[Web4lib] Re: One consequence of the digitization programs

[Pierfranco Minsenti]

Hi,

the interesting issue posed by Anders Ericson reminds me of the (now old)
discussion about the definition of a digital library and if the web is a
digital library or not.
For ex. Marilyn Deegan and Simon Tanner* in Digital Futures: Strategies for
the information age*
say that the web can't be considered a digital library because there are
neither collection policies nor procedures for weeding collections, that is
for deselection.
Another reason is connected to the copyright regulations about books that
can't be put in the public domain. These two, I think, are the real causes
of the problems which Anders Ericson points at speaking of the consequences
of the digitisations projects.

Obviously this situation can't be compared to that of a physical library
because these two problems are specific of digital collections. Infact,
either in a public library or in an academic library there is no
restrictions to access to copyrighted books and librarians undertake a
regular assessment of collections in the open stacks for moving out-of-date
books to a deposit (maybe even an off site deposit; obviuosly in an academic
library the procedures for the assessment of out-to-date sources of
information vary a lot dependant on the discipline).

However, I think that the main problems connected to the free availability
through the Google search engine of digitised books is an effect of the
Google digitisation project because it concerns also out-of-date essays and
research monographs. The problem is that the Google Books project risks to
result in a very primitive digital library composed just of digitised texts,
with no services apart from free access to collections which are in the
public domain. Obviously if we speak of the real needs of the knowledge
society, effective services are of crucial importance, not only collections
of digital information. From an educational point of view  I think that
surely Wikipedia is a much more effective solution for providing up-to-date
information and external links to digitized books which are worth reading,
provided that somebody manages Wikipedia entries. But for providing external
links, even Wikipedia needs somebody to put online digitised collections!
So, it can't be denied that even simple digitisation can be worthwile.
Simply we have also to recognize that this is not enough.

Instead in my opinion libraries and digital humanities centres (such as IATH
at the University of Virginia) have proven to be able to build much more
interesting collections of digital materials in the public domain or of
historical interest. They have realised complex archives of digital
materials that enable the reader to navigate within a web of connections.
These are not just scanned books. Also think of the Electronic Enlightenment
initiative at the University of Oxford (http://www.e-enlightenment.info/)
full of links to refence materials (Dictionaries, Encyclopedias). This
certainly reminds more of Wikipedia than Google Books. Surely this requires
the work of scholars and editors, is not just as easy as putting a book on a
scanner.

As for Amazon: they enrich their catalog through authomatic processing and
crossing bibliographic data with other data about book purchases which
should work as a kind of  other readers' suggestions. It can be useful, but
still this is neither collection management, nor reference service.

Pierfranco Minsenti
-------------------------------------
Pierfranco Minsenti
Ca' Foscari University
Venice (Italy)
E-mail: minsenti at unive.it




2007/11/7, Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net>:
>
> Walt Crawford wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Bibliographic Instruction is lovely. I don't see how it can or should
> happen
> > at the point of transaction unless a user asks for it. And most of us
> won't.
> >
>
> I, for one, would love for books to have self-knowledge, and to let me
> know when there is more information about them that is available. I want
> the memex, the shared database of connections, and I want it to be
> visible. When I get to a book online I want at least to see something
> like:
>
> Editions available: 1960 1980 (this one is 1970)
> 7 books cite this book: [link]
> This author also wrote.....
>
> etc. People don't think to ask for something that they don't know is
> there.
>
> This is why Amazon fills the book page with all kinds of information
> about the book, and links to other products that might not have occurred
> to you. If you aren't interested, you ignore it, but if you are browsing
> or unsure, then it can be invaluable.
>
> kc
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
> fx.: 510-848-3913
> mo.: 510-435-8234
> ------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>