I agree with worries over censorship even if that isn't Bill Clinton's
intent. And, yes, both librarians and journalists are solutions. No
policing or corrections agency, though. I hate the idea.
What would help would be two well-stocked national digital library
systems--public and academic. I've raised that topic on the NGC4LIB
list before, but since then have collaborated with librarian Tom
Peters on the LibraryCity.org site filling in more details, including
some thoughts on the censorship threat.
I find the Digital Public Library of America initiative at Harvard to
be especially promising, at least if the DPLA executes well and is
more cognizant of the true costs of and need for copyrighted materials
for popular consumption.
The project urgently needs to split into (1) a Scholarly Digital
Library of America (academic and mostly privately funded) and a
National Digital Library of America (public and mostly publicly
funded), with close cooperation between the two.
Among many other things, cooperation could include the creation of a
joint technical operation, as well as consolidated discovery
mechanisms and content exchanges. Both systems would be universally
accessible. Just the same, the priorities of academic libs and publibs
might clash brutally at budget time. I don't want this be--so
directly--"scholarly monographs vs. K-12 textbooks, multimedia
content, The Great Gatsby and John Grisham novels." Or accurate
medical and financial information for the elderly! Many academics
don't understand the extent to which libraries are life-copers, not
just books, and how this so often happens through face-to-face and
virtual services--librarians, in other words!--not just the actual
content.
Yet another advantage of two systems with somewhat different business
models would be increased diversity of content and more freedom of
expression. Let's make it as easy as possible to route around the
censors.
Of course, I want Google, online bookstores and others on the private
side to keep plugging way. Here's to diversity of biz models, geo
diversity, racial and ethnic diversity and all other kinds in library
planning and operation! In a Chronicle of Higher Education essay, I
tell how different models could exist.
Meanwhile see relevant URLs below, beyond http://www.librarycity.org
David Rothman
Co-founder, LibraryCity.org
703.370.6540
@librarycity on Twitter
--Related writings in the Chronicle of Higher Education, on the
Atlantic site, and elsewhere: http://librarycity.org/?page_id=302
--Chronicle of Higher Ed piece--direct path:
http://chronicle.com/article/Its-Time-for-a-National/126489/
--How e-books and a national digital library system could boost
student achievement: http://librarycity.org/?p=547
--On Robert Frost, fences and electrons: Why we need two separate
digital library systems for academics and the rest of America--and
content exchanges other neighborliness
http://librarycity.org/?p=945
--Don't let public libraries fade away, Mike--especially neighborhood
branches: That would hurt your publisher clients, not just society in
general
http://librarycity.org/?p=1022
--My earlier posts on the NGC4LIB list on the natdigilib issue:
https://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S2=NGC4LIB&q=&s=&f=davidrothman%40pobox.com&a=&b=
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 3:35 PM, James Weinheimer
<weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Both views are quite interesting to me.
>
> First, the idea of Todd Puccio that:
> <snip>
> Any agency, no matter how well intentioned, will attempt to protect its
> funding by keeping its funder happy.
> In this case, whatever federal government administration is in power at the
> time. I certainly would not want to give any agency (How could it possibly
> really be independent ?) this kind of power.
> Even our old advocate friend Sandy Berman accused the LC of being biased.
> How much more would an agency of this kind be?
> </snip>
>
> I agree that there is bias in anything created by human agency. Of course LC
> is biased: it is an official part of the U.S. government and absolutely must
> reflect its positions in many areas. Nevertheless, funding must exist and
> therefore it must come from somewhere. Where there is funding, there is
> power. This is just in the nature of things and cannot be avoided, no matter
> how we try.
>
> If there is going to be a government, it involves getting funding and
> directing it toward initiatives. The question is: should there be funding
> for something like what Bill Clinton suggested? Is there a need for what he
> suggested? It all depends on if you think what he is suggesting is a type of
> censorship or not. I would be completely against censorship, but as far as
> creating a tool to help the citizenry, I would be for it, since that is the
> ultimate task of librarianship.
>
> Laval Hunsucker's view:
> <snip>
> It is certainly not my experience that not-for-profit organizations or units
> therein ( including libraries ) are any less vulnerable to all kinds of
> manipulation than are private, for-profit corporations. Perhaps they are
> even more vulnerable.
> </snip>
>
> I had in mind public entities that are subject to open scrutiny by the
> populace. Google's algorithms are completely secret and they punish websites
> that overstep their "rules". (See
> http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/02/dirty-little-secrets-of-search.html)
> In any case, I think is statement that funding from taxpayers would be a
> worthwhile investment is fine, and similar to public funding of libraries
> themselves.
>
> Also, Laval Hunsucker wrote:
> <snip>
> If what you are talking about is the selecting in general of what should
> come to the attention of a creative researcher/scholar, then I doubt in fact
> whether there's a competent and self-respecting scholar or researcher
> anywhere who would really agree.
> </snip>
>
> We have discussed this before at length. The idea that a scholar has not
> needed help in finding worthwhile materials, thereby rendering library
> selection irrelevant has never been my own experience. I've worked in all
> kinds of institutions. I am fortunate to have some really famous researchers
> as my friends so I am not just spouting smoke. The fact is, the moment
> someone searches a library catalog, they are utilizing the selection of
> librarians, who in turn use publishers, book vendors, their own scholars,
> and many others. There are all kinds of tools to help librarians select.
> Someone has to be responsible to decide which materials a library's budget
> purchases, therefore, selection is unavoidable. My own experience (seconded
> by others) is that the creative researcher/scholar all too often
> concentrates only on his or her own preferences, and anything else can go
> hang or at least is of far less importance. The idea of maintaining a
> coherent *library collection* very often is difficult to understand.
>
> Online materials have only made it more complicated. Anyone using Google
> relies on the selection done automatically with its page rank mechanism
> since nobody is ever going to look at item number 2500. (OK, maybe .001% of
> people will, but that only proves the point that the vast majority of
> researchers need and want help) Selection of free, online resources is a
> completely different thing from the traditional library selection, but it is
> still necessary at least for the moment. Otherwise, people are left only
> with secret algorithms. Perhaps someday the Web2.0 tools will obviate the
> need for librarians in selection, but that will be awhile yet.
>
> The problem is, many people equate selection with censorship. Too bad.
>
> --
> James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
> First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
> Cooperative Cataloging Rules:
> http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
>
Received on Sun May 22 2011 - 16:41:48 EDT