Fun and Games with Information Organization

Daniel J. Pool



Technologys progress throughout the history of information has exhibited a visible
impact on society. The two are passionately intertwined to the point that the line between cause
and effect on each other is nearly indistinguishable. Did mankind create writing because it
wanted to record information or did the capability of writing lead it to record information as a by
product? To put it another way, which came first: the chicken or the egg?
While intriguing, the contemporary world has posed questions arising in society and
technology that might be better uses of time. Namely, how should the information organization
of education adapt to the changing digital environment? In order to better understand the current
issues that educational information institutions (such as schools and universities) face in
maintaining relevance in society, one should study; the technologic changes in modern society,
the information seeking behavior of users, the economic challenges that have arisen, and the
possibility of being able to play games to solve those issues.
In 1945, Vannevar Bush made the bold statement in the Atlantic that someday
researchers would be able to wirelessly communicate (via radio) their data without the need of a
pencil or typewriter. He stated that technology would soon become available that could imitate
the human voice from user input, digital input on a television like screen could be recorded and
recalled without need of rote memory, and that it would be possible to calculate infinitely
sequences of numbers without human effort (Bush 1945).
What Vannevar was describing was the world of tomorrow that came to fruition not
even a hundred years later. In fact, he believed technology would never be able to think in the
way a human could (Bush 1945) which has recently been questioned by systems such as IBMs
Watson that competed on national television on Jeopardy. What is Moores Law of exponential
technology advancement?

For modern information institutions, this rise in technological advancement has created a
divide in the classroom as educators strive to utilize these new tools in order to engage students.
Their mission is largely unchanged in the past fifty years in that teachers are supplying
bibliographic descriptions and maintaining their arrangement (i.e. infrastructure)(Richardson
2010). That is to say that educators teach students the bibliographic descriptions of their field and
supply them the means to interact with their chosen information environments through
maintaining good infrastructure. Their place within the information organization is to act as the
intersection between science, technology, and society (Richardson 2010). That is, the teacher or
professor must act as the humanistic portion of information and library science.
Any field that requires any amount of information also requires a bridging of the gap
between user needs and technological resources (Richardson 2010). In this respect the educator
and the educational complex are serving as that bridge. These living systems in information
science are what proliferate the information organization (Rayward 1996). This has been a
fundamental practice in the history of humanity as Rayward argues, but where is it going? What
is technology doing now that technology is expanding and connecting users more intimately?
Some argue that this interconnection between users creates an informality that leads to
greater illiteracy (Rayward 1996), or that users will never have to remember information as soon
long as they can access it (Bush 1945). Others however are more afraid of what this connection
will have on the global society (Karhula 2010).
The fear, outside of lazy users, is that society has advanced to a point where there is no
such idea as privacy (Karhula 2010). Mega corporations, small businesses, and individuals can
now purchase, sell, and trade personal information across the world. Through the application of

ubiquitous society technology, or online surveillance, inities can now trace and predict
movement of users in their daily activities such as buying groceries or starting a family.
Karhula believes this has and does lead to violent and oppression based forms of control
much akin to Jeremy Benthams panopticon prison but on a super or worldwide level (2010).
The idea was to build a prison with a single watchmen in the middle of a circle. Each cell facing
the watchmen without knowledge if they were being watched or not (Foucault 1995).
In practice this would be a control of the mind through the use of the mind (Karhula
2010). Using the inmates fear of being found delinquent would cause them to act well behaved
in order to avoid punishment (Foucault 1995). Some, like Foucault, argue that this is what
society is and others voiced that this is what technology could never be (Bush 1945) while others
say this is what technology has already has become (Karhula 2010).
The problem is that there is an invisible information infrastructure that forms to collect,
categorize, and curate information (Bates 2006) while there is a secondary infrastructure
collecting information about the user (Karhula 2010). This second invisible infrastructure is used
to exploit the users personal data to sell them services or goods, make them vote a certain way,
or believe specific propaganda.
While some believe this will lead to violent sociological oppression (Karhula 2010) and
widespread increased conformity, reduced creativity, and unwillingness to express opinions
(Foucault 1995), one could make the opposite argument.
One could argue that the vision of Benthams panopticon in the digital age as the real
life Big-Brother is an over reaction. Rather, if everything societal members think, eat, play,
dance, sing, want, or say is archived and publicly available then society would be transparent in

its activity. Having the capability to be criticized by the entirety of the (viewing) world has the
capability to curve poor or incorrect behavior before it can become a harmful ideology.
In essence, the growing technology that connects us and destroys our privacy is not
creating a prison for only those who do not conform to society but all members therein. For
example if the owner of a basketball team had made a series inappropriate comments fifty years
ago they might have been able to hide behind the lack of transparency privacy can give an
individual. In todays society it is not only open to debate but instantly available for criticism
within moments of a story becoming public. In essence if ubiquitous society was transparent
rather than invisible then it could leverage humankind rather than oppress it.
What use is this to education however? The practicality of making our personal data
widely available is troublesome as it is treated as a commodity (Colomb 2001). Corporations
want the information they data mine to remain private to their organization and their buyers
(Karhula 2010). The use in education however would remove invented barriers between students.
Currently a poor grade is private to the student and teacher but what if it was not? If students
held one another accountable then they would they be motivated to perform better?
This question cannot be articulated however without studying the economic impact data
has in a users career. Often access to electronic goods is bought and paid for with personal
information (Colomb 2001). In that way digital economies are their own microcosms in that they
can buy and sell goods that are created for free by the users in return for services that had little or
no value physically but rather in their use. Information alone has an object has no or nearly no
value as a commodity. The possibility of its use however gives it value.
This makes the quality of information extracted from users to be critical to the
profitability of that information (Colomb 2001). The ability to share information freely and

easily however has greater academic potential (Lynch 2003). Through open source software the
(Kahin & Varian 2000) the realization that academic bodies could easily and reliably share
information without paying a third party (Lynch 2003) reduced the cost of production to a
profitable margin for the institution (Colomb 2001). This made sharing resources cheap and
efficient (Lynch 2003).
More so it created an environment without the necessity of rivalry (Kahin & Varian
2000). Coupled with the transparency of sharing resources from open source software, academic
institutions could focus on teaching (their true commodity) rather than corporate curation of their
data.
In time this benefit to the organization can and likely will filter to the end user. The
invisible hand will be that of the students and not a businesss. That is however dependent on
student, or information user, behavior.
Many models of information seeking and retrieving exist but most follow a fairly
standard series of events (Wilson 1999). Each theory complements one another as they attempt
to answer questions some theories may not answer well. They revolve around the user needing
information, vetting resources to find that information, complications of that retrieval, social
influences on the user, determination of results, and then they either begin again or end their
search.
One such model, Wilsons 1996 model of information behavior, describes the user
beginning their search within the context of the information they need (Wilson 1999). They then
activate mechanisms to find fulfil that need. Their search is susceptible to intervening variables
in their life such psychological or environmental factors. Once they have prepared they activate

their search and information seeking behavior through active and passive searches until they
process the information they need, continue searching, or end their search.
This demonstrates the feedback loops built into the users retrieval method (Wilson
1999). The user does not exist in a vacuum and so too their information seeking behavior does
not either. Information retrieval is affected by social influences, the environment, and the user
themselves.
In this way academic institutions have always existed to provide the infrastructure to
better retrieval information (Rayward 1996). Information Science as a field is afterall the study
of information procurement as a utility (Richardson 2010). Within todays society it is possible
to supply that infrastructure more cheaply and more universally (Lynch 2003). With the
exception of creative oppression (Karhula 2010) what could possibly go wrong?
For starters information has become so cheap that it is not always worth collection by a
private party (Kahin & Varian 2000). Because of this our society has become infobese or
overloaded with information (Bawden & Robinson 2009). Which in turn leads to information
behaviors like information anxiety in which users feel too much stress from accessing, finding,
or using the right information that they need.
Some users employ techniques such as satisficing as a heuristic to cope with the overly
abundant information they encounter (Bawden & Robinson 2009). This can allow users to not
see data they actually needed or not investigate sources far enough to research their legitimacy, a
slippery slope that allows rampant propaganda to work (Foucault 1995).Worse yet, the only way
to reduce the strain on a user would be to either limit the resources they can see (Bawden &
Robinson 2009) or allow private organizations (such as Google) to control what they can find

(Kahin & Varian 2000). Both only exacerbate the issues of individual and market freedom within
the ubiquitous digital society (Karhula 2010).
Freedom that is paramount to education organizations. An individual should be free to
explore the world the way they wish. Information organizations such as schools should always
strive to provide access to materials while remaining neutral in its display (Richardson 2010). So
then what can academia do to promote the values stated here while avoiding the issues of modern
society?
The answer is to not shirk away from the issues but rather embrace them fully. To do
this academic information organization systems should adapt techniques of video game design
into their professional practices to maintain maximum relevance in society for the fields of
technology, economics, and behavior.
This is not because video games are a typical student past-time or because it something
they could relate to. Classrooms should adapt video game techniques because they are reliable
market tested measures of positive stimulation they can perform for their users (Cuenca Lopez &
Martin Caceres 2010). Though negative effects (violence, sexism, etc.) are possible the positive
effects are too great to waste.
Recent technological advances have allowed for dynamic interpersonal games to
develop that carry vast potential for data exchange (Cuenca Lopez & Martin Caceres 2010). Not
only that but the social nature of games tend to place people of different backgrounds and
environments together, make them work together, and often reach a mutual goal. In addition,
many students in the younger generations are digital natives and thusly are already accustomed
to the environment of a video game even before they are accustomed to the traditional classroom.
With an estimated half a billion gamers in the world (McGonigal 2011), it is not too surprising.

Though not without its problems (Cuenca Lopez & Martin Caceres 2010) video games
offer unique and safe ways to alleviate real world problems (McGonigal 2010). For instance,
soldiers who played violent video games were less likely to suffer post traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) than those who did not play games (McGonigal 2011).
More importantly, it is believed that humans need to fail approximately half the time in
order to be learning at the optimal level (McGonigal 2012). In video games that can be increased
to eighty percent on average. Without the punishment of failure however, gamers will continue
to repeat methods until their processes work (McGonigal 2011). This leads to higher levels of
personal accomplishment and internalization.
Gamers are also more likely than non-gamers to have and maintain more healthy levels
of productivity, social connections, optimism, and meaning in their levels (McGonigal 2010).
This is partially due to the social aspect of gaming (McGonigal 2012). This is likely due to the
creative agency a user has in their play. Additionally gamers experience higher levels of
socialization online.
Students who game are more likely to have collaboratively learn in a peer-to-peer crowd
sourcing environment through a game than others at much higher rates (McGonigal 2012). This
is added by the fact that most commercial studios are developing games with social aspects in
mind.
This is all because the experiences in game carry over to the real world (McGonigal
2012). In a TED Talk, Jane McGonigal used the story of ancient Lydia to illustrate this ability
(2010). She relates that the people of Lydia were undergoing an extreme drought. To survive, the
citizens played dice games on alternating days to forget their hunger. After eighteen years of

gaming one day and eating the next, the kingdom decided to split their people and send half their
people away to find a better home. In this way they survived an extreme food shortage.
It had been largely thought to be just a story or gossip that the historian Herodotus had
written without any real evidence (McGonigal 2010). That is until modern scientists discovered
that a large portion of the early Roman Empire was related to the people of Lydia. This lead to
the possibility of the story being true but also renewed interest in using games to solve social
issues.
To this end, a group called MinecraftEDU has developed a curriculum that adapts the
popular social building game Minecraft with classical elements of school (Hildebrand 2013). The
courses allow students to freely play with one another, team up to complete tasks, and most
importantly learn real world knowledge digitally. This occurs online through a multi-user virtual
environment (or MUVE) that allows both students and teachers access to the learning
environment (Echeverria, Garcia-Campo, Nussbaum & et al 2011). The programs first developed
to help kids think learning was fun and because their digital lives were much more integrated
with their physical ones (Hildebrand 2013). With over fifty percent of populations reporting that
they are gamers (Cuenca Lopez & Martin Caceres 2010) it seems only natural to work with
students in an environment they are accustomed to (Hildebrand 2013). Not only that but allows
for the possibility for teaching digital citizenship through direct classroom lessons in a safe
environment as well as more mundane classes such as math and reading.
Research shows that the benefits of these games as learning tools are rising (Echeverria,
Garcia-Campo, Nussbaum & et al 2011). The integration into the classroom is finally
technologically and economically possible to teach in a way student behavior is receptive to. The
most important aspects of learning games concern the mechanics, story, technology, and

aesthetics they exhibit. The contents of the game should lend themselves toward creative free
play in a social setting.
It is the opinion of some that further integrating games into the classroom will lead to
greater educational possibilities. Not only because of the empirical research in this field
(Echeverria, Garcia-Campo, Nussbaum & et al 2011) but also because of the productivity of
gaming communities. It is estimated that over three billion hours a week world wide are spent in
a game world (McGonigal 2011). If there was a way to focus that productivity into programs
such as MinecraftEDU it could be possible to educate students not only better but in a more
healthy way for the student (Hildebrand 2013).
Once more, teaching in an online game environment makes the learning process
transparent to the entire class. The failures and triumphs of the student are visible to the whole
class. Better yet their failures and triumphs are socially accomplished with repeatable, reliable,
and safe mechanics that put the user (both teacher and student) in control of their outcomes.
In conclusion, the information organization system of academic institutions should adapt
video game techniques into their infrastructure to maintain maximum relevance in society for not
just economic and technological reasons but also to better serve the digital natives that are the
modern student body and teachers by utilizing their information seeking behavior. By using
games such as Minecraft to make the education process transparent, effective, and meaningful. In
short, rather than argue about which came first, the student or the game (chicken or the egg)
educators and information scientists should work toward using the social aspects of mankind
rather than working against it.




Bibliography
Bates, Marcia. "Fundamental Forms of Information." Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology 57, no. 8 (2006): 1033-45.
Bawden, David, and Lyn Robinson. "The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other
paradoxes and pathologies."Journal of Information Science 35, no. 180 (November 21,
2008).
Bush, Vannevar. "As We May Think." The Atlantic (July 1, 1945).
Colomb, Robert M. "Why do People Pay for Information?" Prometheus 19, no. 1 (2001).
Cuenca Lopez, Jose M., and Myriam J. Martin Caceres. "Virtual games in social science
education." Computers & Education 55 (2011): 1336-45.
Echeverria, Alejandro, Cristian Garcia-Campo, Miguel Nussbaum, Francisca Gil, and Marco
Villalta. "A framework for the design and integration of collaborative classroom games."
Computers & Education 57 (2011): 1127-36.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 2nd ed. N.p.: Vintage Books,
1995.
Hildebrand, Anthony. Using Minecraft as an Educational Tool. Film. Made with Play: Edutopia,
2013.
Kahin, Brian, and Hal R. Varian, eds. The Economics of Digital Information and Intellectual
Property. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000.
Karhula, Paivikki. "Controversies of the new information environment - kiss goodbye for
privacy." World Library and Information Congress: 76th IFLA General Conference and
Assembly (2010).

Lynch, Clifford A. "Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure For Scholarship In The
Digital Age." Libraries and the Academy 3, no. 2 (2003): 327-36.
McGonigal, Jane. Gaming can make a better world. Video. TED Talks, 2010.
McGonigal, Jane. Reality is Broken. Film. Directed by Laura Sydell. Intel: Computer History
Museum, 2011.
McGonigal, Jane. Games for Change: Solving the World's Bi. DVD. Directed by Larry Smarr.
The Atlantic Meets the Pacific, 2012.
Rayward, W B. "The History and Historiography of Information Science: Some Reflections."
Information Processing & Management 32, no. 1 (1996): 3-17.
Richardson, John V. "History of American Library Science: Its Origins and Early Development."
Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science (2010).
Wilson, T D. "Models of Information Behaviour Research." The Journal of Documentation 55,
no. 3 (June 1999): 249-70.