An idle thought as I make my way through this article, I wonder if there is a relation between how crucial information is and this information exhaustion. The more important particular information is I would think the more valuable creating disinformation would be for some gain.

I think this alludes to a larger societal issue because we might be ignorant of stuff simply because we haven't experienced something; that doesn't give us an excuse however, to not try and understand another's experience or position.

Yes, I think a great way to grow in your practice is to recognize that you might make faults sometimes, and that's ok -- as long as you continue to learn and grow from each encounter.

This is why teaching digital and traditional information literacy skills are so important!! How can you expect to find information and analyze it, if you don't know where first to go and search for it?

This is important. I think not only teaching students how to look for texts but how to critically analyze them is key to understanding the LCSHs -- understanding that just because certain terms were used decades ago (or even now) aren't good terms to use as they might carry implicit biases.

Yes, good example. Since I think language is fluid and can change over time, has LCSH kept up with this change in language? Who is in charge of whether LCSH adapts with the terminology people use today to express their identity, versus what they used a few decades or centuries ago? Whose "voice" is truly represented--the cataloger's or the patron's?

This is what's negative about LCSH is that people choose what subject heading to file a book under--their implicit biases might come into play as they might think they "know better" where a book should go instead of considering all categories a book could fit into.

This is important to consider because it can affect how we search for something using the LCSH--we might have to adjust our query or take a different "information pathway" to find what we want.

Yes, I agree. I think this "hierarchical" terms problem is precisely what Dabrinski mentions in the above paragraph about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; because there are higher-order terms in place that don't necessarily fit this specific topic, it can be harder for someone to find information about that topic if they don't know how to navigate the system.

Perhaps this is the drawback to classification systems like DDC and LCSH--they try to encompass old, current, and new knowledges--things we might not have names for yet. So by trying to encompass "everything," evidently certain things get left out or phrased differently than we'd like them to be (now that we know better).

In her "the power to name" article, I think Olson does a great job explaining what "controlled vocabulary" is.

Yes, totally agree that we "must get it right" now more than ever. I didn't know before reading this that "negro women" was (is?) a subject heading as I think some people find the term offensive.

This reminds me of the Olson article when she discusses Cutter's classification terms in favor of a "singular public" -- controlled vocabulary and hierarchical structure.

This struck me as very interesting, as it frames the article as a rejection of accepted criticism of many respected voices in the field. Instead, the author conducts a potential use study of the space for future users, from the perspective of walkability. It is written not for other scholars of the field but for a general audience, New Yorkers in particular.

Concluding appeal and explanation of the author's call to action. Considering the lack of walkability and limited potential use, they suggest a new design that will maximize access. This also has the benefit of altering the public's sense of that the space is exclusive.

Framework for criticism

This is an excellent example of creation without context, particularly use by target populations. Walkability was so poor that it negatively affected the area.

Examples of why this space is not user-friendly and basically unwalkable. Those designing the space did not consider practicalities like access.

Briefly discusses underserved populations that would likely not benefit from the space and go mainly unnoticed by art critics and star architects. Members of the general public.

This is another example of the author rejecting popular criticism by leaders of the field. He tempers his comments towards the design of the space by mentioning other historic examples in the city.

This may also be a connection to the general public who have embraced (as a novelty) the Hudson Yards. It gives the author a sense of reliability, compared to the highbrow disdain of art critics.

His argument is user-orientated, criticizing experts in the field who work separately to build components of a shared urban ecosystem. Each architect was chosen for their fame, not their ability to work as part of a team, and spare little consideration about those who will live, work, and move through the space. Most importantly, the question of fostering community is addressed.

Similar to scholars at the top of their field, these architects place little consideration towards the mass consumption of their work and its context.

Cites two examples of spaces in the city that fail to maximize walkability and reduces user satisfaction/use. Users require mixed-use spaces that promote diverse populations, keeping them from becoming too exclusive and barren during the off hours.

An example of intersting, even beautiful design with no thought of context. Users should have some understanding of place and build a sense of community. Leads to the 'ivory tower' image for architects that's similarly held by scholars.

Again, this relates to our discussion as it offers an example of how social media can be used as a rallying point for those with less than pleasant intentions, and causes us to question if the platform itself has some responsibility to stop these formations for taking place

I was drawn to this article not only because we briefly discussed "GamerGate" in class and several class mates seemed unaware of the incident, but because it also intrigued me in relation to social media and security. Would gaming be considered a form of social media, and what does this kind of incident say about the concept of the "echochamber" in social media communities that are heavily used by "gamers."

This was the primary concern when we discussed the "doxing" of members of the media. Female gamers and journalists were targeted and their information leaked to the public, including a group of individuals who were already angry at the women in question for fighting the standard of their community. This connects heavily with how social media platforms and even search engines protect information, as it is possible to get information such as schools, general locations, etc. through the correct google searches.

The author refutes the idea that assistance from electronic devices could make lives easier. He uses his own experience to show that sometimes seeking information via some digital devices is not so convenient.

Interesting that comments over likes would be associated with depression. Considering the basic argument for social media is that it increases communication.

I found this to be an interesting story, but also an example of how concepts like information need and information horizon can change while in the research process. We have all gotten these spam debt calls, usually we just wish they would stop. Andrew Therrien began a casual investigation, that turned into an obsession, which ended in the arrest of loan sharks creating fake debt to the tune of $8 million. His ability to extract information on the web and through blackmailing lesser loan sharks led him to the leader of a national racket. Loan sharks thrive by hoarding information, leveraging their knowledge to prey on people. While this is an extreme case of fighting back, it shows how important knowledge is to power.