[WEB4LIB] Re: Google Print as the library's mission

[Junus, Ranti]

It seems to me Google Print is similar with other Electronic Resources such as Proquest, Elsevier, etc.  The only difference is Google provides the digital version of books.  

Interestingly enough, this service could enable a researcher to find interdiciplinary work outside our own library holdings.   My question would be: do we want our users to start searching through Google or our own online catalog?  And, my question regarding to academic libraries: If our faculty found the collections outside of our own holding and outside of of the subject area we have in our institution, what will that mean to us in term of supporting their research interest and needs?


ranti.

--
Ranti Junus - Systems
 100 Main Library W441
 Michigan State University
 East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
 +1.517.432.6123 ext. 231
 +1.517.432.8374 (fax)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib at webjunction.org
> [mailto:web4lib at webjunction.org]On Behalf Of K.G. Schneider
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 12:42 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: Google Print as the library's mission
> 
> 
> > And guaranteed longevity.  Google ultimately provides a 
> service only as
> > long as their investors can be convinced that it's in their 
> interest.
> > Get your users hooked on it today, and there's no solid 
> promise that it
> > will be there tomorrow.
> 
> I think I am starting to get some language to map to my 
> concerns. Call it
> the WalMart syndrome. I'm concerned not only that Google 
> could decide, down
> the road, that preservation of the written record just isn't 
> their bag, man,
> but also that Google could decide it is very much worth their 
> while to be
> not merely the premier but the only database provider, and 
> get to that point
> by squeezing out other competitors (the database equivalent 
> of the local
> hardware store) until we live in a Google/Froogle/Schoogle universe. 
> 
> This could mean: 
> 
> * Information unavailable due to cost decisions that it's not worth
> archiving (like BevMo not carrying tiny local wines, to use a 
> California
> example). 
> 
> * Information unavailable because Google believes its 
> investors would be
> upset if they made it available (fill in any example of edgy 
> information)
> 
> * Content that IS available that we as librarians wouldn't offer (like
> Google's notorious ads for paper mills; why they need 
> advertising from paper
> mills is beyond me, unless it fuels projects such as Schoogle)
> 
> * Information we can't afford because in a noncompetitive 
> environment Google
> can jack up the prices or arrange the licensing or the technical
> availability to benefit the single licensor more than the 
> organizational
> licensor (support proxies? Why bother?)
> 
> Just some googly thoughts. 
> 
> Karen G. Schneider
> kgs at bluehighways.com
> 
> 
> 
>