Thing # 18

I had trouble getting in to google documents because when I put in the email Id and password
2 times the page came up could not get in. So Mary D. used copy and paste technique and was able to pull up the page so I could get to where I needed to be to post my name. I was very frustrated by this, because I had to skip over "sandbox" because I was having similar trouble there. Enough said about that. Now I will try to answer the questions.

I have no idea how I would use the collaborative features at Lacey for a project. I usually do not get those kinds of tasks assigned to me.

In my personal work at home and at church and at other places, I think I could really go for using these two areas on the Web 2.0. So, later when I am at home and can do it using my own name, maybe I will not get so frustrated and will be able to use these things.

Thing # 16, # 3

After comparing "cow tipping" and "Joyce Kilmer", I would say the topic under discussion determines somewhat the nature of the comments under discussion.l
I looked up "Jenna Bush". After looking at the articles, I would say that one would have to look at the citations and "consider the source" to evaluate the reliability of anWikipedia article. But is that not true of anything you read?

Thing # 16, blog 2

I tried "bible wiki" and pulled up something worthwhile to me. The description is different from "authoritative" scholars. Rather the input is from anybody with certain guidelines. I will go back to this wiki and see what I think about what other people think.

Thing # 16: Wikis

When I looked at Library Success wiki, one useful thing I looked at was "book displays - Reading Hollywood," which was interesting to read. The whole section on book displays was interesting.

Looking at the Ocean County Library article on Wikipedia was interesting, too.

I did not find anything that I did not like, but I spent only a limited amount of time on that wiki.

Thing # 15

I read the 5 perspectives on Library 2.0 and understood most of what was discussed.

Trying to effectively categorize all the information provided by all the users of Web 2.0 so that
a "librarian" could pull out the right piece of information that a library user asks for - what kind of system could be developed to do that? Or, is the system being developed already, examples of which we are being exposed to as we do these "23 Things?" Or, is the "user" of the library going to have equal expertise as the "librarian?" Or, are these questions based on old way of doing library business? The library as an institution will no longer be considered the expert on how to get information but rather the facilitator to helping each person go from the point at which he is in his search for information (Point A) to the point he desires to be (Point B.)

To me, Library 2.0 means that my granddaughter Isabella will be taking me to the library of the future and showing me how to use the library's services!

Thing # 14

I read the info. I watched/listened to the Technorati tour. I looked at Technorati. Under the blog "get rich slowly" and under the tag "education" I read an article "Lowering the Bar" under the blog "No More Spin" about a professor at Norfolk State who got fired because he did not pass enough of his students, because they did not meet the requiremets, but the administrators want everybody to pass. I found the article interesting.
I think when I have more time and am looking for something to pass the time away, I might look at this site again and see what happens.

Thing # 13, post #2

I tried to set up a "delicious" account using the library computer, and I was able to do that.
That same evening, at home, I was able to place some sites on my account and give them "tags",
so I am understanding the "delicious" idea a little better. But, now I am going to # 14. I have
heard various comments, mostly negative, about "technocrati" but I will try to keep an open mind.