Another Librarian Who Doesn’t “Get It”

February 25, 2005 | Rants and Raves | By: Mark VandeWettering

Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with Dave on this matter: Gorman doesn’t have much respect for blogs or Google.

In my career, I’ve done a fair amount of library research. I’ve tried to find books related to esoteric topics by hunting through card catalogs, pouring over stacks and generally just browsing. It’s not a very efficient use of my time, and unfortunately it requires that I actually cart myself to the library. Yes, I know, many libraries now have online catalogs, but they do nothing to index content, and therefore they are only useful in telling me if they have a resource I already know about, not finding one that might be relevant to a given query I have.

Let’s accept for a moment Gorman’s basic premise: that Google is a terrible search engine that returns links in random order. Even if that were 100% true, his opposition to the digitization of millions of books by Google is absolutely and completely unfathomable. If there is one thing that is obvious, it’s that providing universal availability to the bulk of published works in existance can do nothing but increase the general level of education world wide. He says…

In the eyes of bloggers, my sin lay in suggesting that Google is OK at giving access to random bits of information but would be terrible at giving access to the recorded knowledge that is the substance of scholarly books. I went further and came up with the unoriginal idea that the thing to do with a scholarly book is to read it, preferably not on a screen. It turns out that the Blog People (or their subclass who are interested in computers and the glorification of information) have a fanatical belief in the transforming power of digitization and a consequent horror of, and contempt for, heretics who do not share that belief.

The problem with this idea is that doesn’t properly understand the economics of the situation. It’s glamorous to have nicely bound copies of books: I have thousands in my house. I love them dearly. I do find them more pleasant to read than text on the screen. But simple economics makes it impossible for most communities to have these warehouses of dead trees. Most libraries aren’t very interesting places to go, because they can’t afford to fill in the long tail of interest that humans being have. The big ones are expensive monuments: useful, prestigious but not within the reach of the vast masses who crave for information and education.

Gormon seems to want to justify his own existance by claiming that he’s the right professional to act as an intermediary between the knowledge that the world needs and the individuals who need it. Not only is he wrong in his particular case, he’s wrong in principle. The best of all possible worlds occurs when there are no intermediaries at all: when anyone can access whatever information they want whenever they want as cheaply as humanly possible. When we need the assistance of librarians and scholars, we will be able to find them on the internet as well, at least if they decide to come down out of their ivory tower and participate.

Comments

Pingback from Think Thunk
Time 2/26/2005 at 9:02 pm

even hesitating, I could name two dozen blogs that are more interesting, informed, and informative in an average post than Gormon’s piece in the LJ. Here are some other takes on the Gormon piece, not all of which I agree with: Steven Cohen David Winer Mark VandeWettering Andre

Comment from EB
Time 2/26/2005 at 1:59 am

I think you make some good points about the flaws in Gormon’s argument. While in general agreement on what your direct criticisms, I’m really put off by the way that you use your disagreement with him to make sweeping negative statements about librarians across the profession. “Another librarian who doesn’t ‘get it’” and “if they decide to come down out of their ivory tower.”

Editor’s note: I’m sorry you feel that way. I didn’t say, nor did I intend, to imply that all librarians were Luddites imprisoned in ivory towers.

Still, Michael Gorman is the elected president of the ALA. One imagines that his views are in some ways representative of this professional organization, otherwise why would they have elected him? While the majority may not agree with him on this particular matter, it isn’t a stretch to believe that a significant number do.

The ALA as an organization has made significant efforts to embrace new technologies and to understand the role that the Internet will play in the future, but it’s clear from their leadership that they have a long way to go.

Moore’s law has delivered society an amazing gift: it’s entirely economically feasible with modern technology to digitize every written page that humanity has ever generated and to make it available on the Internet. Once that happens, libraries go from being large buildings supported by tax dollars to a kiosk with an Internet connection and a “bind while you wait” sign. It’s entirely understandable that the president of the ALA might wish to delay this eventuality, but I suspect it is inevitable.

Lastly, this is just my blog. It’s just my opinions. I tag these with the topic Rants and Raves for a reason: they are meant to hold small bits of news that cause me to be irritated. My responses are hopefully fairly well thought out, but no guarantees. I’m not of the opinion that anyone is obligated to take any of my views seriously. If it disturbs you to think that I one individual might have a negative view of librarians, then I suggest that you gain some perspective, or alternatively, create a blog of your own and roast me their for the enjoyment of all. One of the purposes of blogs is, after all, to create public discourse.