On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Seiler, Danette M. wrote:
> The focus should be whether or not [OCLCs] size and pervasiveness has
> effectively created a single WorldCat--can another entity realistically
> compete?
This simply raises the question of whether "fairness" can allow
"non-profit" collaborations concerned with the unbiased dissemination of
information to be large and "pervasive", or whether "fairness" should only
be determined in relation to whether for-profit activity should be given
an advantage.
The same problem arises in broad relation to government vs. the private
sector, e.g. are government armies and libraries unfair monopolies
preventing the development of private soldiering and information
provision?
Hmmm, this also could be turned around (if anyone had the guts to do it)
to argue that publication for profit and limitation of use of
informational materials (e.g. news stories and encyclopedias) is
unconstitutional denial of the freedom of information. Or would the
courts decide that the "right" to profit limits freedom of information (is
that in the Constitution or is it part of a political philosophy?).
> With the entry of WorldCat Local into the ILS market (and ILLiad's
> growing control over ILL), I am not at all surprised that this suit has
> been filed.
The main question here is does commercial control over ILL have the
potential of being an unconstitutional limitation on freedom of
information?
> This also comes at a time of growing personal frustration with OCLC
Not constructive to include this problem in a suit against the concept of
"non-profit" distribution of information when our personal frustrations
might be greatly magnified were OCLC to be eliminated in favor of purely
for-profit provision of catalog records (and information in general).
> ... records basically gutted and made useless by an algorithm to which
> OCLC is steadfastly allegiant ...
Certainly OCLC needs to be more responsive to its members and LC to its
broader constituency (the people "represented" by Congress), but they are
at least presently more responsive than a gigantic corporate "for-profit"
entity could possibly be, and we could be more assertively participative.
> if we are a consortium of libraries, and we, as libraries, exist to
> serve our patrons, why does quality of cataloging take second place to
> corporate efficiency?
Without LC and OCLC, it certainly would!
> where else can we go? OCLC is it, and they know this.
Than may be a bit crass. Perhaps good intentions at OCLC are undermined
by the need to cover operating expenses or by the temptations of
corporate-like growth strategies. 70,000 libraries could do more to
control the situation (and instill good and efficient intentions) before
they literally become mere "customers."
Food for thought: what would transpire if ALA, CLA and CILIP were to
jointly take over the operation of OCLC?
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Thu Jul 29 2010 - 15:15:43 EDT