[WEB4LIB] Re: The OPAC as Portal - Not!

[Dale Askey]

Eric's comments about portals and 'information plug-ins' are thought 
provoking. I would like to respond specifically to several of his 
points.

> 2. Portals like Yahoo and Amazon do a rather good job at what they do,
> which covers a lot of  territory that traditionally belonged to libraries.
> They spend a lot of money doing it. It doesn't make sense to duplicate the
> services they provide. If you can't beat'em, join 'em.

Yes, Amazon and Yahoo do a fine job at what they do, namely, 
selling books and other media and providing an index and content in 
order to generate ad revenue. One of the fundamental differences 
between a library and companies such as these is that libraries do 
not look at the bottom line when providing content. Amazon is 
wonderful, except when looking for obscure or out-of-print 
materials, something millions of library users do every day. Yahoo 
has become bloated with links, but a list of links in a given category 
does not help a user find the best resource for their information 
need. Libraries don't compete directly with Amazon and Yahoo and 
others like them, primarily because they provide service from 
information professionals that Yahoo and Amazon cannot. The 
notion of 'joining' Amazon or Yahoo makes me queasy. They are 
useful tools to be sure, but hardly the pinnacle of effective 
information access. Libraries are not just providing portals, they 
also offer guides.

> 3. Because of the internet, libraries have to delocalize and interoperate.
> For example, why should a librarian in Iowa organize a collection of
> electronic resources on "Technology in Sung Dynasty China" or "Black Women
> Writers of the 1930's" if someone in New York is doing it? Would anyone
> want a Sung Dynasty Technology "portal" on the web?

Libraries have cooperated, more or less successfully, for years, not 
just since the advent of the Internet. Examples of this abound: 
interlibrary loan, consortial acquisitions of both print and 
electronic resources, OCLC, sharing of bibliographies and guides, 
etc. The Internet certainly enhances the possibilities for 
cooperation. To answer Eric's question about why two libraries 
should do the same thing, I would point out that no two researchers 
will compile the same list of resources. Redundancy in this manner 
enriches the resource pool. No, everyone should not be doing the 
same thing, but a librarian putting together a collection of resources 
on "Black Women Writers of the 1930's" in New York will most likely 
come up with a different set than a librarian in Iowa. Both 
collections will probably be tailored to the local user population and 
this is why redundancy isn't so bad.

Dale




______
Dale Askey
General Reference, Marriott Library
University of Utah
295 South 1500 East
Salt Lake City, UT  84112
Phone: (801) 587-9061
Fax: (801) 585-3464
daskey at library.utah.edu