Social Knowing

1. Comment on Weinberger's analysis of Wikipedia's definition of neutrality - p. 136. Does this definition work for the library profession, say for example in the book banning situation? Why or why not?

“An article is neutral when people have stopped changing it.”  (Weinberger, p. 136)  Or, one might also say, when people have stopped challenging it, according to Wikipedia’s process.  Being neutral does not always work in our profession.  Censorship is one example.  Opinion does not really matter here.  According to ALA (and hopefully everyone practicing in our profession), which identifies itself as the oldest and largest library association in the world, intellectual freedom is a basic right in our society.  This includes seeking information and speaking freely, providing a full range of information that may be needed by our users.  This is a core value of our profession.  Neutral is not a place that we choose to be in regards to intellectual freedom.    The same can also be said of protecting our patrons’ privacy.    Again, no debate is needed here.  While our younger patrons may value their privacy less than previous generations, it is still our challenge to defend our patrons’ privacy in all matters, including what books they have checked out, or what internet sites they have visited.

2. On p. 143 Weinberger writes "Deciding what to believe is now our burden" as opposed to being "passive knowers" who trust what we read in authoritative resources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Use Schedroff's model of Understanding to describe how your knowledge of a particular topic was affected by the new understanding of authority that Weinberger articulates in the last paragraph of the section on Authority and Truth, p. 143. Schedroff's Model of Understanding was first presented in the Module 3 lecture on "The Information Age" and again in the Module 5 lecture on "ASK and Environmental Scanning".

In Schedroff’s Model of Understanding, the journey to wisdom begins with data.  We gather data through research and discovery, and at some point, we begin to make some sense of the data, and our data becomes information.  Through social interaction, which might be in the form of conversations or storytelling, and integrating this information with our own experiences, we transform the information into a knowledge that fits into our world.  Finally, with further contemplation, retrospection, and evaluation, we may reach a point where knowledge truly becomes wisdom.  This journey is all the more difficult to make when the data is not only abundant, but also questionable.  Before we can begin to understand, we must first evaluate the veracity of the data we have discovered.  No longer can we trust that just because data is published, it is an authoritative source.  This is especially true in the online environment.  Anyone can create what might appear to be a legitimate and convincing web site.  We must evaluate the data with a critical eye, if we are to gain enlightenment and reach understanding.  An example from my own experience is my interaction with My Fitness Pal.  I use this web site, as well as the accompanying app on my phone, to track my calorie intake and exercise each day.  Part of its value is the database of over 2 million food items, complete with nutritional information.  Anyone that uses the app can add to the food database.  This gives me much more data to utilize in my daily diary, but because it comes from many sources, some of the calorie values are suspect.  For example, if I have a McDonald’s cheeseburger for lunch, and there are 17 entries in My Fitness Pal for a McDonald’s cheeseburger, 12 of them may say that a McDonald’s cheeseburger is 300 calories. The other 5 might say anything from 90 to 250 calories.  My own experience tells me that the 12 are more likely to be correct, and if I want to lose weight this week, I had better record the nutritional information provided by the majority.  While choosing the 90-calorie entry might make my numbers look better, I’m only fooling myself and delaying my arrival at my goal weight.

3. Comment on the last paragraph of the chapter and incorporate what you have learned about how you learn through the course. Again, relate to Schedroff's model and remember that context is everything. Schedroff's Model of Understanding was first presented in the Module 3 lecture on "The Information Age" and again in the Module 5 lecture on "ASK and Environmental Scanning"

In my undergraduate years, I attended many classes that consisted of listening to lectures and furiously taking notes, so that later I could memorize the facts that were presented during the lectures.  Understanding came through repetition and memorization.  In so many ways, our current class does embody Schedroff’s model, in that together we are exploring the information received from multiple sources, and turning it into knowledge that will benefit us in our future careers.  Dr. Roland presents the information to us in a manner that gives us pause, and allows us to evaluate and contemplate how we learn.  We then share our thoughts online, with the hope that others can benefit from our understanding or provide additional understanding to us.  We read each others’ blogs and provide comments when we feel that we can add something to the collective knowledge that we are exploring together.   In our differences, we expand the understanding so that the authority comes from the communal understanding of the group and not just from Dr. Roland’s initial lecture.