Finished the green packet

Richard E. Rubin, Information Technologies in the Twentieth Century

Not much to report here. I did read with amusement the part about microphotography, imagining what Baker would say. The article helped clarify to what extent the government was a player in several big technology movements. And I have to confess that I learned a lot from the Internet/Web section. Most of the article seemed to focus on that, in fact-- lucky me!

William Y. Arms, Libraries, Technology, and People and Innovation and Research

Already seems quite outdated. I did appreciate his list of things that are different in a digital library—it’s a nice summary. Most of what he says about digital libraries seems mostly true, but I do question a few things. I’m not sure about his claim that digital libraries are (or can be) less expensive than traditional libraries. Arms states that library buildings are expensive, but if we want to make even digital libraries accessible to all, we still need the bricks and mortar. It also seems to me that the equipment will need constant, expensive upgrades. We need faster computers, computers with more disk space, and more of them. The cost of storage may be going down, but our needs for it, I’d guess, are growing at at least the same rate. It’s not clear what’s around the corner in digital technology, but if the past is any indicator, something new is just around the corner, and it’s still expensive. Archiving and preservation are more expensive in the digital world. Not to say that we shouldn’t have digital libraries, just that I’m not sure that reduced cost will be realized to the extent suggested here.

I think it’s interesting and notable that most digital library research is undertaken by non-libraries and non-library workers. It seems important that we have a stronger say in how these libraries evolve, but I’m also not sure where the funding would come from to allow libraries to have more time and staff for research and innovation. Also interesting is the role that government funding had in supporting research only in the computer science field.

What computer is he using that has such a readable screen? Arms says, “Until recently, few people were happy to read from a computer” (11). Five years later, I think it’s still true that most people prefer to read on paper.

Speaking of increased library pay....

Yikes.

Double Fold

Nicholson Baker, Double Fold

I read this book in 2002 as part of a small experimental undergraduate course in Trade Publishing and the Control of Cultural Information. We read not only Double Fold, but also The Size of Thoughts, The Mezzanine, and several articles by Nicholson Baker. Near the end of the term, Nicholson Baker came to our 20-person class for a day to answer our questions. He brought with him beautiful old newspapers, and I found him more affable in person than in writing. I struggle with Double Fold. For the most part, I agree with Baker. But it’s the same sort of relationship I have with Michael Moore: I wish neither man were quite so abrasive. At the same time, I realize that the extremities in position and personality might be exactly what allow their messages to be widely disseminated. Reading Double Fold for the second time, I found my opinions largely unchanged, with the exception that I’ve now had practical work in a library environment where we engage in scanning and where space is a real concern. For the most part, we’re scanning in old articles and making newer copies of them for our paper archive—so we’re tossing copies, but we’re tossing photocopies. I don’t think Baker would mind. We still have our card catalogs (though possibly not forever) and haven’t thrown a book away in anyone’s recent memory. For more, ask about my book review due next week.

11th Edition

Gloria J. Leckie, Karen E. Pettigrew, and Christian Sylvain, Modeling the Information-Seeking of Professionals

There weren’t many surprises in this article. People’s information-seeking habits are influenced primarily by accessibility. Quality, though a factor, may take a backseat to efficiency, familiarity, timeliness, or cost. Having all of these various studies compiled into one is indeed valuable, though not thrilling reading. How well does the model apply to other professionals outside the engineering, health care, or legal circles? How well does it work when we apply it to librarians as professionals? Or how could libraries use the model to think about users’ information-seeking processes?

John Willinsky, The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship

The issue of open access is really a complicated one, though it seems at first glance to be relatively unproblematic (cut out the publishers!). I kept thinking about “Minds@UW” (a University open-access project) and wondering to what degree it gets used. At the library where I work, we’re in the process of surveying students and faculty in our department to see whether they feel a large-scale effort to use the space would be fruitful. We currently have a few articles available, but only those that are past copyright. I was also struck by the open-access journals that require the authors to pay a fee to be published, or a fee to have their articles made accessible. Is this really a feasible approach? Can most professors or departments afford these fees?

I really question the notes on page 82—the numbers quoted by William G. Bowen for the cost of storage of a journal volume and binding of the volume are way off, in my experience. At my on-campus library, we pay $5.80 per volume for binding, and he quotes a range of $24-$41. I also have Double Fold in mind, I’ll confess. $35,000 a year for a large university library (plus a capital fee of $90,000) to have access to JSTOR is not particularly “little”—and then, even if the library is saving by dumping its paper journals (and I can’t imagine it’s saving $35,000), is it gaining anywhere near the same permanence in the electronic versions? And what on earth are the “retrieval for users” costs of $45-$180 per journal? To take it off the shelves and make a copy? To drive to a storage unit and back is still nowhere near the quoted fees, unless the storage unit is hours away, which is unlikely. I’m not sure that I buy that it costs between $48-$353 a year to store a printed volume, either—perhaps I need to go look at these other articles.

What exactly does Willinsky want libraries to do?

Double Digits

Public Agenda, Long overdue: A fresh look at public and leadership attitudes about libraries in the 21^st century.

This article was a little strange. It seemed to go against so much of what we’ve been reading, and what we’ve been seeing libraries do. Libraries are scrambling to be more attractive, to add things like coffeeshops and fireplaces, but people’s opinions in this study came across as more traditional. Books for kids are what’s important, not self-checkout options. Hard copies are crucial to average citizens, apparently. Only 12% saw adding a café to the library as a priority. These views match my own, but then what are we doing? Are we all in a panic about nothing?

Many stated that it’s important to keep libraries quiet—I agree, but I see a trend away from this. I think that ideally, we need quiet areas and more social areas, and that they both need to be comfortable, coffee-friendly, and well-lit. Study carrels don’t count as adequate quiet space, in my mind.

I notice that under the list of services that local communities do well, some of the middle-ranked categories were very relevant to libraries. “Having convenient places for public events and meetings,” “Public places where people can access the Internet,” and “Reducing illiteracy,” were all areas that didn’t fare as well as libraries—but are all functions that libraries are involved in. Does this bring the overall library rating down?

How leading were their questions? I think they may have been too wordy and suggestive.

Thomas Mann, The Differences Between Real and Virtual Libraries

Though this article struck me as a bit dated (I suppose 1998 was 8 years ago...), Mann's main point still seemed relevant. We've said it before, but it doesn't have to be an either/or situation: either libraries OR the Internet. Each fills a different role and can complement the other if we continue to let them co-exist. I also liked Mann's who-what-where analysis, and I think it's true: we're overly concerned right now with
the "where," which is why the Internet is so looked-to to solve our information problems. The "who" and the "what" we've had at a decently equitable and useful balance for a while now, so it's easy to forget that they don't just automatically transfer to a new medium. And I think he might be right that copyright won't ever disappear: the Internet, if it ever does come close to having "everything," will have it at a cost. Still, I think the time and technology of 1998 prevented Mann from seeing the ways that libraries could (and do now) offer access to their elite online resources to users at a distance-- and how will this separation of the library from its walls affect its future?