Readings for 23 October 2006

"Introduction" by Redmond Kathleen Molz and Phyllis Dain

I found it interesting that Carnegie founded all these libraries with a view of improving American thinking. This is not so far from what the goal of libraries is, too -- just without (or supposedly without) the racial undertones of social Darwinism. Sure, the stated goals are to provide information goods and information services to the public. But why do that if not to improve someone's understanding, and thus thinking, on a topic? Carnegie's impact can still be felt today, I think -- even in the attitude expressed by Wolz and Dain later on, when they state that, in the 1990s, "traditional Eurocentric culture and traditional print culture were becoming endangered species." well, do Europeans and traditional print culture have a monopoly on aiding sometone to think better about a topic? I don't see why that should be assumed, and thus don't see the big problem.

"The Mission: Consensus and Contradiction" by Redmond Kathleen Molz and Phyllis Dain

The McLibrary! I must say that I love Baltimore's attitude. The librarian who said that the library should be a place of leisure and education is perhaps conflating his wants for his workplace with what the patrons deserve. Yes, the library should be leisurable and educational -- for the patron. Who says that bookstores aren't these things for the customers? Yet the workers operate it as a business. I think that librarian just objected to the nature of his work changing, and also liked the idea of working someplace he considered better than a common business. And that's not truly serving the patrons' needs, that's feeding your own.

"Human Values in a Technological Age" by Michael Gorman

It was very interesting to read about how technology has come into play throughout the creation of the library. I think Gorman's point about the technology being a tool is a salient one. Librarians of the nineteenth century weren't worried about whether typed card catalogs were going to cause a break-down of the library as we know it. It was, rather, all about whether it was going to work and help in the maintenance and management of the library. We need to view the current technology in the same way; it's not a huge philosophical issue a lot of the time. It's whether it aids us in our mission in getting information to the patrons, and whether it does it better than the current methods.

"Discourse and Censorship: Librarians and the Ideology of Freedom" by Steven R. Harris

Wow, that last statement! I think Harris is right; we aren't bastions of freedom and democracy. But is it good enough that we try? I think so. We attempt to provide free access to everyone and try to stock a wide variety of materials. To a certain extent, our hands are tied by the larger culture -- look at the issue of pornography. Even if librarians are willing to stock Penthouse and let patrons use computers for viewing porn websites, the public, for the most part, doesn't like it. We can fight for it, but is that our job, or the ACLU's? I think it might be best to build relationships with other groups who can fight some of these fights with us, so that we don't have to carry the entire burden. After all, these freedoms and rights are not just ours, they're everyone's. Shouldn't we attempt to connect to these people and help them stand up for their own rights, too?

"Why Thomas Jefferson Would Love Napster" by Siva Vaidhyanathan

I absolutely love that there is a historical base for serious debate on copyright. I feel strongly that copyright should be as patents are: a limited amount of time (like 5-10 years) during which the author can benefit. Any more seems to be anathema to the goal of it being an incentive to create -- once you've created, you can sit back and have the money come in. That's what investment's for, not copyright! People have the right to access work done. The current laws are serious barriers to that access.