Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> Not sure you viewed the whole thing, but all of the data in WA is
> screened, tuned, verified, cleaned and shaved, and any question that
> you also can compute on, it can deliver some (pretty good) answers to,
> question no reference librarian with a million books can answer (like,
> the weight of a water molecule divided by the height of the Eifell
> tower", just in case you wanted to know ...)
>
> So anyone doing research on the topic itself is the audience here, not
> people who specifically want books. This is about facts, not about
> writing them down. Again, as I've postulated before, these systems are
> not going to get worse over time, rather the opposite. More and more
> sources which in the past delivered books and journals (which is the
> librarian domain) will be delivering data directly to these data
> crunchers, and now that the data crunchers gets *this* sophisticated,
> there is lots of what used to be librarian domain that gets ripped
> out.
I wasn't thinking of books. I was trying to say that the purpose of a library catalog (the question of whether the catalog succeeds in this purpose or not is something entirely different) is to allow a user to explore its contents intellectually. "What is in this collection about evolution?" "About the Eiffel Tower?" "By the World Bank?" etc. I was trying to point out that this is a different task than getting facts. One is designed to open up your mind by showing possibilities; the other answers questions.
I repeat: whether the library catalog fulfills this goal is another question.
> Just like Google has chipped away at the librarian world, so will
> this. And so will many, many more such systems. They will get better
> and better, until a point where there is no more need for librarians.
> Then what? And how long will this take? (And I think I know most of
> the answers coming to this one :)
That may be true, but my concern is the "black box syndrome." How do I know that the answer this machine spits out at me is "better?" Why does something come up #1 in a Google search? Is it the "best"? The most "relevant?" What do that mean? What are some of the alternative answers? Librarians handle this through our code of ethics, which I hope is *not* taken as a joke, especially with the added importance of information today.
I hope people will continue to display some aspects of intellectual curiosity to go outside the closed dialectic of: question/authoritative answer. If tools such as Wolfram Alpha can allow for intellectual exploration, i.e. giving you an idea of what kind of information/knowledge/research is available, that would be great.
> > What I'm saying is that people have a lot more problems than they let on
> when trying to find information. This is another discussion though.
>
> Not sure it is; people are hence far more inclined to use this kind of
> tool than the librarian. Just more depressing reality.
>
> As to Wolfram selling a product ; please, he's got 27 years of some
> serious heavy-hitting credibility to his name. He doesn't sell
> anything, he offers up stuff that works, otherwise he wouldn't do it.
> This isn't just some guy with a startup we're talking about here. :)
In my experience, everybody is trying to convince us that they are right (that certainly includes me as well!). That's why we need independent evaluators who can see these things with clear eyes. I have seen lots of tools promoted with big promises that have gone down the tubes. I hope this one works--I really do.
Still, I think it's important for librarians to let people know what it really is that we do. Very few people really understand what librarianship is. Unfortunately in this current economic climate, I think librarians are descending into a deep blue funk. The latest LJ news is not very encouraging: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6655234.html?nid=3285
Jim Weinheimer
Received on Mon May 04 2009 - 10:13:52 EDT