Librarian of Congress: stupid dick
2004-12-28 11:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archerships[This is dated 04/15/2000, so attitudes may have changed since then, but this makes me furious. Thank [DEITY] for Google.]
http://www.techlawjournal.com/educ/20000415.htm
Library of Congress Will Not Digitize Books
(April 15, 2000) The Librarian of Congress, James Billington, gave an address at the National Press Club on Friday, April 14, on the role of the Library of Congress in the Information Age. He harshly criticized the Internet, and stated that the Library will not digitize books. However, the Library has plans to expand its web publication of other materials.
The Library of Congress's forthcoming web site, which James Billington describes as "America's web site", will be located at americaslibrary.gov, starting on April 24.
"So far, the Internet seems to be largely amplifying the worst features of television's preoccupation with sex and violence, semi-literate chatter, shortened attention spans, and near-total subservience to commercial marketing," said Billington.
Billington said that the Library of Congress has plans to unveil a new web site. "We hope it will realize one of the earliest promises of the Internet: to put the Library of Congress at the fingertips of every boy and girl where they live."
But then he followed up by stating the "we are not digitizing books, but bringing hitherto little used, specially formatted materials like maps and recordings ..." He added that the new web site "is not replacing our traditional print library."
He said that the Library of Congress now has 28 Million items in its print collection, and 119 Million items in all formats. Its web site currently contains 3 million primary documents, including drafts of the Gettysburg Address, 19th Century baseball cards, and forgotten music.
Billington elaborated on why the Library will not put books online during the question and answer session. "The rationale is two fold. We have so much special format material that nobody has seen that it is more important to get those out." He added that the Library is more concerned with "rare pamphlets" than "full books".
"Secondly, behind this ... is an implicit belief [that books] are not going to be replaced, and should not be replaced."
"There is a difference between turning pages and scrolling down," he said. "There is something about a book that should inspire a certain presumption of reverence."
"We should be very hesitant ... that you are going to get everything you want electronically."
"You don't want to be one of those mindless futurists," said Billington, "who sit in front of a lonely screen."
"It is isolating. It is a lonely thing." In contrast, "libraries are places, a community thing."
"It is dangerous to promote the illusion that you can get anything you want by sitting in front of a computer screen." He described this as "arrogance" and "hubris".
He added that while electronic books may succeed commercially, they are "seductive."
Tech Law Journal asked Billington if there is any parallel between hostility to the printing press in the late 15th and early 16th Centuries, and hostility to the Internet today. He stated that there is, but that there is also a significant difference. Billinton explained that some of the hostility to the printing press originated because cheap reproduction made books and pamphlets available to more people. Previously, only kings and an elite few had access to libraries. The printing press made the public library possible. Billington stated that in contrast, public libraries are a "political institution" today.
He also stated that the Reformation was largely fought with the printing press, and that "media revolutions provoke intense debate."
Billington was also asked whether public libraries which provide Internet access for their patrons should use filtering software. He responded that "we don't provide an answer."
However, he elaborated that "there should be no question that the tradition of free public libraries ... is the absolute platform of essentiality for our democracy." Furthermore, in public libraries "there is an inherent adversity to censorship."
He said that at the Library of Congress, the focus is to provide "an example of the good." In contrast, if the government gets into "defining the bad, you get onto the slippery slope of defining the bad."
He added that communities should be free to decide.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/educ/20000415.htm
Library of Congress Will Not Digitize Books
(April 15, 2000) The Librarian of Congress, James Billington, gave an address at the National Press Club on Friday, April 14, on the role of the Library of Congress in the Information Age. He harshly criticized the Internet, and stated that the Library will not digitize books. However, the Library has plans to expand its web publication of other materials.
The Library of Congress's forthcoming web site, which James Billington describes as "America's web site", will be located at americaslibrary.gov, starting on April 24.
"So far, the Internet seems to be largely amplifying the worst features of television's preoccupation with sex and violence, semi-literate chatter, shortened attention spans, and near-total subservience to commercial marketing," said Billington.
Billington said that the Library of Congress has plans to unveil a new web site. "We hope it will realize one of the earliest promises of the Internet: to put the Library of Congress at the fingertips of every boy and girl where they live."
But then he followed up by stating the "we are not digitizing books, but bringing hitherto little used, specially formatted materials like maps and recordings ..." He added that the new web site "is not replacing our traditional print library."
He said that the Library of Congress now has 28 Million items in its print collection, and 119 Million items in all formats. Its web site currently contains 3 million primary documents, including drafts of the Gettysburg Address, 19th Century baseball cards, and forgotten music.
Billington elaborated on why the Library will not put books online during the question and answer session. "The rationale is two fold. We have so much special format material that nobody has seen that it is more important to get those out." He added that the Library is more concerned with "rare pamphlets" than "full books".
"Secondly, behind this ... is an implicit belief [that books] are not going to be replaced, and should not be replaced."
"There is a difference between turning pages and scrolling down," he said. "There is something about a book that should inspire a certain presumption of reverence."
"We should be very hesitant ... that you are going to get everything you want electronically."
"You don't want to be one of those mindless futurists," said Billington, "who sit in front of a lonely screen."
"It is isolating. It is a lonely thing." In contrast, "libraries are places, a community thing."
"It is dangerous to promote the illusion that you can get anything you want by sitting in front of a computer screen." He described this as "arrogance" and "hubris".
He added that while electronic books may succeed commercially, they are "seductive."
Tech Law Journal asked Billington if there is any parallel between hostility to the printing press in the late 15th and early 16th Centuries, and hostility to the Internet today. He stated that there is, but that there is also a significant difference. Billinton explained that some of the hostility to the printing press originated because cheap reproduction made books and pamphlets available to more people. Previously, only kings and an elite few had access to libraries. The printing press made the public library possible. Billington stated that in contrast, public libraries are a "political institution" today.
He also stated that the Reformation was largely fought with the printing press, and that "media revolutions provoke intense debate."
Billington was also asked whether public libraries which provide Internet access for their patrons should use filtering software. He responded that "we don't provide an answer."
However, he elaborated that "there should be no question that the tradition of free public libraries ... is the absolute platform of essentiality for our democracy." Furthermore, in public libraries "there is an inherent adversity to censorship."
He said that at the Library of Congress, the focus is to provide "an example of the good." In contrast, if the government gets into "defining the bad, you get onto the slippery slope of defining the bad."
He added that communities should be free to decide.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-29 05:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-29 08:47 am (UTC)Dated: Tuesday, Dec 14, 2004 05:36 AM
loc.gov
Date: 2004-12-29 05:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-29 08:59 am (UTC)Though what format is best is a good one. Searchable text or digital pics, or hybrid, etc. So far most of mine have both, since some of what I'm digitizing is handwritten but typed for searchability.
I will conceed that digital has a ways to go before the utility and the tactile pleasure of paper. But right now I'm reading this on a 1200x1600 monitor that 15" diagonal. It's pretty close to paper.
"who sit in front of a lonely screen" what a strange thing to say, I rarely see people in libraries talking with each other unlike barns and nobles, and internet cafes, and certainly not internet gaming places where people are shouting at each other. I don't remember the last book I had a decent conversation through, unlike say livejournal.
"Previously only kings and an elite had access to libraries" umm. Last i checked the internet was generally more ubiquitous than going to the library (or music/video store, cable, etc), the libraries here aren't even open on Fridays. I wonder if that is in some ways a version of censorship.
LOC & the Net
Date: 2004-12-29 05:41 pm (UTC)But to play devil's advocate, part of this may be the result of hard learned lessons of experience.
I suspect part of the resistance may be tied to the bad effects from the last time libraries were talked into scanning their collections of stodgy old dead trees in favor of the modern technology of the future: microfilm. While certainly useful in making copies of material accessible, it only started being admitted in recent years what a disaster the microfilming projects were, damaging and destroying much irreplacable original material, while the copies were often incomplete, of lower usable resolution than the originals (which many libraries dumped when the new microfims came in). Much info was simply lost. And time has shown that the advantages of microfilm over paper for long term preservation were widely over-rated.
The LOC also has one hell of a problem with information stored in various media requiring technology to access-- with audio recordings, one can start with mentioning reel-to-reel tape (which is not a single format, but a family of them, some requiring incompatable machinery to play), phonograph cylinders (ditto), disc records (ditto and beyond)...
The librarian may fear that whatever digital format they select to share the info now may in a generation or two have the relevence and widespread usablitly that Gopher space does now, and fear that the medium they store it in will have the long term reliability of the 8-track tape machine.
Certainly it is well known that historically the best way to assure the preservation of information is to make multiple widely distributed copies. However the last 150 years have shown that the best way to assure the information remains accessible is to store it in as low tech a medium as possible.
I hope the internet will show the last corrilary to be a no longer relevent abberation. But when luddites say it's too early to tell, I can't disagree.