I don't necessarily think Google's power is over-rated.
I just think that if they succesfully provide a tool that is of use to
our users, then that they're doing THAT doesn't bother me, it's good for
our users.
If there are user needs that aren't being provided by Google, then
that's where we fit in. If we are unsuccesful at providing tools to meet
these needs that users actually want to use, that's our problem, to be
solved by getting better at what we do -- not by trying to make Google
worse at what they do!
I AM concerned about Google's power, and for instance am concerned about
anything that gives them a LEGAL monopoly to do things others can't.
For instance, the GBS settlement. OR, for instance, OCLC sharing things
with Google that they _won't_ share with others! If Google can do
things becuase nobody else has the legal RIGHT to do them, that's
concerning!
I understand what you're saying about how Google can have an 'effective'
monopoly even if not a legal one. But if they have an effective monopoly
because they're tools work BETTER (at doing certain things) than anyone
elses (including ours)... how is that bad for our users? It's mainly
bad when other are _prevented_ by legal monopoly from doing what Google did!
So I'm a lot more concerned about the fact that OCLC _doesn't_ share
stuff with others on equal terms to Google than I am that they are
sharing them with Google! I think what's best for our users is sharing
them with _everyone_. The more people that use that data to provide
useful tools for our users, the better it is for our users! Including
Google.
Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
> Jonathan:
>
> "It's not that some of them are for-profit. We've always been happy to
> share our metadata with, for instance, corporate libraries in for-profit
>
> institutions too. Haven't we?"
>
> Good point (also Kyle Banerjee a few posts back), but when we're dealing
> with Google - their desire to be the "place to go" to get information
> about virtually everything, and their corresponding ability to do it -
> we have entered new territory I think.
>
> I understand that you think Google's power is overrated Jonathan, and we
> need not fear their monopolizing drive. However, given the law of
> unforeseen consequences, I just don't share your confidence that - and
> think that carefully considering the balance of power is not a bad idea.
>
>
> But looks like it's all a moot point anyway, as OCLC has already given
> them everything.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nathan Rinne
>
> Media Cataloging Technician
>
> Educational Service Center
>
> 11200 93rd Avenue North
>
> Maple Grove MN. 55369
>
> Email: rinnen_at_district279.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:34 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] An article to warm the hearts of cataloguers
>
> James Weinheimer wrote:
>
>> There is a big part of me that agrees with Nathan: that this is *our*
>>
> stuff
>
>> that we shouldn't just be giving away. After all, it was made with the
>> blood, sweat and tears of generations of experienced catalogers and is
>> incredibly valuable. Simply giving it away seems crazy.
>>
>>
> Haven't we ALWAYS simply given it away? Have cataloging departments
> contributed shared cataloging to the universe because they expected
> their institutions to be financially renumerated? The paltry 'credit'
> sums you get from OCLC is not why we share our cataloging cooperatively,
>
> in OCLC or other places, is it?
>
> We share our cataloging cooperatively because we recognize that the sum
> of all of our work is a public good, which serves all of our interests
> to share.
>
> So now, unlike 50 years ago, there are a lot of people other than
> libraries interested in metadata. Many of them even produce tools that
> our users use. What's the difference between sharing with other
> libraries back when libraries were the only ones interested in
> bibliographic metadata, and sharing with non-library entities now
> interested in bibliographic metadata?
>
> It's not that some of them are for-profit. We've always been happy to
> share our metadata with, for instance, corporate libraries in for-profit
>
> institutions too. Haven't we?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
Received on Mon Sep 14 2009 - 14:18:06 EDT