[WEB4LIB] Re: Shirky (fwd) [LONG!]

[David Merchant]

>Billington did not stop there, however. He also advanced
>_philosophical_ reasons why books should not be digitized, once which
>suggested that spreading text to people who lack physical access to
>libraries is not, and should not be, a priority.
>
>Here we disagree, violently. Hence the essay.

I would also disagree, violently, had BiIllington indeed suggested that 
libraries should not spread text to people who lack physical access to 
libraries.  But I've read his remarks twice now, and see no evidence of his 
even suggesting such a thing.  I guess it's a matter of interpretation, and 
we all have filters over our eyes, but if I may repeat part of a previous 
post of mine on this topic:

Saying "We should be very hesitant ... that you are going to get everything 
you want electronically" is not the same as saying we shouldn't put 
anything at all up electronically. Hesitant is the key word, he didn't say
"we should not" he said "we should be very hesitant" which are two 
different things. I do think Billington is too hesitant, myself, but I do 
see he is very willing to put up rare items electronically. Putting up rare 
items shows that he doesn't have "contempt for U.S. citizens who 
don't  happen to live within walking distance of his
library" for if he did, he wouldn't be putting up those very rare items!!! 
That he supports digitizing these items suggests very strongly that 
spreading text to people who lack physical access to his library is indeed 
a priority.

And from Billington's remarks:

"Adding a virtual electronic library to the traditional artifactual library 
is essential to sustain the original                         Jeffersonian 
dream of knowledge shared with more people and used in more ways. A virtual 
library is also                         a practical necessity in a world 
where new knowledge  is increasingly being generated and communicated only 
in digital form."

Sounds to me that Billington supports spreading text to people who lack 
physical access to his library, and from his wording ("essential", 
"practical necessity") it sounds like this is a priority.

Further:

"We are attempting to extend the basic democratic principle of free access 
to knowledge embedded in our library tradition into cyberspace through our 
National Digital Library/American Memory program and summer institutes that 
we have been holding for teachers from all over America."

Free access to the knowledge contained within the library via the Internet 
-- sounds, again, like Billington supports spreading text to people who 
lack physical access to his library.

Yes, he did say that they were not digitizing books, but the rare 
materials, some of which the LoC may have the only copy of. And I feel that 
is the right priority: get the rare items up, items that are impossible to 
get via interlibrary loan from some other library or impossible to find at 
your own local library, or nearly impossible. Many other items the LOC has 
can be found at some area library, or via interlibrary loan from some other 
library, (as well as their project of "free reading materials to 765,000 
blind and physically handicapped Americans") and heck there are already 
free etexts of some public domain books up on the web. After that is done, 
then let's talk to him about getting the other stuff up as well (that which 
copyright laws will allow!). With over 22,000 books coming in a month, with 
the book collection in the tens of millions, with copyright restrictions, 
it is a daunting task to digitize that material. Material most of which can 
be obtained via interlibrary loan (and only a small percentage of people 
have Internet access in their homes, in many countries that percentage is 
single digit!).  No solution is 100% perfect, which I'm glad to see you 
don't feel that the net is perfect.

>I am not arguing that the net is perfect. I am arguing that digitized
>text gives more people access to the contents of books. I did not
>advocate digitizing books and then discarding them, for example,
>though a surprising number of people have read that into this essay.

One could argue that your essay suggested it, just as you argue that 
Billington's essay suggests "that spreading text to people who lack 
physical access to libraries is not, and should not be, a priority." If we 
can get the wrong suggestion from your essay, is it possible that you got 
the wrong suggestion from Billington's remarks?  Just possible at all?

>And I don't understand your contempt for people who want access to
>materials on the net. How can it be good to archive non-book materials
>because it is a boon to humanity, but bad to digitize books because
>the net is a cesspool of mediocrity?

He did say the net was mediocre, but he never said that was the reason not 
to digitize books. Read in context, his comments take on another meaning: 
the paragraph where he compares the Internet of today with TV began with 
him saying that "Adding a virtual electronic library to the traditional 
artifactual library is essential" and "A virtual library is also a 
practical necessity".  He then compares the net "so far" with mediocre TV. 
He then immediately follows that comparison with a new paragraph that 
starts off But there is an enormous new educational potential in the 
Internet that the Library of Congress has been systematically helping the 
nation develop..."  He closes that paragraph by referring back to the TV 
analogy: "Unlike television, which basically imposes a bumper car of 
emotions on passive spectators, the Internet requires a train of thought 
that activates minds to pursue their own directions through an interactive 
process."  These are the remarks of someone who is not opposed to putting 
information on the web, but who, in fact, states that it is a necessity and 
that the LoC will help in that.  He said nothing, nothing at all, that it 
was "bad to digitize books because the net is a cesspool of mediocrity."

So why does Mr. Billington resist, or is very hesitant about putting books 
up on the net?  If we go to his remarks we find the answers:

*  "The national library of America, like democratic America itself, adds 
without subtracting. A new immigrant does not evict an old resident, nor 
does a new technology supplant an older form of expression." [no suggestion 
that the net is bad, in fact it is saying the Internet "adds" -- it just 
shouldn't subtract.]

*  "Our virtual library does not replace our 28-million-item print 
collection any more than our published books replace our 53-million-item 
manuscript collection." [not saying the net is bad, just that it, in his 
opinion, shouldn't replace the physical collection.  Again, the net adds 
but shouldn't subtract.]

  * "Meanwhile, the established, old-fashioned work of this unique national 
knowledge conglomerate must    continue."  [this does not put down the net, 
just says we should keep the old-fashioned work as well, and notice he does 
call it "old-fashioned"]

None of the above says it is "bad to digitize books because the net is a 
cesspool of mediocrity." It seems to me that he is just being cautious, 
hesitant, about losing the physical hard copies, that he wants to walk a 
moderate road.  Walking the moderate road means he is indeed accepting and 
embracing the Internet, but that he's just not over-zealous about it. 
Librarians tend to be sentimental about books. There is a certain 
"something" that a book printed on paper has that no electronic device can 
ever duplicate (even the thin plastic digital sheets) that some people will 
want, or miss.  The Library of Congress is a special case library.  Even if 
all other libraries gave up their physical collection, I would argue that 
the LoC should never ever give up theirs.  It's like saying "we have a 
digitalize copy of the Declaration of Independence, so why keep the paper 
version?"  I know now that you are not saying that, but I'm just trying to 
put Mr. Billington in context of his position, of where he works and for 
what he works: if any librarian should be hesitant about losing the 
physical collection, it should be the Librarian of Congress (again, not 
saying that you feel the collection should go).  I wouldn't want a person 
in charge of the LoC that was not hesitant. I can see how Mr. Billington 
would want to be very careful not to set into motion anything that _may_ 
endanger the physical collection. I rather he err on the side of 
caution.  Calling for his resignation isn't the way to help the LoC to ease 
their fears about that,  instead it'll do the reverse: calling for the 
Librarian of Congress to resign because he is hesitant about digitizing the 
collection would be easily seen by many as a threat to that collection. 
Right or wrong, that's how many would view it.

>Nor should they be: they are a non-profit. But surely one of the goals
>of a state-supported library should be increased access for the
>populace.

Access has been increased through the many net projects of the LoC:  "The 
Library's web site is already having real impact on American education with 
3 million of the most important and interesting primary documents of 
American history already online and 2 million more in the pipeline."  Let's 
not trivialize or minimize that huge contribution. Digitizing that several, 
or dozens, or many libraries already have (yes, it would still increase 
access) would not be as large of a contribution as digitizing one-of-a-kind 
items.  It should be an eventual goal, I agree, to digitize as many public 
domain items as possible, and to find means of digitizing copyright works 
where the copyright would not be violated, but I don't think it is a bad 
thing for the Librarian of Congress to make sure people don't get carried 
away and end up decreasing funding for the LoC's physical collection, etc.

>On the net, more people can access ideas, and do it more
>cheaply and with less regard to geographic barriers. How can this be
>bad?

Since the net is still in just a minority of people's homes, physical text 
and the means of loaning out that text are still the most important way for 
people to access information within libraries.  Digitizing those texts may 
make it quicker to access for the lucky few, but doesn't do squat for the 
world's majority.  But it does help tremendously the libraries that have 
Internet access: they now can "add" to their collection items they could 
never hope to add or even get by interlibrary loan.  Again, it makes very 
logical sense to start digitizing the rare items first.  And yes, the 
numbers connecting to the Internet from their own homes is increasing, and 
one day the net will be as ubiquitous as the TV or the radio.  But since 
that is still years away, and there are still raging debates about 
copyright, etc, I'm all for getting the rare items up for now, and lets 
start, or continue, dialogue on the rest.

So, call for Billington's resignation? Bit harsh for the circumstances. As 
someone on the list stated calling for his resignation "sounds like a 
zero-tolerance policy."  No one is perfect, has the perfect vision, has the 
perfect plan. Not me, not Billington, not Shirky, not anyone on the Web4lib 
list. Billington's imperfect plans, vision and ideas are not so imperfect 
as to call for his resignation, rather, dialogue / exchange of information 
and ideas / debate seems the better route. Who knows, he could always 
rethink and soften on this or that. Should we call for the resignation of 
everyone we disagree with or should we have dialogue?  Call for 
Billington's resignation? I've got too many other more pressing and more 
real crisises to take care of, thank you.

TTFN,
David
Head, Systems Department, Louisiana Tech University
Javascript list administrator <www.mountaindragon.com/javascript/>
Merchant's Encyclopedia of HTML <www.mountaindragon.com/html/>
webmaster at mountaindragon.com or merchant at latech.edu