Michael Gorman strikes again, in what has been appropriately coined, "Gormangate II". I am purposely posting this without any links, because I said in the LSW Meebo room that I would.
I will refrain from saying what I really feel about Michael Gorman (aka MG, or "He Who Should Not Be Named" as I referred to him in the chat room). Instead what I will comment on is the fact that this whole thing has been fishy from the beginning. Gorman used the Britannica blog to bash Web 2.0 and bloggers, I think this is wholly hypocritical. We all know from "Gormangate I" that Gorman is no fan of bloggers, or the "blog people" as he likes to call them. So why use the Britannica Blog as a forum? Britannica is simply trying to get attention. Of course the bloggers are giving it to them. I'm sure I'm contributing in some way, but I've decided to refuse the link back to the original blog post to not contribute entirely. Besides, I'm sure you can find it on Google, it's pretty easy by now. A Technorati search on his name brings up a whole mess of stuff.
They do say that negative attention is better than no attention at all, but I think that the same rules don't always apply when it comes to Web 2.0. I am more curious of the overall outcome of this than anything, because the aftermath of this will determine if Britannica's credibility survives. All the attention that Britannica is getting right now is manufactured and I believe that it will not last. People are linking and talking, mostly in disagreement. Britannica is not using their blog to gain any real loyal readers. Since we're talking about a corporate blog and not a personal one, the discussion that Gorman has started will most definitely reflect on the company as a whole. Britannica is running the risk of deterring people from their brand...although in library world, that may not make a difference, I guess I don't see a lot of libraries canceling their Encyclopedia Britannica subscriptions. I still think Britannica is running a huge risk (hence my fascination with the outcome). The risk that Britannica is taking is drawing attention to the fact that they think very poorly on "average people" as credible sources of information. These "average people", however, are Britannica's customers...the eventual users of their product. Instead of innovating and using Web 2.0 to their advantage, they're driving their users away by insulting them and continuing to create a product that is not easy to use. No wonder people prefer to go to Wikipedia for their information...it celebrates the fact that people do have a passion for learning and contributing their knowledge, and it is easy to use!
My gut tells me that this is just a warm-up round. It's no secret how Britannica feels about Wikipedia, I know the all out Britannica vs. Wikipedia blow out is coming soon. Or should I say Britannica vs. the World...it'll be messy and I certainly want a front row seat!
Technorati Tags: michael gorman, britannica, gormangate, wikipedia
June 2007 Archives
Just playing around with this ZabaSearch thing, kinda creepy and voyeuristic at the same time. It's a sort of search engine that allows you to get the name and address of pretty much anybody (even past addresses). Although, I've tried this same sort of thing with Ancestry and I'm able to get about the same results, this is just freely available online. Searches like this only gather information from past and current public directories.
I did do a search on my name, and surprisingly I found nothing. At least I found nothing with my current name, everything for me is listed under my maiden name. This is also true for Ancestry. My husband isn't listed either, he's never had the phone in his name. Our land line was in my maiden name when we got married because I was really just too lazy to change it.
Can there be a practical use for such a thing? I see myself using this to remember old phone numbers and addresses. For some odd reason, people asking me for an old address or phone number is common (mostly to verify old accounts or purchases.) I went to Kroger the other day and forgot my Kroger card, apparently they allow you to use your phone number instead of your card at your checkout, of course I got that darn card at least 2 apartments ago, how the heck am I supposed to remember that phone number? Now I can search for myself 2 apartments ago. The same sort of thing happened when I sent my computer in for repair and it was under warranty (that was 1 apartment ago). She had to scroll through my purchases on the register dating back at least 3 years to finally find my warranty info (I don't even want to know why this kind of search needed a phone number and why the scrolling was necessary but it did).
Of course it seems creepy, but that information is already out there and it's easy to grab. If it wasn't than this search engine wouldn't even be possible.
I have been thinking a little bit about privacy these days. I haven't come up with some concrete opinions yet but I have read a few good blog posts on it recently. I hope to post a little more soon about it.
Technorati Tags: privacy, zabasearch, people search, addresses, phone numbers
