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

[Clay Shirky]

Most of this long and persuasive reply truncated. I do concede that in
the same way my article was mis-read as being anti-book, I
over-emphasized Billington's distaste for the net.

That concession having been made, I still take issue with what I see
as the central argument, to wit:

> >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. 

I'm not. In fact, given the value of this contributino, I don't
understand why this doesn't make digitizing books seem more valuable. 

> 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.

This I think, is a big part of the Billington speech. His written
remarks were quite temperate, but his spoken remarks, in response to
questions, were altogether testier, and seemed to make the same
calculation that many are making here, which is that digitized books
threaten to de-legitimize libraries in the minds of many.

> 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.

Here we disagree, on two fronts:

First, the net now reaches a majority of adults in the US, and that
number is till growing. Arguments about the lucky few are harder to
sustain when that few is in the majority. Furthermore, the cost of
reaching additional readers via the net is plummeting, even as the
cost of building new libraries or increasing collection size is
growing. For this reason alone, I still disagree wiht Billington's
caution, because it seems to me he should be leading this, not
following. (You, I know, feel that his conservative position is a good
attribute. I don't think there is an answer here -- I just wanted to
clarify our disagreement.)

Second, the new does not displace the old, as you said. There are
people who can get material on the net which they can't get at their
local library. Surely the question of whether to reach those people
should be done on the basis of cost-benefit, not on special feeling
for books? 

Additionally, digitization would allow the LoC to distribute its books
globally, to English readers everywhere. I recognize that because
their funding is tied to national identity the idea of creating a
public good for a global populace is not part of their charter, but it
seems to me to be an important additional benefit of digitization.

>  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.

This seems to me to be the copyright tail wagging the digital
dog. From my point of view, it makes sense to digitize the most useful
items first, whatever they are.

> So, call for Billington's resignation? Bit harsh for the
> circumstances.

Fair enough. I apologize for my intemperance.

-clay