I thought no one was reading my blog since I haven’t posted anything for a long time. But since I restarted the blog a couple of days I found out that my friend, Jim Jacobs, was picking up my new blog posts via RSS. I guess you never know who will read your blog in cyber world 
Speaking about Jim, I had a chance to talk him on the phone today. I always think he is one of the library world’s visionaries but few library administrators recognize his brilliancy since he is way ahead of them (and I’m not trying to butter him up 
).
I mentioned to him about my mental struggle with google as a library tool. One thing he pointed out that I think is really important is the concept of transparency. No one knows how google works. There are so many mysterious layers between google search technologies and users.
This is crucial distinction between libraries and Google. When I teach a library class to students I am able to teach how knowledge is organized in the library and how Library of Congress (LC) Subject Headings and LC classification that we use are biased and western culture/dominant ideology-centered — for more, see for example, Sanford Berman’s Prejudices and Antipathies.
With Google, I can’t teach students about the intricacies of how knowledge is organized and why, in google’s search results, certain links are on the top and the others are not. Worse, I don’t even know what is included and what is not included. Google claims that they will organize the world of information, but I am wondering whose world they are talking about.
Organizing knowledge is inherently subjective and its subjectivity has to be revealed in order to challenge the oppression/bias embedded in our culture. One thing that the library community can do while they are dealing with Google is to point out to their user communities about google’s opaqueness in terms of how things are organized and be aware of it’s implications.
Related posts: