Karen Coyle wrote:
>
> One of the great problems that we face in our interaction with Google
> (and, to be sure, with other for-profits) is the lack of information
> about their product.
Sure, but right now the public has yet to appreciate, against that, the
openness of our product. To the contrary, libraries may well be
experienced by many as enviously guarding rather than sharing their
content. Google, after all and after only a few keystrokes, reveals the
open book right away. With a bit of luck. (But didn't the very first
and almost blank Google start screen have that button "I feel lucky"?)
But not only must we go on creating environments that can be easily
experienced as being "open" and transparent, and show there's less
luck involved in obtaining library goods and services. We also need to
demonstrate that GBS is very far from being able to provide every
book for every reader, and doing so in the best possible way.
Though the holdings of any individual library have become smaller and
smaller as a percentage of all that exists in print, they still own
lots and lots of stuff that is not in GBS. Yet their "smallness"
makes it all the more desirable to forge good relations and meaningful
functionality with GBS or any media provider, to improve access to
the world's intellectual record. Thanks to GBS, that access is now
vastly better than it used to be only a few years ago, but libraries
remain a vital part of the big picture.
B.Eversberg
Received on Tue Sep 15 2009 - 02:56:48 EDT