[WEB4LIB] Re: Google Answers questions

[Raymond Wood]

[apologies to the list if this was inadvertently posted twice...]

> On Tue, 21 May 2002, Richard Wiggins wrote:
> > In any event, I dunno folks, but I think Google is onto something.

Bill Wines wrote:
> Well, maybe, but in terms of cost to the end-user, in nearly all cases, a
> consultation with a reference librarian is free; and I'm not sure how many
> people really care if they get footnotes and citations as long as they get
> an answer to their question along with a single credible and reliable (and
> cited) source.
> 
> What Google is on to (and I'm not dissing them for this by any means) is
> another slick way to extract money from people who have money to spend.  I
> don't think it's all that important for public libraries to spend a lot of
> time worrying about how they can compete with private enterprise.  OTOH, I
> think it is very important to spend more time thinking about how we can
> reach out to people who don't have $20 to spend finding out about
> helipcopter sorties over the Grand Canyon.
> 
> -----------------------------
> Bill Wines

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 05:43:07AM -0700, gwasdin at nypl.org remarked:
> Hmmm....perhaps.  But haven't you noticed that more and more
> people who may not necessarily "have" the money to spend, are
> spending it anyway on things they can get for free?
> 
> I think we have much to learn from places like Google (and on
> a similar level, Amazon/Barnes and Noble).  Why ARE people
> paying them money for things they can get for free at a
> library?  Is it that they do not know?  Or is it the
> convenience factor?   What could we do differently that would
> let people know what we can do here at a library?  How could
> we make ourselves more convenient to compete?  (24/7 reference
> for instance)
> 
> I do agree that we will always (maybe?) have a place in
> serving those who cannot afford to pay, but I also think we
> have to worry about keeping those patrons who CAN pay....we
> need them both, in large numbers!  Some would argue that we
> need those who can pay even more so, as they are more likely
> to be the ones who control, or have a voice in, public funding
> and support.
> 
> Do I have a point?  Not sure...I guess that I feel we just
> can't continue to use the "but we're free" argument.  being
> free is not enough to keep them coming.
> 
> Gary

Point taken, yet it seems to me that Bill's argument was more
about remembering a librarian's role in helping disadvantaged
members of the community.  

All too often librarians, and others, get distracted from their
altruistic mission statements by the same issues that plague the
disadvantaged even more severely -- modern society's unhealthy
and increasingly necessary preoccupation with basic 'survival'
issues.  It may be necessary in some cases, but it is still a
distraction when carried to extreme  ;-)

I can recall that when I grew up (in the 60's and 70's) this
disproportionate preoccupation with what I would refer to as
'basic survival issues', both by individuals and by
institutions, was nowhere near as pravalent as it appears to be
nowadays.  This is unfortunate, and IMHO disturbing.  Why is it
so difficult (or is it?) for our society and its members in the
new millenium to realize a better quality of life, for everyone,
rather than a poorer one?

Perhaps our collective priorities are misplaced.  Perhaps we
should be thinking more of others than ourselves?

My $0.02,
Raymond