Lane Wilkinson

This is Circulating Ideas. I’m Troy Swanson, sitting in for Steve Thomas. My guest today is Lane Wilkinson, Director of Library Instruction at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Circulating Ideas is brought to you in support from the University of South Carolina School of Library and Information Science, and listeners like you.

Lane, welcome to the show and thank you for talking to me.

Not a problem Troy, thanks for having me.

I wanted to have this conversation because concerns about fake news and alternative facts are running high in the library community and I think it’s fair to say, in the media and around the country. If you don’t mind, I’d like to read a quote from a chapter you wrote as a set-up for our talk. You write “how information contributes to knowledge should be of the utmost concern for librarians. After all, librarians have deep-rooted affinities for both information and knowledge creation. Patrons do not want misinformation or disinformation, they do not want to be deceived.” You’ve also noted that information literacy, which is, I think a thing you and I both think a lot about and do on the job, has not been about truth, but it’s been about negotiating meaning and you offered this as a critique to some of the approaches or definitions of information literacy and I wonder if you could help us understand your views and the critique of this.

Ah, yes, sure. I think I can, and I don’t have the sources right in front of me at the moment, but I think this can all be verified. If you look at sort of our standard professional descriptions of information literacy, everything from the ASL standards to ACRL standards to the ARCL framework to AAC&U value rubrics, whatever, there’s so many things. You’ll notice that they tend to have a sort of, a negative opinion of truth if they mention truth at all. I mean, the AASL standards talk about truth and fact as being superficial. ACRL standards mention reliability and validity but never explain what that even means, they’re just mentioned in passing.

I think the basic idea is that so far with information literacy, we’ve been focusing on the utility of the information that we’re supposed to teach our students to access and evaluate. We tell them how to understand the scholarly conversation, what, how to pick information to suit their goals, how to pick information to support an argument, how to pick information to promote social justice, to keep a conversation going, all these different things. None of our professional standards or descriptions actually say that the information needs to be true. So, I think what it is is that fact and truth have yet to really be brought into information literacy in a serious way and yet here we are talking about post-truth and fake news and alternative facts. So, you see an opening for information literacy to discuss something that here before hasn’t really discussed.

And do you think the profession sort of doesn’t want to take a stance? I mean, we’re trying to play it safe?

I mean, in many respects I think that we are trying to play it safe. I think there are some leftovers from our past, the idea of neutrality being a big one. The idea that we’re not going to adjudicate on truth versus non-truth and, I mean, to be quite honest we have lots of books in our library that are completely full of lies. We all, every library does. And so we don’t want to put ourselves in some position where we are positioning ourselves as the arbiters of what is and is not true and weeding our collections and refusing books and that sort of thing. But, that’s not what embracing truth means, so I think there are some misunderstandings about what a fact-based approach information literacy is and we just have to get over those.

I think we sort of locked down a philosophical kind of path here and maybe it would good to take a step back and maybe just talk about what is epistemology and how do we typically think about like classical conceptions of knowledge.

The idea is that we don’t want to be deceived, humans don’t want misinformation, disinformation. We don’t seek it out. We seek something else. We seek certainty, in many cases we seek some sort of foundational beliefs that we can base our lives on and that’s what epistemology is the study of. It’s the study of how we can come to certainty, how we choose the beliefs that we found our, our lives on. It ultimately kind of reduces to knowledge is what most people phrase it as, so epistemology is going back to Plato, looking into what are the criteria for saying that you truly know something, you’re truly certain in something and you truly have good reason to found everything you believe on something.

And there are three criteria for what makes something knowledge, and the first criteria is it’s something that you believe. If you don’t believe something, you can’t say that you know it. That seems pretty obvious. The second criteria is knowledge has to be true belief, has to be something true. So I can’t really know that two plus three equals six because that’s not true. You wouldn’t say someone knows that. And the third criteria is that knowledge is something that you’re justified in believing. I’ll give you an example. If I don’t know what the capital of Canada is, let’s say I don’t know that, and I decide I’m going to throw a dart at a map of Canada and say that whatever city I hit, that’s what I believe is the capital of Canada. And I throw a dart and I happen to hit Ottawa, which is really the capital. We still wouldn’t say that we know, you know, that I all of a sudden have knowledge. I have sort of bad knowledge. What it is, Plato brought this up, and the idea is that you have to have good reasons for what you believe.

So, knowledge is beliefs that are true, that you have good reasons for, and I do want to clarify real quick too, cause this gets mixed up a lot in librarianship, is there’s two types of knowledge we routinely talk about. There’s knowledge that’s cognitive, that’s things like I know something, it’s beliefs you have, but as soon as you write that stuff down, publish it in a journal or a book or a blog, then we have information that’s recorded knowledge.

It’s very important to distinguish between knowledge that’s been written down as recorded knowledge and knowledge that’s in your head. Those are two very separate things and it’s, I see them mixed up a lot, so when I’m talking knowledge I’m talking about the actual beliefs that you and I have every day.

I’ve heard, I’ve seen you write that there’s idea, that there’s an idea of competing conceptions of truth and justification.

I don’t want to go down a rabbit hole, but the idea is if we began with this platonic conception that knowledge is justified true belief. Justified true belief, to say that knowledge is true isn’t to commit yourself to one conception what true is. Likewise, to say that we want justification and reason for our knowledge claims is not to commit ourselves to a particular form of justification. So one of the things philosophers do, and not just philosophers but also cognitive scientists, psychologists, computer scientists, librarians maybe 50 years ago, we looked at what are good and bad forms of justification, what are acceptable and unacceptable definitions for truth. And so let’s say justification, one person, person A for example, they may have a belief that you are justified in believing whatever your community believes. Sort of like you create a rule for yourself I will believe what my community believes. And so their justified true beliefs are going to be whatever is true that the rest of their community also accepts. Person B, on the other hand, believes that truth is what is revealed by scientific enquiry and so they’re going to have different beliefs, maybe some of the same beliefs, but they’re going to have different paths of justification. Honestly, 90% of the time this stuff, everyone sort of agrees on what they know, so the earth goes around the sun, I believe because of scientific enquiry that’s my source of justification and I know it. Other people say it’s, their community believes it and wouldn’t you know everyone believes the earth goes around the sun so we agree. But, in marginal cases it can get tricky, where some people believe on different types of justification and the same with truth, you’ll have standards for truth.

And the, the reference to the, the facts of the external world I think is a good segue into the idea of positivism and positivist view of, of knowledge and I feel like in some of the conversations about, you know, alternative facts a nice dose of positivism may be called for. Could you talk a little bit about positivism?

So, positivism is one of the things I like to think of as a sort of intellectual boogeyman. If we look back over sort of the history of ideas, one of the things that, that people have often debated, going back to Pythagoras and ancient Greece is whether or not there is a world independent of what you or I or anyone else thinks. Is there an objective external world. And some people say nope, there’s just humans and human beliefs and that’s sad. Or, they say there is an external world out there, but humans we are so wrapped in our own consciousness that we can’t actually understand or know any of that stuff. All we can know is our language and social relationships and all that.

And so, really the dominant view throughout history has been that there is actually an external world. We can learn things about it. Which is really the heart of what positivism is. Positivism is a sort of a philosophical school of thought dating back to the enlightenment really and the idea is that when you’re choosing ways to justify your beliefs, or choosing outlooks on the world, you want to choose ways that are essentially empirical scientific ways that get at the objective reality that’s out there. So, you could almost reduce positivism, over-simplify and say it’s a belief that scientific approaches are the preferred way of gaining knowledge. Knowledge is gained from observation and experiment. That sort of thing. And I’ll tell you, during the enlightenment that was very important because they were up against people who believed that knowledge came out of theology and scripture and that sort of thing. So, we needed something rational, realist, and universal if we were going to get out from that theological counter-enlightenment sort of stuff. So, give you an example of what a positivist says, electrons are negatively charged. What that positivist means is that it really is the case in the real world for everyone who ever lived and we’ve done a bunch of tests and we can prove it, that electrons have a negative charge. With me so far?

Yep, yep.

Okay. So, what happened and I don’t want go into sociology of knowledge too much here, but by the time we get to the 1950s, it started earlier but especially by the 1950s, post-war era, there were some serious reservations being felt about positivism. If you embrace a scientific worldview and you embrace that sort of objectivity and rationalism and that sort of thing, you wind up with cold and calculated things like holocausts and nuclear weapons and that’s what a lot of people started to rebel against, was the cold, calculated way that positivism seemed. And, what sort of grew out of that, grew out of anthropology first, was this idea of social constructionism which is that rather than being shaped by observation and experiment, our knowledge of the world is shaped by social forces. So knowledge information truth are not actually connected to some independent objective world, they’re actually determined by social conventions. So, whereas the positivist says electrons are negatively charged, it’s true because we can prove it, it’s the same everywhere, it’s universal, that sort of thing, a social constructionist will say well there is no fact of the matter about electrons. There’s just the kind of social agreements that you’ve made in that scientist all agree that electrons are negatively charged, so that’s what the truth is. If scientists decide that to agree that electrons don’t exist at all, well then that becomes the new truth.

There’s no connection between what we believe and what the real world is. And like I said, I mean positivism gets a bad rap. It was, science has been used in many, many, many terrible ways to do all sorts of things, to prove air quotes “prove” some pretty horrible beliefs about humanity and social constructionism was a very popular rebellion against positivism and it sort of took knowledge and truth and certainty out of the hands of the scientists and put it into the hands of the sociologists and the humanists and what not and seemed to provide more room for different cultural beliefs, different world views. I mean if you think about it, a positivist will say that, you know, the earth goes round the sun. That’s true, that’s the fact, that’s the way science proves it, it’s the same for everybody.

But if we’re starting to get out there in the field and visit different cultures and they have different beliefs about the relationship of the sun and the earth, it seems almost imperialistic or sort of a western, you know, colonialism to assert that that culture is wrong and how they, you know, what they believe about the sun. So, social constructionism is really well suited to talking about cultural differences, intercultural issues, and it’s really become a dominant force in the social science cause it allows people to say hey, different people have different truths. And there’s a certain attraction to that in a lot of fields.

Right, absolutely, and I’ve, I’ve seen you make these, the contrasts between social constructionism and positivism before and I’ve also seen you then take the next step and offer the idea of social epistemology as the kind of nice fit for librarianship and for the kind of thinking that maybe we should be pushing forward, so can you talk a little bit about social epistemology and what that means and why it is a nice fit for us?

Okay, sure. Basically, and I sort of approach everything this way, but when I look at things like positivism and social constructionism and there’s a real debate, you can, there’s books upon books you know debating these sorts of the, the two camps of thought. What I see is two kind of binary that I want to break down. The positivists who tend to focus on facts and this almost clinical objective, cold, detached way of approaching the world, tend to not get social, the social reality of our lives. They tend not to get that very well. On the other hand, the social constructionists, while they’re very good at identifying the social aspects of our mental lives, they don’t do so hot when it comes to actual science. I mean, you know, or the real world. They sort of bracket away the real world and I think we need to have a middle ground.

Historically, epistemology has been focused on individuals. So, whether you’re a positivist or a social constructionist, people tend to focus on what individuals know. You go back to Descartes and his cogito ergo sum I think therefore I am kind of thing. Epistemology’s always about what an individual person, where they get their believes. Either from science or from society. With trying to write in between social constructionism and positivism we get the field of social epistemology and the interesting thing I find about social epistemology is that it was actually invented by a couple of librarians, specifically Margaret Egan and the, Jessie Shera later picked up the torch from her and he gets all the credit which I think is unfortunate because it was Margaret Egan that really developed it. But, Egan and Shera in Chicago in the 50s came up with social epistemology and what they wanted to do was rather than reject objectivity, but still make room for society and constructed beliefs, they wanted to look at how knowledge is affected by the social world and they began a project of trying to sort out what social processes factor into how we distribute information, how we choose what to believe, how we evaluate sources, how we gain knowledge and so on. Unfortunately, by the 1970, 71 or so, they had dropped everything. Margaret Egan passed away early, Jessie Shera pretty much stopped focusing on it very much and throughout the 70s and 80s, no-one talked about social epistemology until maybe, maybe in early 80s you started to get a few different philosophers returning to this idea of a social epistemology.

What’s important to notice is that there’s two different versions of social epistemology now. One version coming out of the 80s is the social construction version. That school’s lead by a guy named Steve Fuller at the University of Warwick. Steve Fuller’s claim to fame is he’s actually the guy that creationists call to the witness stand in court cases to defend creationism because on the social constructionist’s view, creationism is just another world view, no worse, no better than say big bang evolution, right? So, there’s this Steve Fuller social constructionist social epistemology. And then there’s the other side which I think is, is better suited for librarians which is the sort of truth oriented model they call the veritistic model and this is the type of social epistemology proposed by philosophers like Alvin Goldman, notably Jennifer Lackey recently in Northwestern and this type of social epistemology looks at things like establishing criteria for evaluating information, understanding when we should trust people, how we achieve trust, understanding how we become trustworthy ourselves, understanding how the media shapes our narratives about knowledge, understanding how media communication shapes information, understanding how information sources factor into what we know. And when you start talking about that, it sounds an awful lot like information literacy, so there’s this field social epistemology that tries to embrace both of varying rational realistic approach, sort of like positivism. Bringing in the way social forces affect what we believe and for about the past 30 years we’ve had philosophers really developing it. It’s broken out into cognitive science, artificial intelligence. There’s a lot of other fields. It has yet really to come back into librarianship work for a starter and I’d like to see that happen.

With social epistemology maybe as our framework, maybe we could move from the abstract to something a little more practical? Could we talk at the individual level, how should we think about the relationship between our views and about how the world works, and how it, our, our beliefs work to interface with information sources that we encounter as we make decisions.

Well, I think the first thing to understand, and this is something that again I think librarians would be good to take to heart is that information is, is not a monolithic thing, there’s actually a lot of different types of information that we can sort of categorize. In fact, there’s a whole philosophy of information, it’s sort of tangential to social epistemology. I would urge people to check out the work of philosopher Luciano Floridi at Oxford. He does great work in philosophy information, has some great, very accessible articles and books. But, I give you an example. If I was to, of different types of information. If I was to cut down a tree and count the rings on the tree, I could say well this tree was 50 years old and I cut it down. That’s information. But, librarians aren’t really concerned about tree rings, I mean maybe a, a librarian at a national park might have a tree ring collect but generally speaking when we talk information literacy, we’re not talking tree rings. So let’s change to another, that’s environmental information by the way, it’s called environmental information. So let’s switch to a different type of information. I go to my bicycle to go to work in the morning, I pull the pump out, the pump tells me my tire is inflated to 65 psi. Well, that’s information too, but that’s not the kind of information librarians care about. That’s instrumental information. That’s information mediated by some sort of instrument, we see this with calculators, we see this with computers, we see this with all sorts of things. There’s a whole deep, deep philosophy of science underlying instrumental, instrumental sources of information.

So, we’re going to set that aside. I think for librarians, when we talk about information, we have to understand that we’re talking about the specific type of information. A specific semantic information. We’re talking about the things that we’re told by other people. We’re talking about the conversations we have, the tweets we read, the articles and the books we come across, television interviews, documentary films, anything that involves one person making a claim and another person receiving those claims, or intended to receive those claims. It’s a person speaking or writing or acting or whatever for an audience. And in epistemology we call this testimony. This is, this is a type of information called testimony, and the biggest questions surrounding testimony is to what extent should we trust what people tell us. When I say what people tell us, I mean what people tell you to your face, what people tell you in an article they write online, what people tell you in a journal article, what people tell you through a book. I mean, all this is testimony. It’s one person taking their beliefs, writing them down, or communicating them in some way, giving, giving them to you and you have to learn how to trust these. So, that’s the type of information I think is most important for librarians and information literacy. So, I would say information science, libraries information science, I almost want to recast that as libraries and the science of testimonial evidence or something like that. We don’t want to do information, all information. We don’t do most information. It’s a very specific type.


But it’s very, very, very important. I mean if you really think about it. Almost everything you know comes from the testimony of other people. For example, I only know my birthday, in fact everyone, you only know your date of birth because someone told you. Your parents told you, your siblings told you, a doctor wrote it on your birth certificate, you don’t actually remember the day you were born, so all you have is the trust in doctors and parents. That’s all you’ve got.


The fact that there’s a city in Russia called Moscow. I’ve never been there. I see it on maps, but I’ve never been there to verify that it really is there. I’m putting my trust in encyclopedias, in other people, maps, all sorts of stuff and I feel very confident there’s a city called Moscow and that my birthday was May 14th and that sort of thing. But it gets tricky because when we start looking at testimony, we see that there’s actually a few different flavors of testimony. And if you go back to the 18th century, you get the famous philosopher David Hume. And David Hume advocated, he taught, he was one of the first people to ever talk about testimony. And he said that you should never believe the testimony of another person unless you have independent reasons or evidence to establish the trustworthiness of what they are telling you. So, when you encounter information, your default should always be skepticism. Like right now I’m talking to Troy Swanson and are you a, you can tell me you’re in Illinois, right?

Yes, that’s right.

So, you’re in Illinois. Hume would say I’m supposed to be skeptical of that until I can somehow independently verify that you really are there. I guess I have to go buy a plane ticket, fly out there, make sure you’re there and then, only then, can I trust what you’re telling me. Because for Hume anything else is just gullibility, you know. You can tell me you’re in Arizona right now and I have no way of knowing, I’m just going to believe you. So, Hume didn’t want us to be gullible but he put this very heavy burden on us. We have to independently verify everything, in fact it really bleeds into positivism, this idea of empirical evidence of observation.

On the flip side was a philosopher who people don’t, I think he’s under-rated or under-discussed, is Thomas Reid. He said the exact opposite. He said that by default we should trust what other people tell us. So, if you tell me you’re in Illinois, I’m totally justified in believing you simply because you told me and I have no reasons to doubt your sincerity. But, his position’s not ideal either because Hume, you know, wants us to be skeptics but Reid opens the door towards gullibility and I can’t just, you know, gullibly believe everything. At the same time, if you are lost in a strange town, you pull in at the gas station and say which way’s the freeway and they say go left two miles, are you going to be skeptical and not believe them? No, you’re going to trust them, so I think we need a third approach and the third approach is somewhere in between.

We need to find a way that we can maintain a skepticism and a critic, critical eye towards what we’re told, what we read. At the same time, we can’t be so skeptical of and so untrusting of what people tell us that we don’t accept anything as truth. There has to be something in between and that’s where a lot of the work has to be done and it brings a lot of other things. It brings in speech app theory and logical infringes and communication theory and library science and all these different areas where we have to figure out between these two extremes of 100% skepticism or 100% gullibility, how should we be approaching the information we receive in our lives.

And I, I think it also calls up sort of a, the need for self-reflection and I think especially for those of us who work with students in colleges, you know, you can’t help but bring your viewpoints into it, right? To touch on that social side where you’ve been, your knowledge, what you’ve seen matters, but also there’s external sources that you have to measure your own beliefs against. So, you don’t want to be ultimately gullible on one hand and trust everything you come across on the other and also to not be fooled by yourself, which I think is a very complex kind of thing, right? Especially when you deal with 18 year olds in the classroom and so in terms of information literacy, maybe it’s even in a public library at an information desk, you know how do we take those steps with students or with patrons to acknowledge their beliefs and also connect them with sources that offer, that are credible and that offer that kind of external measurement of the world?

Well, I think the first thing we need to do is we need to kind of educate ourselves as information professionals who have to deal with this, we need to have a better understanding of what exactly is going on in the minds of our, of our patrons and our students and people that encounter information.

There is a healthy, healthy literature cognitive science and psychology about how a person’s previous beliefs and attitudes affect their receptivity and trustworthiness in the information they come across. This is why my republican uncle thinks everything in the New York Times is false and everything in Bright Bart is true. Likewise, my really, really progressive mom thinks everything in New York Times is true and everything in Bright Bart is false and you know what, they’re both wrong. What it is is they have these previous beliefs that are affecting how they’re choosing to accept the information they come across, and like I said, first we can educate ourselves as librarians information professionals. What I’ve been working on recently, because there’s just so much written about it, is the application of conditional probability theories into how we, how we adjust our beliefs in light of new evidence and there’s a famous theorem called Bayes Theorem, they use the statistics, that’s been used for about 20 years now in cognitive science and psychology to actually give really good, well researched predictions on how people will respond to new information based off of their previous beliefs. So, I would say one thing we need to do as information professionals is to really look at cognitive science and psychology and learning theories and see how people actually, what’s going on in their minds. I don’t see that happening in library science. I think it’s very instructive and.

I think that’s a great point.

Another thing we need to do is we need to think about how we’re actually interacting with the students, and I’ll give you an example of what I do that I think is, I might be wrong here, but I think this is different to a lot of approaches and I’ve had good success with it. When I am in front of a group of students, telling them about evaluating sources or accessing information, what I used to do and what I see a lot in our professional standards and discussions of information literacy and best practices and cookbooks and all that, is what I said at the very beginning of this podcast. This sort of idea that we look for these, we look at information in a very instrumental way. We look at markers of truth, we look at ways you can use it, we look at citations, we tell students that here’s a checklist of things to look for in our information source, you know the crap test right?


Things like crap or radar or whatever we say, take the source, look for x, y and z and then depending on how it fits into your little rubric, that’s whether you can use it or not. I like to come at things the other way because one thing those crap tests, radar tests and all that does, or one thing it doesn’t do is it doesn’t get at how students are actually thinking about information. It tells them what to look for, it doesn’t tell them how they should think, and from an epistemological standpoint, as someone who studies epistemology, and we look at this idea of justification, I tend to frame my approach, I think this works for all patrons, in that if somebody decides to, that they’re not going to trust New York Times, what they’re doing is they’re creating a rule, sort of a mental rule that they’re not justifying things from the New York Times. Someone else creates another mental rule, they’re not, shouldn’t believe things you read in Breitbart, that sort of thing.

What I try to do is I try to get my students and my patrons to understand that they way they approach information, they are setting a series of rules for themselves, that these are, and some rules are better and worse than others. That what we should be doing is choosing sort of habits of mind, rules of thought, that lead us towards truth, not away from it, and I try to install rules and habits of mind that helps students do that. So, it’s a lot more about having students get sort of metacognitive, think about reflect on why they choose information, not just what to look for when they’re evaluating a source, but to really reflect on what their own personal rules and experiences are with information. Is that sort of get at it?

I think it does. I think it does pretty well.

Yeah, it’s, yeah from the epistemology standpoint, there’s a theory called reliabilism and I’m not going to go into the whole debate over internalism and externalism and all this stuff, you can do that. But, there’s a theory called reliabilism that says that what we want out of our beliefs in the world are knowledge practices, is we want to adopt reliable processes for accepting or rejecting the information we come across. For example, the New York Times. I sort of have a mental rule that the New York Times is more or less a reliable news source. It doesn’t mean I’m going to believe everything they say, it doesn’t mean I’m going to say that everything is perfectly true, it just means that I tend to think that if you get your new from the New York Times, you are more likely to be correct than someone who gets their news from, I don’t know, InfoWars or something. And there are hundreds and thousands of other rules I’m sure that I have in my mind and it’s constructing those rules that determine how we interact with information, not the, you know, things in the information itself that the CRAP test tells us to look for. It’s really the rules of thought.

And, does ah, do you think a college career helps us start to develop those rules? I mean, I feel like the more you interact with information to do things, the more you’re setting those rules for yourself. So, when you interact with a faculty member on campus, that person is going to show up with a whole different kind of set of rules than maybe a freshman might. Not that freshmen starts at ground zero either, but there’s a kind of a progression perhaps.

Yeah, I would agree with that. I mean I’m a very strong proponent of a classical liberal arts education, that students should be exposed to broad conceptual topics from all walks of art and poetry and history and philosophy and math and science and everything. I think that what we do when we expose people to those things, we show them different ways of thinking about the world, different ways of constructing those sorts of mental rules that we live our lives by because the, I mean I didn’t, I want to back up, the word rule is not, it’s a little too strong, but frameworks maybe? There’s a good world.

Yep, yep.

But, you know, I, a philosopher has certain ways of approaching problems, approaching information, and a chemist has another way of, and some chemists are great philosophers, some philosophers are great chemists, but by in large we can sort of see there’s multiple outlooks on the world and I think that we need to expose students in the value of, of the education of a higher education as it really allows students ideally to explore different ways of interpreting the world so they can see this how a sociologist would approach things, or how an artist would approach things, or a chemist and I think it’s important for us to be able to look at a piece of information or a problem or whatever and be able to approach it from multiple angles and this is why I do see problems when, you know, students don’t do their general education courses for example. And all they do is engineering straight through, then they only see one way of looking at the world, and I think it’s important for us to have this multiple interpretations.

Yeah, fantastic. If listeners wanted to find you on the web, where can they do that?

Oh gosh, I don’t know why they’d want to. But, I have a blog, just look up my name, Lane Wilkinson. I have a blog called Sense and Reference that I should be blogging more, I don’t know. I’m trying to get back into it, but I’m on Twitter, Facebook, all the normal places.

Okay, well we’ll look for you. So, Lane, I want to say thanks for spending the time, and this has been fantastic.