Science Addiction

I’ve run a Star Wars web site called GalaxyFarAway.com for 11 years now. For the first year of its existence, the web site was hosted on tripod.com. It was devan1.tripod.com. GalaxyFarAway.com is on the Google front page of results for many Star Wars related searches, but I just realized that so are some pages of my old tripod site (that I was updating for only about 8 months).

I guess it has seniority in Google’s mind—it is about as old as Google, after all. So last week, I put a notice on the Google-popular page that the site had moved. Something I should have done 10 years ago.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman recently said at a news conference:

“Many people have a false impression that the Chinese government fears the Internet. In fact, it is just the opposite.”

The news conference was in response to the Chinese government banned all of YouTube, in response to a single video of Tibetans being beaten. [via Arthur Bright at the Citizen Media Law Project]

Chris Soghoian makes an excellent case against using YouTube as the default for the President-elect’s weekly addresses. There are many issues he touches on including the privacy of the viewers from Google, the free Obama-endorsed publicity for YouTube, the embracing of a closed-format, and so forth.

Community-based collaboration or “Crowdsourcing” has become the buzzword in many industries- the idea that by fostering a community, you can solve many major problems through their collective wisdom without actually hiring people with… wisdom. Linux, Wikipedia, the recent Twitter Vote Report and many other projects are often cited as successful examples of this.

The nonprofit OCLC has a membership of over 69,000 libraries around the world. These libraries collaborate to create a database—WorldCat—of bibliographies that all the member libraries can use. It is a great system—or at least it was, until the recent introduction of their upcoming use policy. The two major concerns- via Terry’s Worklog- were:

1. OCLC would require the license to be placed within the record. This takes the ownership of records away from the library and since it is only a link to the license, the license could be changed at any time without the knowledge of the linking library.


2. WordCat data could not be used for creation of services—even non-profit—that may compete with it.

The first concern has been largely alleviated in a recent version of the OCLC FAQ, but the second one remains. Who really owns the database? Since it only applies to libraries who are members of OCLC (in contract), what prevents someone else from creating a competing service? And finally, can you really copyright a database?

There are many projects out there, like OpenLibrary, that are trying to create a truly open, non-commercial database of books that would run afoul of this clause. In reality, the problem is not in whether it will be enforced but in that this organization believes it is more than the sum of its parts. That OCLC—not its members—controls how and where the data should be used- data that was created by its members.

This is where OCLC is different from free and open source projects like Linux, Wikipedia and every Creative Commons or GPL licensed copyrighted work. There is no right to fork.

To everyone who contributes to community projects:

Always reserve the right to fork.

That is to say, you should always be able to take the marbles and go home. To fork, in open source projects, means to take all the code/data and create another project. This is made possible by the inherent “free”ness of GPL, CC, GFDL and other licenses. Many open source projects have been forked in the past because a sufficient chunk of the community didn’t like the rules they were being asked to comply with. Nobody controlled the code, so everyone controlled the code.

However, in the case of the OCLC debacle, via Annoyed Librarian:

To use a prison metaphor, it’s clear that librarians dropped the soap decades ago.

Or Stefano’s Linotype:

Basically, by using OCLC’s data you agree to protect their existence. And their monopoly (nobody else in the world does what they do, at the scale they do it). And with data that they didn’t even create.

In a time when everyone is using search engines as their first stop in finding answers, closing WorldCat further is a major step backwards. Like many other old-world companies, the OCLC is trying to remain relevant in the face of major paradigm shifts- in this regard, it is much like the Associated Press, which is losing relevance and support from member libraries (thanks Edward Vielmetti). If this was a commercial enterprise built by a million highly paid employees, it would make no difference what they did with their data. But this is a non-profit built on the backs of its members contributions.

As Princess Leia said:

The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

Resources:

• New WorldCat Policy


• WorldCat Policy FAQ


• Excellent overview of the issue at Terry’s Worklog


• Another comprehensive overview by Rob Styles


• Follow-up to comments from OCLC by Rob Styles


• On whether OCLC usage policy is like open source (short answer: no!)


• Is the OCLC change related to the recent Google Books settlement?

In the great Hindu mythological tale- the Mahabharata- there is a young prince named Yudhishthira who always speaks the truth. So divine was this virtue that his chariot always remained a few feet above ground. And so implicit that even his enemies, in the heat of battle against him, would trust his word.

Until a fateful day during the great battle, when Yudhisthiras side- the Pandavas- decided that their teacher Drona, who fought for their enemies, must be killed. No one had the skill to do it, unless Drona could be emotionally weakened. And so the plan was hatched.

Drona’s son was named Aswathama. Coincidentally, this was also the name of an elephant. The Pandavas killed the elephant Aswathama and spread the word that Aswathama had been killed. Drona was distraught, assuming it was his son. The only way to confirm the story was to ask Yudhishthira- he who would never lie.

“Is Aswathama dead?” asked Drona.

“Yes,” said Yudhishthira. And then under his breath, he continued: “The man or the elephant.”

Drona did not hear the second part as he threw down his weapons and wept. He was quickly killed, and the Pandavas were one step closer to victory.

However, the moment Yudhishthira muttered the half-truth under his breath, his flying chariot came half-way to the ground and stayed that way for the rest of his life. Even today in India, you can simply say “Narova Kunjarova” (man or elephant) and people will know you are referring to a half-truth or a white lie.

The moral: It takes more effort to keep a white sheet white than it does to keep a grey sheet grey. Just ask the formerly-perfect record of last year’s New England Patriots. Or Google.
—-

Google’s motto was “Do no evil.” With a motto like that, they were bound to fall short. They have had many missteps; their chariot is undoubtedly half-way to the ground. But are they evil?

Tomorrow at NPR’s Intelligence Squared debate, Jeff Jarvis, Esther Dyson and Jim Harper will be debating against the motion “Google violates its ‘don’t be evil’ motto“. Siva Vaidhyanathan, Randal Picker and Harry Lewis will be for the motion.

Jeff Jarvis has put up his debate notes on his blog and makes many points that I generally agree with. Google is not evil, if the word ‘evil’ is to retain any meaning. There are evil corporations- ones that have championed wars, economic turmoil, corporations that have hid their toxic contamination of water supplies and even milder forms of evilness, such as consumer unfriendly behavior. There are many seriously evil corporations, but Google is not even close to being in this group.

Of course, when drafting the motto, the founders were probably aiming higher than this kind of evil. What they were probably aiming for was to never adhere to the common corporate evilness- the old Microsoft kind of evil.

Jarvis points to all the good things Google has given us- a way to make money off content in the Internet age, a new platform (maps, services) for a new generation of companies to build tools, using the wisdom of crowds to rank content and the general good that comes from making the world a more connected and smaller place.

Jim Harper on the Tech Liberation Front blog makes similar arguments. But both of them gloss over two areas where Google is venturing in to potential evilness-

1. China: Harper and Jarvis both offer the same argument for Google’s censorship in China: “exiting China would abandon the Chinese people to government-approved information sources only.” But in the current scenario, Google is that government-approved source! By censoring their results, they have become the tool of oppression- which is fine if your a regular corporation out to make a buck, but not when your fundamental motto is to do no evil. With China, Google’s chariot came half-way to Earth.


2. Privacy: This is a huge debacle waiting to happen. Google has sent out strong signals that they understand the ramifications of a single privacy scandal and have started to craft policies to safeguard search privacy. The advantage for consumers is that there is no brand-loyalty or lock-in with search, so we, the users, would leave Google in droves if it became clear that they are no longer good stewards of our data.

In general, however, I come down on the Jarvis, Harper, Dyson side of the debate. Google is not evil- yet. And the amount of good they do as a company, as a corporate citizen and in philanthropy offsets most of the potential for evil. Their behavior in China has damaged their reputation, but for a company that is aiming for perfection, I will take a near-miss.
—-

So, was there a precise moment when Google’s chariot came half-way to Earth? Maybe it was when Eric Schmidt said the following, on their decision to censor in China:

We actually did an evil scale and decided not to serve at all was worse evil.

Of course, more to the point was what Google’s Marissa Mayer said more recently:

I think that ‘Don’t Be Evil’ is a very easy thing to point at when you see Google doing something that you personally don’t like; it’s a very easy thing to point out so it does get targeted a lot.

—-

Off topic, but in the same ballpark: is Barack Obama setting himself up for a similar backlash? His post-partisan, everything to every progressive, hope, change, peace, net neutrality, end of oil chariot is bound to come flying to Earth. Maybe NPR will hold a debate in 2011 about that?

Slashdot has a story about the non-profit OCLC trying to tighten its control over the database that libraries around the world use:

“The main source of the bibliographic records that are carried in library databases is a non-profit organization called OCLC. Over the weekend OCLC “leaked” its new policy that claims contractual rights in the subsequent uses of the data, uses such as downloading book information into Zotero or other bibliographic software. The policy explicitly forbids any use that would compete with OCLC. This would essentially rule out the creation of free and open databases of library content, such as the Open Library and LibraryThing. The library blogosphere is up in arms . But can our right to say: “Twain, Mark. The adventures of Tom Sawyer” be saved?”

Of course, the real story here might be the recent resurgence of Google Books as a force to be reckoned with; how they might start competing with OCLC by collaborating with libraries. From the OCLC FAQ about the new policy:

My library has been contacted by a commercial search engine company about contributing our catalog for use in the search engine’s system. Does the Policy permit the transfer of WorldCat-derived records from our catalog to the search engine company?

Since the search engine company is a commercial organization, there must be an agreement in place between OCLC and the search engine company prior to the transfer of WorldCat-derived records. OCLC can let you know if it has an agreement with the search engine company in question. Please submit a WorldCat Record Use Form to OCLC or ask the search engine company to submit a WorldCat Record Use Form to OCLC and we will reply within five business days.

UPDATE: It seems I am not the only one who had this thought. Here at the Disruptive Library Technology Jester blog there is some parsing of the new policy to reach the same conclusion. Also, here is a set of reactions from the librarian community. They’re a passionate bunch.

The FCC commissioners plan to vote on “white spaces” in their next meeting on the 4th of November.


Detour #1: What are “white spaces”, you ask? Why I have a nifty video for you explaining just that. And this from EFF:

For those new to the issue, “white space” refers to the unused spectrum that exists between broadcast TV channels. The FCC has been weighing the merits of allowing newer, smarter wireless communication devices to operate in the the otherwise unused spectrum—similar to the way that Wi-Fi devices exist today.

Detour #2: Who had the brilliant idea of planning the meeting for the 4th of November, when a certain Barry O. and John M. will be fighting it out in the title match of 2008 and the right to insult foreign dictators for the next 4 years?


Back on topic. Predictably, the National Association of Broadcasters has sent an “emergency” request to remove white spaces from that meeting. After 4.5 years of deliberation and 30,000 comments, it is an emergency.


I understand everybody is tired and cranky after all that time, but really- if you cry foul every time something comes up for a vote, people might just think you expect to lose.


In the words of David Isenberg:

Sorry, NAB, the FCC isn’t here to protect the broadcasters. It is time to test this idea in the real world.

From Google, in honor of Halloween (I don’t get it either).


For example:

Computing Equipment:

• Learn how to set power management on your computer


• Download the Google Desktop Power Management Gadget


• Buy a Climate Savers certified energy efficient computer


• Plug your computer peripherals (printer, scanner, speakers, fax machine) into a powerstrip and power down when not in use.

A lot of good links. And a calculator.

There is a lot of talk recently how the FCC should free the “white spaces”. Google’s Larry Page recently alleged that TV broadcasters and wireless companies have injected politics in to the FCC testing process. But what are the white spaces? The People’s Production House put together a video for the non-techies:

[via the Google Public Policy Blog]

AOL has put our privacy at risk by publicly disclosing the recent search history of 650,000 users. This wrong in so many different ways- and yes, your search queries say a lot about you, including your identity. The New York Times discovered just who AOL Searcher #4417749 was just using their search strings. Read the rest of this entry »

After my article reviewing GMail for Your Domain a lot of people were wondering about support for GMail Notifier. The short story is that it works for me. Read the rest of this entry »

Google added Hebrew and Arabic to GMail on the same day. Now that is not being evil on an international scale. :)

Sometimes it seems impossible to keep up with everything Google throws at us; here are a few places you can look:

• A complete list of Google products ready for primetime
• My article on interesting ways of using Google

Enjoy!

Recently, a fellow blogger asked me for help getting “search” working on their blog. Since my advice was helpful there, I figured there must be other people who could benefit from the information. So here is how you can add a search feature to your web site regardless of how it was built and regardless of the purpose you choose to use it for. You can use it for your own reference or to allow visitors to search your site. Best of all, it’s quite simple to implement. Read the rest of this entry »

The screenwriter John August has a great little example of why Google’s Adsense is not the solution for all seasons. Anyone referencing his article on the use of air ducts/vents in films as a poor plot device on their blog/site, finds ads that try to sell you air vents or ducts. Which are completely besides the point of the article- nobody reading an article about good screenwriting is going to suddenly say to themselves “Wait a second. Reading about that scene from Die Hard reminds me- I’m supposed to buy Air Vent shafts!”

You can see an example of this in the article I wrote about August’s post. Sad. Like the time I saw Yahoo! ads selling cow hide on a Flickr photograph decrying cruelty to cows.

On the other hand, Google Ads to work tremendously well when they are on generic, well targetted and crafted content. They work on my Star Wars site pretty well.