Importance of Natural Resources

CNI’s Evolving Agenda 2016-17


All right. It looks like we’ve got pretty
much everybody here. I’m Cliff Lynch, the Director of CNI, for those of you who I have
not had an opportunity to meet yet. Let me start by welcoming you to the Fall 2016 Membership
meeting. As you may have noticed, we have record, or near record, attendance here and
I’m just thrilled to see all the folks here. I’d like to extend a special welcome to
our international visitors and members and to those who maybe had a little bit of weather
excitement on the way here. I hope there weren’t too many and it wasn’t too exciting. I’m
very glad you’ve made it through. I need to say a few things before I get started
in my main remarks. First off, I’d like to note that we have a number of new members
who are joining us here. I’m going to read them off and I’d invite you to join me in
welcoming them. We have York University; LYRASIS, who some of you may know is, among other things,
the home of the collection space and archive space—open source software programs; Colgate
University; The University of California at Merced; Vassar College; The University of
Sheffield; San Diego State University; The University of New Hampshire; Crossref; Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute Libraries; The University of Mississippi Libraries; and Texas State
University. Welcome all. [clapping] A couple of program notes. If there are changes
to sessions, we will be posting them on the message board in front of the registration
desk. You will note some changes in the sort of overall layout of this meeting. We have,
in response to both a huge number of sessions proposals that we wanted to accommodate and
a few back from you over the last couple of meetings suggesting there were a number of
presentations that would fit very nicely in half-hour slots, introduced sessions of varying
lengths—half an hour, 45-minutes, and 60-minutes. We have had to tighten up a couple of the
breaks, which is why it’s important that we be done at 2:15, because the first round
of breakout sessions starts at 2:30. And, you will find those session slots are of different
lengths. In a few cases, we have taken two half-hour presentations, generally on the
same broad topic, and put them together into a one-hour slot. For speakers in those, I
would especially ask you to stick to your half-hour if your doing a half-hour slot so
that the second session can gets its allocated time. Ben Schneiderman, who will be giving
our closing plenary, is indicated that he will willing to be at the registration desk
tomorrow morning at the 10:30-11:00 coffee break if you would like to get him to sign
copies that you have of his wonderful book, The New ABC’s of Research, which will form
the basis for many of his remarks at the closing plenary tomorrow.
I also want to clarify two things about the closing plenary. First off, if you were reading
the overall schedule, you may have had a twitch of déjà vu. We managed to put in Julie Brill’s
title from last December where Ben’s title, which is The New ABC’s of Research should
go. The abstract on the abstract page for Ben’s presentation is, in fact, correct.
Also, just to be clear because the schedule is kind of ambiguous, we will start the closing
plenary with a half-hour special briefing by Robert Khan and then we will go to Ben’s
closing plenary talk, which will run about one hour. So, that is the agenda there. I
think that is all that I want to say about logistics, other than to ask you to join me
in congratulating two wonderful new Paul Evan Peters Fellows that we recently announced.
These are Meg Young, a Ph.D. student at the University of Washington, who is working on
data privacy and municipal government and Kristen Matteucci, who is at Rutgers, a master’s
student, whose interests are centered on outreach and engagement in communities for Library
and Information Services. And, you can find more information about both of these folks
on our web. I just had to grin when I read the descriptions of their interests in research.
And, they were great choices from among a very strong field. These are things that would
have so resonated with Paul Evan Peters. So, my congratulations to them.
Okay. So let me get started. I basically want to do two things. I want to talk about what
has been a very busy year for CNI and some of the things that we’ve got done and will
be carrying forward that perhaps some of you may have missed or want to talk about a little
more. And then, I will conclude with comments on six areas and, I’m going to have to go
fast here, where I am spending some time or doing some work that I think represents important
new areas. I have very little to say about overall developments. I think all of you know
this has been quite a year of tumult surprises and so forth. Other than to note I made some
remarks in the December 2015 plenary about data dumps, provenance, integrity, disinformation,
and similar sorts of things that are feeling almost creepily prescient at this point and
I continue to watch the news with great interest. These are obviously going to be issues of
ongoing importance. But, let me turn away from those things. I will simply note that
both in the United States and among our colleagues in the UK and European community, there is
great uncertainty at this point. Basically, no body knows how a lot of things are going
to play out. There just isn’t any information right now and we are clearly going to be operating
in a very adaptive mode. You may have noticed a couple of days ago they decided they’d
keep the government open until the end of April. So that’s that kind of world we’re
in right now. Okay. But, lets turn from that. I think it’s
been a really good year for CNI. We have been doing a tremendous amount of work in digital
scholarship centers, which Joan Lippincott has been leading, and connecting that up to
areas like humanities at scale and strategies for supporting them. We did a wonderful planning
workshop along with our colleagues at ARL this spring and we are looking at doing another
on in 2017. There is a workshop report and there are some executive round-table materials
out on humanities at scale and we are continuing to work in this area, which seems to be gathering
significant momentum among the members we talk to. I want to note, specifically in the
area of executive round-table, that basically due to my own personal failings we have not
been doing a very good job at staying up to date on reporting on those. Over the summer,
we caught up on all of these and we are current now. And, we have made a pretty strong commitment
to try and get the round-table reports out within a month or two of our meetings to keep
them timely. You can look forward—I really think we will do better on that in the future.
Speaking of round-tables, our round-table for the spring is going to pick up on a theme
that I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about and did a long interview on earlier this fall
about rethinking institutional repositories. And I think it’s really time to do this
in light of a number of things. One is the way in which open access or public access
funder mandates, especially in the United States, which don’t seem to be placing much
emphasis on institutional repositories. The growth of disciplinary pre-print servers in
repositories is really starting to get a second lease on life. We have, of course, the tremendous
model of the archive that started in Los Alamos and then moved to Cornell, which continues
to move from strength to strength. But, just, I believe it was Friday or Thursday, we had
the formal launch of the social science pre-print server, which is running on a new platform
that the Center for Open Science has made available. We are starting, finally, to see
some modest, but genuine, uptake in pre-print servers in the life sciences. So, I think
it is fairly well understood at this point that pre-print servers that are disciplinary
in nature seem to be more effective as centers of community than highly distributed pre-print
servers when they exist. We are also seeing some of the major humanities organizations
step up in this area, or at least begin to. Finally, of course, we have the whole growth
of research data management and the very mixed job that we are doing in establishing sustainable,
disciplinary, or funder data repositories as distinct from article or pre-printed or
post-print kinds of repositories. I think there’s a lot to be thinking about there,
especially as new generations of software start coming on line and we start struggling
with how do these integrate with other parts of the ecosystem.
Rethinking institutional repositories, will, by the way, be our topic for the spring executive
round-table. So, look for the call for participation for that if you’d like to talk about it.
One of the big themes that we have been spending time on over the last year, and I think is
going to inform our work for at least the next two years to come, is getting a better
handle on the new portfolio of roles for libraries when viewed inside the university context.
And, I really mean looking at this contextually. There are a lot of new services that the university
leadership, the faculty, the staff, the students, all are looking to the libraries to provide
or contribute to—ranging from new kinds of teaching and learning, to research data
management, to various kinds of publishing and data dissemination. We are seeing a fascinating
new starting to emerge at some institutions about looking more holistically at institutional
assets, like museums, herbaria, libraries, archives; and trying to bring all of this
into the main line of teaching and learning and research at those institutions to make
discovering material across these easier, to bring greater rationality in the way their
supported and built up and sustained. We had an amazing round-table this morning that looked
specifically at collaborations among IT libraries, museums, and archives. I think you are going
to find the reading of the report from that to be very provocative. I certainly came away
from it with a lot of insights. But, one of the ones that really struck me strongly was
that this is another challenge for libraries to move beyond classic bibliographic description
and into a much broader kind of set of responsibilities and roles about structuring and maintaining
knowledge broadly across a wide range of contexts and fields. That’s a theme I think we are
going to see in a number of places that I discuss this afternoon. But, it is definitely
an area that is moving some people and some organizations well outside their traditional
comfort zones—very, very interesting development. Many of you know that CNI was a co-sponsor,
along with a number of other organizations, at an invitational meeting of university libraries
and art museums that was hosted at the University of Miami in January. The report of that is
available. You can find it on our web site. It also is very, very provocative reading.
We will be continuing to build on these discussions going forward.
Another role, which we have explored a bit, for example, in an executive round-table a
couple of years ago is the new role of library as publisher. And, this spring, we took another
look at this in partnership with the AAUP and ARL at a meeting that was hosted by the
University of Pennsylvania. And, here…I’m sorry by Temple University. Here, we brought
together, I believe it was, 22 university libraries and the heads of those university
presses. And the distinguishing characteristic here is that the press now reported to the
library; so, it had been mainstreamed right into the center of the campus activities.
We talked a bit about how that was going and what it meant. It was really clear there is
still a wide variety of integration. Everything from the press continues to be an utterly
autonomous thing that just happens to report to the library all the way through efforts
too much more genuinely begins to integrate and find synergies and collaborations between
the two institutions. I think there’s going to be a lot more to look at there. Certainly
there is also, particularly in the monograph area, been a tremendous amount of good work,
much of which has been reported here, on trying to understand cost models for the production
of university press monographs, which is a very important basis for making strategic
progress. I will just highlight one thing that wasn’t much discussed at the meeting
in Philadelphia. I came away with really struck by. If you look at scientific journals and
scientific journal articles and you actually talk to the scientists, the scholars, who
genuinely, ultimately own the system and are served by it, there is a broad consensus,
I would say, at this point, that the ideal open-end state is some form of open access
there, as long as its not too inconvenient for the scientists. But, there’s at least
that agreement that there are many good benefits and that’s a desirable outcome. If you ask
the same question about monographs—and you can try and do this within disciplines or
across disciplines, but broadly speaking, this is mostly humanistic in some social science
disciplines as a first horribly crude approximation—there is no consensus I can detect on the desired
end-state. Should they be open access immediately? After a few years? When they go out of print?
Well, but digital books never go out of print anymore, kind of, they may go out from under
contract but they tend to sort of stay available forever unless someone does something deliberate.
Old print books that have gone out of print, there seems to be a reasonable consensus that
it is a good thing to bring those back as digital things and make them available and
a number of university presses have programs where they work with willing authors to do
that now. But, I do think its going to be important for us to collaborate and help the
scholarly communities that rely most heavily on the monograph to begin to achieve some
rough consensus on this, or at least get a better understanding of the alternatives and
the pros and cons. Without that consensus, I think that our efforts to rethink practices
in this area are considerably handicapped. In the coming year, we will be starting to
have some focused conversations among library leadership and CIO’s about what are the
most important current and emerging areas for collaboration? What are the most promising
areas? What are the most neglected areas? What are the key areas? I think this is a
timely thing to do because, frankly, the world looks very different today both from the point
of view of the CIO in the library than it did 20, 25 years ago when CNI first forcefully
argued for the necessity of IT library collaboration as a way forward into the emerging world of
the internet. CIO’s have a very different collection of responsibilities that often
I find, not always, its terribly dependent on the individuals, the institution, but often
I find there is a research or academic computing unit that is much more engaged in many of
the issues we’re interested in than the overall IT organization, which is spending much of
its money on compliance, fundamental infrastructure that’s used by everybody in business systems.
Libraries have built up, in many cases, formidable internal sources of technological expertise,
IT expertise, to the point where, while they may use some common infrastructure, they are
largely independent of central IT on some campuses, or, in fact, are moving into areas
that are historically the province of academic computing—either on a centralized or decentralized
basis. So, I think its time to do some additional probing at that. And, we have another opportunity
coming up. In July, unfortunately, very much on the heals of Brexit, we had a wonderful
opportunity to revitalize our relationship with the Joint Information Systems Committee,
the Jisc, in the UK with our bi-annual joint summer meeting in Oxford, and to meet the
new leadership there, Paul Feldman, who is their new CIO and look carefully at some of
what’s going on in the UK higher education world, which is very interesting. It’s quite
a different landscape than ours in many areas, especially around analytics, around levels
of collaboration in certain areas. In subsequent talking with Jisc, we’ve decided our 2018
meeting—and we’re just setting the dates and venue for that now—is going to focus
on an international look at the new roles of libraries within the university in the
21st Century as a theme. This is something they are terrifically mindful of as well as
they try and work with their members. So, those are some of the exciting things that
CNI has made a lot of progress on and is moving ahead on over the next few months.
Let me talk a little bit more, sort of more broadly, about some of the issues that I’m
thinking about working on, engaging with. I’d love to have your thoughts about some
of these areas at the reception between sessions, separately from the meeting, anytime we can
catch up. There are six areas that I’m just going to touch on them at a very high level.
So, I’ve been looking a lot at what’s going on in the research data management area. As
you know, CNI was very early in drawing attention to this area and there are many, many people
who are taking the baton from us about operational implementation, though we remain interested
in it, and helping various parts of their institutions work though this. I feel like
we’ve kind of missed a bet here. There’s an easy problem, easy and hard are very relative
terms here, which is about how do we deal with data that at least once its published
is public—climate data, high energy physics data. There are issues about wanting to keep
it confidential except for perhaps use within the refereeing process until publication and
different fields have different norms about that. But when you get all through it, the
reuse and access of it is mostly about documenting and preserving. You can just kind of make
it available and the more people that can find it that use it, the better. Unfortunately,
this leaves out massive areas of scholarly work, including very, very high pay-off areas
around medical things, genomic things in some cases. It omits much of the social sciences,
which relies on data about people. And, particularly as we look to a world where we need to be
able to reuse data, we need to keep more personalize data for longer, or re-identifiable data for
longer. Somehow, I believe its essential that we focus much more serious efforts on the
hard problem here of how we share to the extent that we ethically can and how we reuse data
that simply can’t be made public. That’s going to require a lot of thinking about IRB
practices and responsible research practices as well as the actual apparatus by which we
maintain and share data. Right now, you hear, for example, crazy stories about data that’s
essentially orphaned because and IRB authorized its use in one project and other people can’t
figure out who to even go to for permission. It’s not their IRB. They might be at another
institution. This is all part of sorting out how we think about institutional responsibility
for data and data stewardship. These, as I say, make many of the problems about public
data look easy. I think we omit them at our peril and I’m going to be continuing to search
for ways to make some progress on that. Second area: and some of this builds out of
some conferences I’ve been at over the past year. Some of it was touched on at Commissioner
Julie Brill’s remarks at our meeting last December. We are increasingly in an age of
algorithms and algorithmic prediction and filtering. Much of this involves algorithms
that have two properties. One, we don’t understand them. I mean, literally we don’t
understand them. Many of them are driven off of machine learning and you’ve got these
very complicated neural nets that are essentially black boxes that are formed by training data
and let loose on real data and retrained occasionally when you get enough mistakes and outliers.
We also, for many of the most important algorithms, don’t have staple algorithms. We have algorithms
that are perpetually tweaked. I invite any of you to tell me what the search algorithm
is as of this moment for Google Search. It probably changed since yesterday. There are
some sorts of gross elements of it that are, roughly speaking, conserved. But, they have
armies of people who are constantly improving that algorithm. And, by the way, depending
on which one of the many, many A-B test groups that their running every minute of every day,
you happen to get tossed into, you will see subtly different behavior. Not just from day
to day but on the same moment from person to person. And that’s not just Google. That
is every really large-scale system we’ve got. Now, there is a growing interest in transparency
and accountability of algorithms. This becomes increasingly vital as these things shape our
lives. While I am very, very sympathetic and support these discussions of transparency
and accountability, I’m starting to scratch my head about something that’s a little
bit farther down stream—more elementary. How do we document these algorithms? How do
we archive them? How do we record them? This is going to be one of our next big frontiers
in archiving our cultural record. And, we can talk all we want about transparency and
accountability, but if we can’t document it, its really hard to have accountability about
it, I think. So, that’s one that I’m really scratching my head about a lot. It’s moving
rapidly up my list of important problems. There are some very interesting research papers
that have come out recently that try and present frameworks for at least beginning to understand
how some of these machine-learning neural networks are functioning. I’m not sure there’s
a magic technology solution around the corner. Next area, stewardship and large-scale digital
preservation. This continues to be an obsession of mine, of course. In particular, the question
of really understanding how what we’re doing does and doesn’t match up with a constantly
evolving cultural record. I have been privilege in the last year or so to participate in the
work of the Keeper’s Project and was very pleased to see this morning an announcement
that both the, I believe, UK and European Library Associations, as well as ARL, have
come together to endorse the Keeper’s Declaration, which we, of course, also have strongly supported
and endorsed. Peter Burnhill is here and, I think, will be talking more about this and
some related topics during the meeting. I should note, by the way, just broadly, many,
many of the areas that I have touched upon are represented in breakout sessions at this
meeting. The ones that aren’t, I think you can look forward to hearing about such as
the work with the publishers at the spring meeting.
Let me go back to my list of things I’m worried about. So, I think we need Keepers or Keepers-like
approaches to eliminate how well we’re doing in other sectors of the cultural record. I’m
also really worried that there are all kinds of emerging genera’s, and I talked a little
bit about the algorithms, that we just don’t have on our radar screens efficiently. I mean,
social media is an obvious one that we talk about and seem to get almost an attraction
on but there are others and we really need to get to work there. I am just finishing
up, literally, a rather lengthy exploration of reading analytics and reader privacy and
how these interact with authentication. We did a survey this summer about privacy and
authentication practices, which I believe comes out today, finally, as an EDUCAUSE piece,
but we’ve had the report available since September on our website. And, that was quite
interesting and helped to understand perceptions of privacy and privacy risk by libraries.
It also began to foreground a couple other issues that we don’t spend a lot of time
on in this forthcoming essay. One is that I think libraries, particularly in an age
where their being asked more and more to document impact and contribution and value, are starting
to get much more interested in a nuanced understanding of how the resources that they license and
make available are being used. And, that doesn’t mean simply the kind of numeric things that
you get, like how many downloads or how many hits, it involves coming up with some reasonable
compromises between privacy and demographics at the user base and somehow negotiating data
flows with the publishers or the platform operators to try and facet usage information
along those lines. At the same time, there has been enormous progress in identification
of users that goes far, far beyond the old sort of, “oh, they set a cookie and if I
go through a proxy I can avoid that,” sorts of problems that people worried about a decade
ago. There’s another factor too that’s worth noting here and it’s a very interesting
one to me, there’s a new player that showed up in the sort of privacy versus reader analytics
and understanding usage equation and that’s authors. Authors are getting very pressured
to document and understand impact as well. And, all of the sudden, we’re in an age now
where its quite common if you publish in a journal as an author that you get an author
dashboard, which shows how often your paper has been downloaded this month. Sometimes
it will tell you something about the geographic download—the geographic dispersion of the
download. And, of course, there are at least some authors that would really love to have
the names of everybody who read it and to really be able to jump across that all-important
chasm between download counts and actual reading. I invite you to inspect your hard discs for
how many PDFs you have locally that you’ve downloaded with every good intention of reading.
This is sort of the digital analog of the flows and mounds of Xerox’s of articles
that you somehow absorbed by osmosis that were piled around your office. In some new
reading environments you can cross that chasm. E-books are already well across that chasm
if you look at the consumer marketplace. What you do with that data is a really interesting
question, and who you give it to and how much you keep.
Two final areas I’m thinking about: There is a huge and long overdue shift in the way
we think about the management of names and factual biography, moving away from the old
siloed authority control files, the ones that libraries did that were so heavily focused
on monographic publication. The ones that, for example, people in art history and art
world did to deal with artists’ names and provenance and things of that nature. The
kind of phenomenon resources that places like The Getty have built up. We have the work
that is underway with support from the Mellon Foundation and other that Daniel Pitti is
leading in collaboration with both NARA, the National Archives and Records Administration,
and the University of Virginia, IATH, that now has a pilot project going with, I believe
its, 18 universities and other institutions that’s building out sort of an authority
system-like thing for names that appear in archives. Not just authors of material in
archives but subjects of material and archives as well and documenting the relationship between
them. Our challenge, increasing, is going to be to connect these things up and to begin
to integrate factual biography of the sort that might be found in dictionaries of national
biography, or Wikipedia, or places like that with these resources, to integrate CVs and
faculty achievement reporting systems and things like that into this sort of world.
There’s a tremendous amount we don’t understand how to do, ranging from formats and representations
through interchange structures, all the way to right balances of privacy—opt-in/opt-out,
and these sorts of things might be in this area. But, this connects up intimately with
our ability to: structure the world of scholarship and of evidence; to capture and reuse evidence
in the humanities-oriented fields, as well as the kind of evidence that produced in this
in science; to rethink area like biography and documentary editing. I think there are
enormous opportunities there. I’m pleased to report that just last week I had an opportunity
to attend the latest meeting of the SNAP pilot project that NARA hosted and they are making
really good progress. It’s a very, very exciting project.
Finally, and this is one I’ve been thinking about for some years, but seems to me to be
reaching a tipping point. I’ve had two important things happen this year. The basic question
here is, “What does it mean when you can do digital documentation of objects, texts,
images, paintings, that are as good or better than the original in most dimensions, and
that then can be reproduced in copies that are essentially identical to the original?”
What does that mean for stewardship, for scholarship? What does it mean for curation? What does
it mean for collecting and the whole idea of markets and rarity and how these materials
are used and reused. And, I just note a couple of things here. 3D printing and 3D-imaging
are both things we’ve talked about a little bit here in recent years. They’re starting
to take off at considerable scale. There are also these sort of 2 ½ -D things, numismatic
collections for example, which are particularly amenable to easy progress and are important
scholarly resources. I was fortunate enough to be at The Getty
Center in Los Angeles in August, I had an opportunity to speak at the Pacific Neighborhood
Consortium Meeting and The Getty is an just an astounding venue for a meeting like that.
The Pacific Neighborhood Consortium, for those who don’t know it, brings together primarily
digital humanists from the Asian nations and North America, and a few other folks, but
it has very strong ties to China and other places in Asia. And, there was a very special
event going on at The Getty at the time, which is one of the reasons why The Getty hosted
this. You’ve heard in the past about the efforts that the Mellon Foundation, for example,
has been deeply involved in to document the de Malong Caves—these incredible Buddhist
shrines. They actually built, at The Getty, both a number of sort of virtual reality tours
through some of these caves, but also some actual scale replicas, which were astounding.
All of the sudden, these sites, which were increasingly becoming closed because they
are so fragile—and there are many others—can be replicated if we want to, if the custodians
of the sites are willing. There’s an article, which I strongly recommend to you, which came
out in the November 28th issue of the New Yorker, just a week or two ago, with this
sort of annoying title, Factory of Figs. But what its really about is the replication,
not just of art, like paintings or sculptures, but entire heritage sites like tombs within
the Egyptian pyramids that are under threat right now. With so much of the historic sites
of the Middle East under severe threat, or already destroyed, this kind of ability to
document and recreate becomes extremely critical and indeed extremely urgent. This article
traces the development of a variety of technologies and projects in that replicating everything
from paintings to, as I say, literally Egyptian tombs. It’s a great source of food for thought.
It helped me to understand one other thing too. If you think about physical objects,
be they heritage sites, or statues, or paintings, or any number of other things that we’re trying
to take care of across time, these are actually objects that are in a journey across time
that is going to end poorly. It may be a long journey or it may be a rapid decline. And
indeed, particularly for some of these heritage sites that used to be very hard to reach and
are now major tourist attractions, it’s an increasingly rapid decline. Its startling
the way this documents the extent to which some of the tomb galleries have deteriorated
since they were opened up within the last 100 years. You actually have the ability when
you do this kind of digital imaging to not only reproduce an object if you want another
copy for study, or if you want to replace one that is destroyed or damaged, but to freeze
it in time. In fact, as some good examples are given, you can also back it off. You can
restore it or conserve it to an earlier state—something that conservators only do with great care
and trepidation because its so easy to make it worse rather than better with the best
intentions in the world and the best current state of knowledge. But here, you can do speculative
conservation—very, very provocative kinds of ideas that greatly complicate questions
about curation and stewardship. I think this is an area we need to be seriously engaging.
So, those are some of the things that are very much on my mind and my agenda as I look
forward into the coming program year. There is certainly no dearth of things to do and,
as you know, at CNI two of the things we try and do is take on hard problems, because somebody
needs to, and to take on problems that maybe are a little bit over the horizon but we know
are going to be very real challenges, opportunities, or surprises—except they’re really not
if we get out in front of them. And, I look forward to exploring this terrain and more
with you over the coming year. I have actually done what I said I was going
to do and I even have about, by my reckoning, almost ten minutes for questions. Thank you
and I would welcome questions. Please enjoy the session. [clapping] Joyce Ogburn: Hey Cliff. Joyce Ogburn, Appalachian
State University. [Cliff: Hi] I think you touched on a lot of issues of authenticity,
identity in a number of different ways. What’s real? What isn’t? What’s a reproduction?
How do we know? How do we document that and how that’s shifting so much? And then you
layer on that things like algorithms that you can’t identify at all and what they’re
doing. So, I think there’s some treads there of not only the curation but the transparency
and also information literacy and other things that we…how do we even know these days what
anything is or how real it is or where it comes from?
Cliff: I think you’re absolutely right there. And while this is probably not the place where
CNI is necessarily best suited to make a central contribution, I think that many of the things
that I’ve talked about and many of the events of the past year or two have really underscored
how badly we have underestimated and how ineffectively we’ve responded to the enormous challenges
of information literacy in the broadest sense that you speak of it, as genuinely understanding
things like authenticity and transparency and bias and those sorts of things. I think
that there is an enormous, enormous and important challenge there and I think that if nothing
else, our community can bring tremendous insight into the nature of those challenges.
Thank you again for joining us. I really would love to hear your thinking on these things
over the course of the next few days and beyond. So, thank you. [clapping]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *