On 10/19/07, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> I'll be brutally honest here ; there is no way that libraries can hope
> to a) collect everything (too much), b) collect everything of note
> (too hard; needs more reference librarians), or c) collect only the
> cream of the crop (too crazy!). Further, there is no way that
> libraries can a) give all people what they want (we can't please all),
> b) give some people what they want (we may not have all they want), or
> c) anyone what they want (we don't have it all, and all knowledge does
> not come in printed form).
While I certainly have sympathies for this way of thinking, I must point out that once we accept this, there is very little left of a library. So, the way I see this statement is that we should give up on libraries altogether and instead do what we want to do, forgetting the users. Perhaps this will be the final way to go--I don't know, but I would hate to give up on one of the world's oldest professions (other than some others, of course!) without some sort of a fight.
If it were that librarians had really become obsolete, that would be one thing, but what you write above primarily displays a lack of resources: the idea that we will never get any more help, or not enough anyway! I think history comes to our aid here: before the invention of the printing press, there were relatively few librarians and the "library profession" hadn't even been invented yet. It was the very rapid creation of all kinds of materials, rapidly copied, that spurred the need for some way to get control of it all. The incredible bibliographic apparatus that we have today, employing thousands of people all around the world, is a result of all of that. But, in the late 1460s-1470s, I really don't think that anyone could have imagined creating such an apparatus. Certainly if they discussed it with a "money person," the person who thought only of money would have said that no one would ever pay for all those people the world over to shift pieces of paper around! They wou
ld proba
bly have given up in despair. But it turned out that people demanded the control, and entire industries were created that hadn't existed before: publishers, distributors, book jobbers, massive numbers of catalogers, and so on. They found the money to do it because society demanded it.
I think we are in the same situation today: we are confronted with a radically new format that has overwhelmed us. When librarians faced this sort of thing before (photos, movies, computer files) they responded by just fitting it in to what we have done before. This worked well with all kinds of physical items.
But, this is the first time we've had to face a radical new format since the introduction of the printing press, so we live in "interesting times." Our tried-and-true method of fitting in the new format has broken down for several reasons, and many people haven't adjusted yet. It is also my belief that the public wants to use these new materials in an organized, reliable way. Google-type searching is/was a good first step, but I think that as more and more materials get digitized, people will see that it is less and less satisfactory. Already, I have major problems searching Google Books for materials that I know are in there. What will it be like when it's not just a few million, but potentially hundreds of millions? Any tag clouds will probably look like hurricanes!
In any case, while some people believe that finding information is not all that important, our colleagues from the 18th-19th centuries thought it was possibly the most important task of all. One of the quotes I share with my students is from James Madison, one of the authors of the US Constitution, who said something very applicable today: "A popular Government [i.e. a government of the people--JW] without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge
gives."
Those people considered the matter of information to be more important than just giving people what they want. It was the difference between freedom and slavery. I (and I hope others) agree with him, and this is one of the reasons why Google-type searches bother me. It gives people what they think they want. Try doing a Google search and then asking someone "Why is that item one number 1?" The very idea of such a questions is shocking to them. The explanation then is quite troubling, especially in light of Madison's quote.
Are the solutions to this situation the same as the solutions that have been adopted in the past? I think some of them will be the same, others will have to change.
But I think it's too early to give up.
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
Received on Fri Oct 19 2007 - 03:34:01 EDT