4 ms·

Why would anyone think libraries are important in 2017? If things keep getting digitalized at the current speed, all knowledge of the world will be accessible

by sddfd 9y ago

Why would anyone think libraries are important in 2017? If things keep getting digitalized at the current speed, all knowledge of the world will be accessible online in our lifetime. Unless you believe that a large percentage of citizens will not be able to afford a device for accessing the internet, libraries are a waste of money. Oh and since librarians were mentioned, if AI keeps advancing, we will be able to have a conversation with a search engine within 30 years. So who needs a librarian?

magic_beans 9y ago
It's not belief. It's fact that a large percentage of citizens are unable to access desktop computers for work/jobs, though they might have an internet-enabled phone. Have you ever been to a library in the inner city, or in any big city for that matter?
- olegkikin 9y ago
  The internet penetration in the US last year was 88.5%, it's higher now. What is this "large percentage" exactly? What important information can't you get through a cheap smartphone and public Wifi?
  - cookiecaper 9y ago
    Not to mention, it's not hard to find a well-used laptop in the US for virtually nothing, and with things like Chromebooks, you can get something new for around $100. There are charities that furnish computer access either through directly providing a cheap laptop or by offering shared access at centers, etc. It's absurd to suggest that we need to spend millions building and maintaining traditional public libraries just because some people do not have immediate access to a computer.
- sddfd 9y ago
  I concede, I've only ever been in a large campus library in the US. Also I agree, if a few percent of the population cannot afford to access the internet there is a serious problem. I just doubt that libraries are an effective way to solve this problem.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  If that's the issue, why spend the money building libraries instead of making computers cheaper and more accessible? Computerized/digital information sources are far more efficient than physical information sources by practically any measure. They are not only easier to use, but they are easier to store, ship, etc. One thick textbook is much heavier than a single Kindle that could store the information equivalent of 100 thick textbooks, and dust mites won't eat the pages of your Kindle. Pretty much the only thing it's missing is a built-in solar power source, but you can probably attach it to USB solar power source, and it seems it'd be easier to get that infrastructure in place v. a whole library. Seems like we're missing the forest for the trees here.
losteric 9y ago
# rant: disagree with comments not votes! I disagree with that sentiment.. Are books a waste of money? In-person public speaking events? Museums? The internet is a global Library of Alexandria, but it's absurd to suggest we no longer need smaller repositories of knowledge or physical copies/originals... Especially as the internet is increasingly fractured, censured, monitored, and otherwise limited. They serve similar but not identical purposes. Libraries have always been more than the books, just like books are more than the facts contained within.
- icebraining 9y ago
  I think it's wrong, but it's not absurd. Let's argue, not shout down. It's true that the Internet is often fractured, censured, monitored, and otherwise limited, but the same can be said of libraries, unfortunately; an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Awareness_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Awareness_Program
  - losteric 9y ago
    Who's shouting down? Online foreign counter-government literature can be globally censored by a national censoring, corporate-critical websites can be taken down by invalid copyright/trademark notices while books cannot be pulled without thorough vetting, and most websites out there slowly decay into dust - far faster than books. My point is not that books and libraries are superior - it's that they are different from the internet, both tools convey knowledge with unique strengths and weaknesses. I do think it's absurd to simply write them off as "a waste of money", an irredeemable tool that was waiting to be made obsolete. We will rebalance our usage just like we rebalanced radio after TV came out and TV after the internet - the end-state is a very interesting question, TBD whether books follow the path of vinyl or VCR, but I think "complete elimination" is the most improbable path.
- olegkikin 9y ago
  That's some weird straw man argument. He didn't say books are a waste of money, he said paper books and libraries (physical buildings) are irrelevant, he explained his position. I agree with him. Libraries are one of the least efficient ways to deliver quality information to to the masses, especially up-to-date information. They are slow, expensive, require driving, paper books slowly rot, buildings occupy useful space.
Pieman103021 9y ago
A library is free, even if all of the world's knowledge is online it would cost money to access in addition to paying for internet. The point of libraries is to remove any barrier to entry for knowledge. I can go to my library and get access to journals and articles I would have to pay for otherwise. It is not a huge waste of money, it is a great way to save. Taxes are paid into the library and as a result the community as a whole benefits. Ignoring all of that,you say people can get all of their knowledge online now. Please remember that you're fortunate enough to own a computer or cell phone with a data plan. Many people only have access to the internet at the library. Libraries have survived through all of history for a reason, the internet will not kill them. If they are defunded they will be formed by people like Bezos who recognize the huge benefit they provide to society.
- adventured 9y ago
  > A library is free, even if all of the world's knowledge is online it would cost money to access in addition to paying for internet. I wish that were true. It's not. Libraries cost money. Acquiring, storing, maintaining a book in a room, with climate control and a proper shelter, costs more than storing the same book digitally. Providing access to copies of a physical book, to just a million people spread across the US, is extremely expensive compared to doing the same thing digitally via the Internet. Someone should run an estimate on that, it's such an astounding gap in cost as to be absurd. There are many good arguments for libraries. That they don't cost money or are somehow free, is not one of them. They're subsidized systems of knowledge, primarily for the benefit of people lacking resources to otherwise access that information inexpensively (along with other various community and peaceful space benefits they usually provide).
  - Pieman103021 9y ago
    You are 100% correct, that was an incorrect argument to make. I guess that was the whole point of the article too, so I really got that one wrong. It is important to recognize the incredible amount of money and social benefit going into and out of libraries, and I don't think they should be so quickly discounted just because it is 2017 and we have the internet.
egypturnash 9y ago
So let me tell you about the last time I went to the downtown Seattle library. I was there looking for inspiration - I wanted some interesting architecture to put into the background of a short comic I was nearly done drawing. Knowing that "architecture" was probably filed near the "art" section, I went up a few floors to where that was. I took my time getting there, as I was kind of there looking for serendipitous discoveries, not one particular tome. I browsed through the cartoon art section on the way and found something I'd always wanted to read. Put that under my arm and kept looking for the architecture section. I discovered that the art section also includes a big collection of file cabinets with Interesting Images clipped from magazines or whatever - visual inspiration, cool! I was looking for something more targeted in this case so I moved on after opening a few random drawers and peering in. When I finally found the architecture section, I was able to wander through it looking at big coffee-table books full of beautiful photographs very quickly. No waiting for anything to download - I just went "ooh, here's a book on Istanbul, that feels interesting, lemme look at it", and was able to pull it off the shelf and flip through the pages to get an idea of what sort of stuff was to be had within a matter of seconds. I spent a little while wandering through that section, ultimately leaving with books on the architecture of Cairo and Barcelona under my arm. I went up to the top floor of the library, which is a huge space with a lot of natural light, and a lot of desk lamps for the many times when Seattle is too overcast for that. It was the middle of a weekday, and there were a bunch of people from all parts of society hanging out there reading. Including folks without a home. I read the book I picked up in the cartoon section, then settled down to the serious business of paging through the architecture books and finding buildings I wanted to borrow. Photographed a few candidates with my phone, then put them on my computer and used them as reference to draw a cityscape. I probably spent a few hours there doing this. When I was done, I left the books in a neat pile on the desk I was using, and took the long way down. I passed through the fifth floor, which is a vast open space absolutely filled with computers: public access to the internet for those citizens who cannot, indeed, afford a device that can talk to it; a larger screen than a phone and an actual keyboard, and access to printers as well, for those who have a phone as their only privately-owned internet access. I don't need that, I'm sitting here in front of a 24" monitor, but there are a lot of people even in a rich town like Seattle who do. And it's also a place for the people who need that to get the hell out of the rain, and chill out with a book - maybe they're learning something, maybe they're just reading some escapism, whatever, both are great. And who needs a librarian? Well, everyone who needs to research something right now, instead of thirty years from now. Or sixty years from now, given that most of these kinds of predictions tend to take at least twice as long to come true, if they ever do. Having this big building that takes up a whole block of downtown real estate also makes a statement: Knowledge is something this city values.

by sddfd 9y ago

magic_beans 9y ago

It's not belief. It's fact that a large percentage of citizens are unable to access desktop computers for work/jobs, though they might have an internet-enabled phone. Have you ever been to a library in the inner city, or in any big city for that matter?

olegkikin 9y ago
The internet penetration in the US last year was 88.5%, it's higher now. What is this "large percentage" exactly? What important information can't you get through a cheap smartphone and public Wifi?
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  Not to mention, it's not hard to find a well-used laptop in the US for virtually nothing, and with things like Chromebooks, you can get something new for around $100. There are charities that furnish computer access either through directly providing a cheap laptop or by offering shared access at centers, etc. It's absurd to suggest that we need to spend millions building and maintaining traditional public libraries just because some people do not have immediate access to a computer.
sddfd 9y ago
I concede, I've only ever been in a large campus library in the US. Also I agree, if a few percent of the population cannot afford to access the internet there is a serious problem. I just doubt that libraries are an effective way to solve this problem.
cookiecaper 9y ago
If that's the issue, why spend the money building libraries instead of making computers cheaper and more accessible? Computerized/digital information sources are far more efficient than physical information sources by practically any measure. They are not only easier to use, but they are easier to store, ship, etc. One thick textbook is much heavier than a single Kindle that could store the information equivalent of 100 thick textbooks, and dust mites won't eat the pages of your Kindle. Pretty much the only thing it's missing is a built-in solar power source, but you can probably attach it to USB solar power source, and it seems it'd be easier to get that infrastructure in place v. a whole library. Seems like we're missing the forest for the trees here.

losteric 9y ago

# rant: disagree with comments not votes! I disagree with that sentiment.. Are books a waste of money? In-person public speaking events? Museums? The internet is a global Library of Alexandria, but it's absurd to suggest we no longer need smaller repositories of knowledge or physical copies/originals... Especially as the internet is increasingly fractured, censured, monitored, and otherwise limited. They serve similar but not identical purposes. Libraries have always been more than the books, just like books are more than the facts contained within.

icebraining 9y ago
I think it's wrong, but it's not absurd. Let's argue, not shout down. It's true that the Internet is often fractured, censured, monitored, and otherwise limited, but the same can be said of libraries, unfortunately; an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Awareness_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Awareness_Program
- losteric 9y ago
  Who's shouting down? Online foreign counter-government literature can be globally censored by a national censoring, corporate-critical websites can be taken down by invalid copyright/trademark notices while books cannot be pulled without thorough vetting, and most websites out there slowly decay into dust - far faster than books. My point is not that books and libraries are superior - it's that they are different from the internet, both tools convey knowledge with unique strengths and weaknesses. I do think it's absurd to simply write them off as "a waste of money", an irredeemable tool that was waiting to be made obsolete. We will rebalance our usage just like we rebalanced radio after TV came out and TV after the internet - the end-state is a very interesting question, TBD whether books follow the path of vinyl or VCR, but I think "complete elimination" is the most improbable path.
olegkikin 9y ago
That's some weird straw man argument. He didn't say books are a waste of money, he said paper books and libraries (physical buildings) are irrelevant, he explained his position. I agree with him. Libraries are one of the least efficient ways to deliver quality information to to the masses, especially up-to-date information. They are slow, expensive, require driving, paper books slowly rot, buildings occupy useful space.

Pieman103021 9y ago

A library is free, even if all of the world's knowledge is online it would cost money to access in addition to paying for internet. The point of libraries is to remove any barrier to entry for knowledge. I can go to my library and get access to journals and articles I would have to pay for otherwise. It is not a huge waste of money, it is a great way to save. Taxes are paid into the library and as a result the community as a whole benefits. Ignoring all of that,you say people can get all of their knowledge online now. Please remember that you're fortunate enough to own a computer or cell phone with a data plan. Many people only have access to the internet at the library. Libraries have survived through all of history for a reason, the internet will not kill them. If they are defunded they will be formed by people like Bezos who recognize the huge benefit they provide to society.

adventured 9y ago
> A library is free, even if all of the world's knowledge is online it would cost money to access in addition to paying for internet. I wish that were true. It's not. Libraries cost money. Acquiring, storing, maintaining a book in a room, with climate control and a proper shelter, costs more than storing the same book digitally. Providing access to copies of a physical book, to just a million people spread across the US, is extremely expensive compared to doing the same thing digitally via the Internet. Someone should run an estimate on that, it's such an astounding gap in cost as to be absurd. There are many good arguments for libraries. That they don't cost money or are somehow free, is not one of them. They're subsidized systems of knowledge, primarily for the benefit of people lacking resources to otherwise access that information inexpensively (along with other various community and peaceful space benefits they usually provide).
- Pieman103021 9y ago
  You are 100% correct, that was an incorrect argument to make. I guess that was the whole point of the article too, so I really got that one wrong. It is important to recognize the incredible amount of money and social benefit going into and out of libraries, and I don't think they should be so quickly discounted just because it is 2017 and we have the internet.

egypturnash 9y ago

So let me tell you about the last time I went to the downtown Seattle library. I was there looking for inspiration - I wanted some interesting architecture to put into the background of a short comic I was nearly done drawing. Knowing that "architecture" was probably filed near the "art" section, I went up a few floors to where that was. I took my time getting there, as I was kind of there looking for serendipitous discoveries, not one particular tome. I browsed through the cartoon art section on the way and found something I'd always wanted to read. Put that under my arm and kept looking for the architecture section. I discovered that the art section also includes a big collection of file cabinets with Interesting Images clipped from magazines or whatever - visual inspiration, cool! I was looking for something more targeted in this case so I moved on after opening a few random drawers and peering in. When I finally found the architecture section, I was able to wander through it looking at big coffee-table books full of beautiful photographs very quickly. No waiting for anything to download - I just went "ooh, here's a book on Istanbul, that feels interesting, lemme look at it", and was able to pull it off the shelf and flip through the pages to get an idea of what sort of stuff was to be had within a matter of seconds. I spent a little while wandering through that section, ultimately leaving with books on the architecture of Cairo and Barcelona under my arm. I went up to the top floor of the library, which is a huge space with a lot of natural light, and a lot of desk lamps for the many times when Seattle is too overcast for that. It was the middle of a weekday, and there were a bunch of people from all parts of society hanging out there reading. Including folks without a home. I read the book I picked up in the cartoon section, then settled down to the serious business of paging through the architecture books and finding buildings I wanted to borrow. Photographed a few candidates with my phone, then put them on my computer and used them as reference to draw a cityscape. I probably spent a few hours there doing this. When I was done, I left the books in a neat pile on the desk I was using, and took the long way down. I passed through the fifth floor, which is a vast open space absolutely filled with computers: public access to the internet for those citizens who cannot, indeed, afford a device that can talk to it; a larger screen than a phone and an actual keyboard, and access to printers as well, for those who have a phone as their only privately-owned internet access. I don't need that, I'm sitting here in front of a 24" monitor, but there are a lot of people even in a rich town like Seattle who do. And it's also a place for the people who need that to get the hell out of the rain, and chill out with a book - maybe they're learning something, maybe they're just reading some escapism, whatever, both are great. And who needs a librarian? Well, everyone who needs to research something right now, instead of thirty years from now. Or sixty years from now, given that most of these kinds of predictions tend to take at least twice as long to come true, if they ever do. Having this big building that takes up a whole block of downtown real estate also makes a statement: Knowledge is something this city values.