Of all the things I should be blogging, I should be blogging…

…or, “all the things she said, she said.” –Simple Minds.

Lots running through my head.  In my Blogger blog, I ranted about how I’ve compiled newspaper clippings about topics on the Internet, information, privacy and all the things that interest me.  Basically, I blog about my stack of newspaper clippings.  But, they are piling up and I need to purge this…off my desk and into paper recycling.  Plus, my partner needs my little lady cave.  My office upstairs is pretty sweet.


I think my best strategy now (since I don’t think I will have the time to fully reflect on this) is write out the article name and what I liked about it.  Simple right?


1. SF Weekly, my astrology forecast.  I saved this clipping and while it’s not about information science, I’ve had this compulsion to keep this paper.  So, it’s basically a horoscope written by Jessica Lanyadoo forecasting my year in 2013.  My job this new year is to “open myself up to intimacy” and to “[p]ractice the fine art of receiving.”  I like that she writes that “generosity is not just being about giving; it can only be attanined when you are able to recieve what others are offering you.”  The trick is what–prey, tell–is being offered to me and how come it’s not nice like a foot massage.  I’d receive a foot massage.  I’d also receive another killer job.  I am ready for it, Universe.

2.  Meh.  I missed Erykah Budu’s NYE concert.  Recycle.

3.  March 13, 2011 New York Times Magazine article:  “All the Aggregation That’s Fit to Aggregate:  How much more of itself can the media consume?”  Well, given hindsight, Bill Keller’s idea that aggregation “would be called piracy.” But now it’s a practice…and media outlets have long been cannibalizing their own content.  A good example is how we have extensive media coverage on events like Hurricane Sandy–and how the media can over analyze it.  However, there’s something meatier:  people on the web are so lazy that they merely re-tweet, re-post, or share without any further examination.  The content is not original and whole–like a filet mignon.  The information out there is more like canned Spam.

Keller uses a better example though.  He cites Arianna Huffington.  I’ve written about the HuffPo’s ability to aggregate a wide variety of blogs.  In essence, if it’s packaged in one place, then we have no need to venture out. By nature, we seek the least path of resistence–a sort of Zipf’s Law–where humankind really just wants the darn information right away and won’t really do a deep search.  I think we have to think about aggregating as more as an evolving state where we are constantly making sense of information by chunking it–we can go back as far as your Yahoo Homepage in the 90s, right?  I think he’s also tired of everyone re-hashing things.  He is an editor after all.  What will he edit when it’s been said already?

Beautiful article.  It’s ready for the recycling bin now.

4.  Ah, I can’t throw away this news clipping.  It’s a political cartoon I drew.  It goes in my archives.

5.  Oldie, but goodie:  New York Times Sunday paper, February 12, 2012.  The article talks about how Jim Linderman “collects American folk art and popular culture artifacts” from “vintage slease” to “religious tracts.”  John Strausbaugh calls them “items that defy catagorization.”  Sorry.  As an archvist, I’m a big cataloger of vintage sleaze.  Maybe these boys need to write me a note.  The Center for Sex & Culture’s Library/Archive/Gallery has been collecting “dicey” since the begining of time.  But, there’s more to this story:  Jim Linderman is an ex-librarian turned writer.  He writes about his collection of things–well researched and has not been looking back.  He’s moved forward, Linderman, as a real curator of the collective American fringe ephemera that he shares in his self-published books.  Okay.  It’s a nice article, but I can’t keep it.  So, it’s here.  I get it.  I’d do the same thing if I had the money and the time.  For now, I am curating my own stuff.  I think that’s enough.  This article?  It goes to paper heaven:  the recycling bin.

6.  The San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, January 30, 2012.  Robert Levine talks about Kim Dotcom’s trouble with copyright infringement.  It was a great topic to write about in grad school, but I am over grad school.  Levine cites the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) as the anchor for why Dotcom wronged the system…or has it?  Kim [Schmitz] Dotcom is the founder of Megauploader–what’s wrong with a little cloud storage?  There’s bound to be some in Dropbox too.  File sharing–from Napster to now–has always been a little grey area.  Content creators have really no control over what others save on their hard drives and cloud storage.  It’s easy to cut and paste things or download links to movies that people have sent you.  I say, there will always be copyright infringement because people don’t know any better–or, they like to capitalize on intellectual property.  Nuf said.

7. Ah, music reviews in the New York Sunday Times.  February 12, 2012.  I should have been taking a look (according to Playlist’s Nate Chinen) at these artists:  Rosie Thomas, R. Crumb (his cover ills. for “Aimer et Perdere:  To Love & Lose Songs, 1917-1934,” Punch Brothers, Luis Perdomo and Hans Glawisching.  Looks like I need to search them on Pandora or eMusic.  Not reading about it.  Nope.

8.  “The Dubious Science of Online Dating.”  Ohhh this is the one I was going to send my sister!  It’s the feature Gray Matter by Eli J. Finkel and Benjamin R. Karney.  While it’s sad that I never had the opportunity to talk about it at a party sometime after February 12, 2012, I do think that this particular paper (The New York Times Sunday edition) had some really juicy articles.  All of which I have mostly clipped, but now I will toss.  Basically, it boils down to how researchers Finkel & Karney have put the science into online dating–they’ve created an algorithm.  I’d say more like filters.  There’s not enough data you can collect on a person and, there are factors that are not even considered like “infertility and illness” when people are creating their profiles.  Lots to chew on. Why keep it when I can blog about it?  I can send my sister a link to this blog post.  She doesn’t have the time to read over 500 words of anything.

–Coffee Break:  I got three more articles to digest.  Be right back–

9.  From 2009!  I kept this? San Francisco Chronicle, Monday, November 16, 2009, “Google puts Stanford dissertations online.”  No longer fresh and exciting news.  Shame on me for keeping this.  I guess I saved it to do a discussion post [my graduate program was online].  As of that date, Google had over 600 dissertations online.  People “balked” at first, but since Google makes information available to the world (so that they have more information to cater to your likes and to help tailor ads) it “makes a lot of sense.”  I should write about a “Where are the Stanford Dissertations Now” feature, but it’s so moot.

10.  QR Code:  It’s ubiquitous and it’s annoying.  I saw this article in the NYT, Febrary 12, 2012 Sunday edtion on how people are more and more pointing to QR Code [1.] (that garbled pixelated piece of square that allows you to scan it from your smart phone and points you to a website).  Basically, why write everything on a card when you can use QR code to write about it on the Web??

11.  I should have just blogged about the entire NYT Sunday paper, February 12, 2012 when it came to my doorstep.  I can’t believe I clipped so many articles from here.  What was going on with these editors/writers?  Had they all had fresh coffee the day they were putting this all to press?  There’s this “Bright Ideas” section with a subsection entitled “Bits.”  This time, Jenna Wortham takes a look at how Facebook is getting too embeded in us.  At least that’s how I interpreted the article.  The very essential thing, however, is who she cites:  Sherry Turkle’s “Alone Together.”  Turkle is an MIT professor who writes about how social media is getting to know more and more of us and how users feel the pain of revealing (or not) their personal information.  Bascially, SM needs more slices of our life to sell stuff to us–so that they can generate revenue.  We constantly recommend stuff like, “OMG, I had the best breakfast this morning with Fage 2% yogurt and flaxseed!” on our walls.  Information like this is being noted. And, this is the reason why I’ve got a sponsored ad on flaxseed on my Facebook page.

Last two..

11.  Judith Waner’s article about Susan Cain’s “Quiet:  The Power of Introverts in the World That Can’t Stop Talking.”   Who cares if extroverts are obnoxious?  They get the party moving.  I think Warner dissects Cain’s arguments very well.  I think it’s worth a read.

12.  I only clipped this out because I am an Anglophile.  It’s Miranda Seymour’s article on her review of “Queen Elizabeth in the Garden:  A Story of Love, Rivalry, and Spectacular Gardens,” by Trea Martyn.  While I think I know enough about QE I, I didn’t know how crazy people were (like her lover Dudley) made elegant gardens to turn her on.  Fascinating. I might read it.  For now?  The article is noted and somewhere I’ll copy and paste this information on to OneNote in my “Books to Buy” tab.

[1.] Quick Response code.


No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 771 other followers


%d bloggers like this: