SIVACRACY.NET

I hate to defend people perfectly capable of defending themselves, but -- speaking as a pragmatist who regularly presents at conferences with librarians -- there are two reasons I'd say that "notliz" is misguided in her criticism: one technological and one rhetorical. And I say this as someone who has observed large-scale digitization projects (most recently the digitizing of the Congressional Record by Readex) and written about them.

First, despite their market dominance in having algorithms for keyword searching, Google doesn't have superior technology for doing the actual digitizing of printed materials. I don't think they've invented a magic MRI-type machine that can digitize books without mechanically turning the pages. Even the fancy vaccuum cleaner machines I've seen require a live minder watching every page (although their salespeople don't say so). Besides, by outsourcing digitizing, it takes librarians and trained indexers out of the picture and turns the field into a low wage, ill-documented operation. What librarian would support that?

Second, it's rhetorically dishonest to claim the moral high ground if U of M's decision is just convenient corporate sponsorship of a university-centered initiative. By the logic of "notliz," how is this any more "noble" (as her university president claims) than having a corporation buy students a needed computer lab or food court? It also will eventually make the current "open stacks" of many university libraries closed to outsiders in the community who don't have a university login. It's not what you learn about libraries from doing a dissertation, but what you learn about libraries when you aren't. I've used open stacks in libraries around the world, and I think it's an important part of a larger Enlightenment project about access to knowledge.

Can I sign off as "notnotliz"?

Two comments:

First, I never meant to imply that Google's actual methods of digitization were in any way superior to those practiced by libraries. I have no real way of knowing whether they are or are not. But I do contest Ms. Losh's assertion that Google's involvement "takes librarians and trained indexers out of the picture." Google's interface and index are their own; the libraries' copies, the interfaces they create for them, and the methods they devise for metadata construction, etc, are similarly their own. Digitization isn't a combative process where one entity's doing something prevents others from doing similar things with the same raw materials. That's the beauty of it. The Google project, the OCA, various independent library and corporate initiatives -- these things all add into the total body of printed material that has been or will be digitized. Accretive, not combative.

Second, I'm curious how Ms. Losh thinks that this type of initiative is likely to lead to closing off the library stacks to those without a login. Perhaps she would like to elucidate? It seems like an interesting point; I'm afraid I just don't see the connection.

1) If Google's method's aren't superior, why encourage the public perception that corporations are taking care of digitization problems, and we don't need public investment?

2) So, you don't think that universities are pressured to reduce their physical collections once digital copies are available? And you don't think that legal copyright challenges will encourage universities to use closed systems for access to digital collections, which are more clearly in the "fair use" context of education? I sincerely hope you are right.