[1467] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Chained Books
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU ((Lee Jaffe, Microcomp)
Tue Oct 13 15:27:37 1992
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:14:02 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
From: "(Lee Jaffe, Microcomputer & Network Services)" <jaffe@scilibx.ucsc.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
While I have, for the most part, avoided the usual open season blood-lust
that usually follows any of Michael Hart's postings (I've discovered that
he enjoys goring librarians and listening to us howl), I couldn't let this
last posting pass unanswered.
I won't go through the usual rationalizations and presentation of creden-
tials in order to establish that I am really a very forward-thinking
person. I won't even bother to try to demolish the hackneyed rhetoric
and tired allusions that are a regular feature of most "library of the
future" monologues that are slapped together. I even think I'll leave
off trying to prove that as institutions go, Project Gutenberg is far more
vulnerable to the coming information revolution (no, Michael, it hasn't
happened yet) than libraries are.
What I'd like to do (and have started on other lists) is to begin a dialogue
with my colleagues about what this technology means and will mean in our
performing the work that we do. What I would like to accomplish is to start
hearing from folks how the core mission of libraries and librarians will
take advantage of the new technology. At the heart of this question is a
wish to find and validate that there is a common thread running through this
profession. My current mantra goes like this: "I'm a librarian. I help
people with their information needs. To do this, I need to go where the
information is and deliver it in whatever form is most useful to them."
This is one of those two-edged swords; it cuts both ways. It says that we
need to recognize that more and more people use computers in their work and
daily lives, and that more and more information is available through net-
works and other online services. It also says that a huge part of the popu-
lation of this country lives without access to basic necessities, not to
mention computers and equally recognizes that electronic formats are not
always appropriate user formats, even though the information may be stored
and transmitted electronically. It acknowledges the value of all library
work and credits the judgement of our colleagues as they struggle with
whatever shrinking resources are available to them to accomplish our shared
mission.
Those of us who have key roles in implementing information technologies
into our institutions have a dual role: one, to pioneer, to champion, to
teach and encourage others to accept and use the new tools; and, two, to
maintain a professional perspective that allows for more than one way of
doing things. Let me cop to my own intolerance here and say that I've
tossed more than my share of brick-bats in the direction of those that
have expressed fear and loathing at any mention of technological change.
But I've been brought up short by colleagues that tried to get me to see
what the source of that fear is and also by reading even more intolerant
comments other techies. I think we need to start seeking a common vision
about technology that includes the whole range of the profession. To do
that, I think it would help to start with some groundrules:
* The book as we know it, the printed paper codex, will not go away.
Predictions to the contrary are as reliable (and usually self-serving)
as other visions of the future. (I still remember the Corfam shoes from
the New York World's Fair.)
* Technology is going to have an ever greater impact on the way we produce,
transmit, store, retrieve and use information. This will likely supplant
other technologies - such as print, the phonograph record, microfilm -
in some specific applications.
If we can accept that there is going to be a more pluralistic mix of
technologies (low-tech and high-tech coexisting), that the book has its
niche and that technology is not something we can choose not to accept,
then we can move forward together.
The next step I think is to start talking reasonably about how that tech-
nology can be used to help us do what we set out to do. What do predictions
about vast online libraries without walls say to a children's library whose
main concern may be coping with growing numbers of latch-key kids, or
increasing questions about sexual abuse? My guess is that it makes them
feel unsupported and left to cope by themselves. What does it mean to a
school librarian whose entire collection budget comes from bake sales,
who can never expect to have a computer to use or funds to join a network
that using the latest optical recording technology you can store the entire
text of Alice In Wonderland for about $.01. (Ever notice that there isn't
a cent sign on computer keyboards. Hmmm.) So let's start talking about
how the technology can help real librarians dealing with real problems,
which has been, I believe, at the foundation of this profession. And let's
not scorn colleagues who, because of their institutional affiliations or
the nature of their clientele, choose a different path than the one we
think leads to the shining future. We have a job to do, we have users to
serve, and we are still in the best position to decide how to do it.
End soapbox....
IMNSHO,
-- Lee Jaffe, UC Santa Cruz
jaffe@scilibx.ucsc.edu
