[WEB4LIB] RE: Article - "Post-Tasini: Pity the Librarians"

[peter h mccracken]

I disagree, to an extent, with the expression that this problem has been
exaggerated. Certainly, Bill is correct in stating that this affects only
earlier articles, before contracts with free-lancers provided for further
dissemination of the content. And Proquest databases, for example, offer
just the last 90 days of the NYT, so that's not an issue.

But LexisNexis (sans hyphen, as of several weeks ago) has NYT back to
1980, and they will *not* include an indexed mention of an article for
which they do not have full-text content. This issue came up recently on
the Academic Universe user discussion list, where a librarian asked why
they couldn't find a specific article in the database. It turned out that
the author was on LexisNexis' list of 'do not reproduce' authors. (I don't
remember the specific wording they used.)

List members asked why there wasn't at least a citation for the article,
and LexisNexis representatives explained that they get the full-text data
from the providers as simply a mass of data; given the amount of data they
load they cannot process it all themselves, and have to go with what
they're given. Attempting to include citations for those articles where
they don't have the full text would be too time consuming for them.

I, for one, was reminded that LexisNexis is simply a reseller of data:
they don't see themselves in the indexing and abstracting business. So
they package and organize and resell what they receive from the content
providers, but they don't create records for articles or works that they
did not themselves receive from the publishers.

Also, the decision could have far-reaching implications for retrospective
digitization projects. What if someone decides to create a full-text
version of a retrospective Reader's Guide? Since they're not reproducing
an entire version of a specific journal, but rather a disparate collection
of unrelated articles, and the publishers don't hold blanket copyright
agreements, it could make for a spotty collection, at best.

So obviously, we need to be maintaining our microfilm or print runs of
these journals if we want to provide full access to them for our patrons.

"Full text" databases are becoming less and less "full text" every day!

Peter H. McCracken                    Reference & Instructional Librarian
Odegaard Undergraduate Library                  petermcc at u.washington.edu
Univ. of Washington, Box 353080                    office: (206) 616-1969
Seattle, WA  98195-3080                               fax: (206) 685-8485
*Maritime History on the Internet: http://ils.unc.edu/maritime/home.html*

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Drew, Bill wrote:

> I think the effect on libraries and users has been greatly exaggerated.  How
> many libraries actually have access to the New York Times beyond ten years
> ago?  It was ten years ago, from what I understand, that NYT started
> including electronic redistribution n their agreements.  Most of the NY
> Times we access is the last 90 days.  The rest we have on microfilm or in
> print.  I do think its stupid that the NY Times does not come to an
> agreement with its writers instead of deleting information..  The indexing
> will still be in the databases any way.
>
> Bill Drew
>