A short time later I read a rebuttal (thanks to the suggestion of a colleague).
Then I did what I love doing best...I thought about it all for a little while.
After that, I had a few comments of my own that I wrote down.
Here they are, for anyone who cares to read them.
Godwin has some good points that mainly focus on the rate of change in libraries (and his arguments are tailored to public libraries, not academic, school, or corporate ones). I agree that materials- and method of access-shift will happen and sometimes needs to happen sooner.
I agree with the theory that ebook readers will be almost free relatively soon. However, his argument that ebooks are getting cheaper is weak - yes, some are, but others are getting more expensive. Which others you say? The new releases! Which are, of course, the books readers need and want and clamber for. They do get cheaper a few weeks or months after release (which offers an excellent lesson in how patience pays off). I just spent $16+ on an ebook that I've been wanting for a couple of weeks. That is the most I've ever spent on any ebook. I expect to see this trend continue. As for users in the LS library (as with any other student library or public library), kids don't want to wait too long for the newest/latest/greatest book. Like healthy food, they need fresh books, and lots of variety. That is never cheap.
If I want cheap books (for the library or me personally) they are available, but they are either:
• pirated (not my style - I try to keep up with my karma. I am sure I am not the only person who prefers to pay for their products rather than steal them)
• poorly formatted (I've tried to read some classics that were atrociously formatted, ugh.)
• older releases (which, again, offers that excellent lesson that patience pays off, but sometimes you need to have it sooner, rather than later).
His post does not mention the market for textbooks, magazine & news subscriptions, etc (which are NOT cheap, considering their digital nature and therefore lack of serious expense in duplicating). This may be an area that public libraries start making for use of - magazine & newspaper subscriptions on ipads, ebook readers, or other tablets: easier to archive (preserves archival quality, too), easier for a user to check out multiple periodicals, etc.
I disagree with his argument that libraries are or were merely "warehouses" of books, though. That's kind of like saying a pharmacy is a warehouse for medicine. Without the actions of a doctor and a pharmacist, a pharmacy is useless or dangerous. Libraries are the same way. They are only as good as the combination of their materials, climate, and their people. I agree that library usage will look different as it evolves over time, especially considering the format and types of materials available. But assuming that just because the same or similar materials are available outside the library does not diminish the usefulness of the library and its staff. Librarians (all: public, school, academic, corporate) are teachers to their users, detectives for their clients, and sometimes therapists, too. The human connection (backed by the education of the librarian trained to be that connection) can not be automated.
Bobbi Newman's response to Godwin's post makes an excellent point about information use. She reminds us that not all information is equal and libraries (and librarians) offer access (and guidance for usage) to vetted information sources - which are getting more expensive (according to Newman; I've not researched this assumption, but it makes some sense to me). Godwin would have us all using Wikipedia for research. I believe that Wikipedia has gotten the format for information dead-on correct (multiple nodes within articles with massive links to related articles) and that companies such as WORLD BOOK need to reorganize their databases like Wikipedia, but Wikipedia remains an nonpeer-reviewed source (even with its valiant attempts to seek accuracy and information validation by professionals). As I tell my 5th graders...any fool with a computer can publish. Any fool. And in an environment like Wikipedia, any other fool can post to say "Yes this is accurate" when it isn't. Don't get me wrong. I like and use Wikipedia. I just double check my information against another (vetted) source, too. I hope that someday Wikipedia or some other userbased, free information source will be what Wikipedia is trying to be now, but I don't think it is there quite yet.
This idea of information quality and access makes me think of class wars and socioeconomic divisions. The simplistic expectation is that poor people will use the free source and rich people will use the pay-for databases (either through their own subscriptions or college/university/private school/corporate subscriptions). Wouldn't that create an "information quality gap"? If public dollars fund public libraries (and therefore vetted, accurate, "quality" information), the playing field is leveled. All a user needs to do to improve/add-to their knowledge is get to the library (and in some places, they even have help for that) or log in from home (again, not everyone can do that, but if they can get to the library, access is guaranteed).
I'm glad someone as high-profile as Godwin is interested in and writing about libraries; he seems to be pro-library/librarian. What I don't appreciate are his assumptions about how librarians feel about certain things. If he did some research and has data to back up his comments, he should share it. If he doesn't have any data to back up his comments, he should be quiet. Seriously. I am not telling him how he feels as a marketer, am I? I do love his vision of a library where kids can do more than read...taking apart stuff and using soldering irons to make stuff and teaching classes on hobbies just for fun? Right on. Fun makes that world go 'round, right? Isn't "work" that is healthy and engaging and inspires the worker to be driven and productive supposed to feel like "fun"? I always thought so. I have the most fun at work when I am deep into designing and teaching a unit I believe will better my students, or when I am lost in collection development (again, to offer the best choices to my students). If libraries are a conduit to learning, entertainment, personal and professional development, then "fun" should definitely be in the catalog.
My $0.02. I hope it wasn't too rambling.
No comments:
Post a Comment