the less powerful are sapped of their reason for being by the better resourced, organized, and efficient — is perhaps the rudest shock possible to the leveled, porous, low-barrier-to-entry ethos of the Internet Age. After all, this is a battle that seemed fought and won — not just toppling newspapers and music labels but also AOL and Prodigy and anyone who built a business on the idea that a curated experience would beat out the flexibility and freedom of the Web.

Illustration: Dirk Fowler

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen. logo

Je reageert onder je account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s