3 ms·

I think modern kids are online already, and are exposed to all kinds of information. No library in the world can even come close to Wikipedia + Google image sea

by rorrr 15y ago

I think modern kids are online already, and are exposed to all kinds of information. No library in the world can even come close to Wikipedia + Google image search.

tonyedgecombe 15y ago
In theory you are right, in reality most kids probably don't move off Facebook other than to cheat on their homework.
- learc83 15y ago
  Just like in reality most kids didn't go to the library unless forced, and spent half their time looking for dirty books.
  - Cadsby 15y ago
    I strongly disagree. In New York you can walk into almost any library in the city in the middle of the afternoon, head to the children's/young adult section, and find a ton of kids/teens reading, browsing, engaging in local events, etc. I've found this to be especially true in poorer neighborhoods in the Bronx and Brooklyn, the kind of places where some people assume no one would interested in partaking of these resources. (I have family in these areas so I visit these neighborhoods a lot) Remember also, libraries are much more than storage buildings for lots of dead tree books. They provide important services to their communities - e.g. adult literacy assistance, job/resume services, basic internet access and a whole lot more. A lot of kids (and adults) get a great deal out of their local library. I still vividly remember the very first book that I picked up by chance while browsing the Sci-Fi section and couldn't put down until I fell asleep with it in my hands at 5am.
    - learc83 15y ago
      >a ton of kids/teens >A lot of kids Yes, I was one of those kids, but most of the kids I went to school with weren't readers and never went to the library for fun. In a densely populated area if 1% of kids regularly vist the library, it will be packed. Still--most kids don't. I also wasn't implying that libraries are without merit. The OP implied that the internet wasn't beneficial as an educational tool because most kids don't take advantage of it's potential. I merely pointed out that the same was true for libraries.
firefoxman1 15y ago
It's true that this generation just receives information differently. I was pretty much a non-reader my first 2 years of high school, like most people I knew. Then I received a Kindle for my birthday. Knowing where to find thousands of really great public-domain books and the ease of access gave me so much (free) knowledge I wouldn't have taken the time to discover in a library.
asimeqi 15y ago
My modern kids visit the local library every 2 weeks and in each visit borrow about 10 books. I don't think I could afford to buy all those books and I would have no space to store the books after the kids read them.
yardie 15y ago
Wikipedia relies on primary sources. So at some point, whether it was academic, national, or local, a library was used to acquire some of those sources. Anyway, wikipedia relies on sourced research, which requires people that know how to do research. And this was taught...at the library (You'll have a hard time finding Basic Research Methods 101 in any university catalog). When someone says that wikipedia can replace libraries I immediately want to shake somebody violently. Please understand that wikipedia isn't a primary source. Jimmy never intended it to replace them. They'll give you a topical understanding and a list of ISBN numbers at the bottom of the page. Now you can go to the library and using your freshly acquired ISBN numbers check out the books you actually need.
krschultz 15y ago
You can only come to that opinion if you don't read books. I aim to read a (non-fiction) book a week, but usually end up finishing them in roughly 10 days. My split is about 50% library 50% Amazon.com purchases. Without the library my reading habit would be massively more expensive. Right now I'm reading a book by Bain about the transcontinental railroads that I picked up at my local library (after reserving it online, picking it up at the front counter without even having to look for it, and walking out the door in <60 seconds using the automated checkout machine) and a book on startups I got off of Amazon. I've read the wikipedia entry on the transcontinental railroad, it's good. But it's not as detailed as book. And there are about 50,000 blog posts on startups, but none are as detailed as the book I'm reading. Wikipedia and blog posts are all shallow overviews of the subject. If you want nuance, if you want depth, then you need a book. And the internet doesn't even come close.
Retric 15y ago
Depends on the library. EX: Library of congress still orders of magnitude ahead of Wikipedia.
riffic 15y ago
Having been a Wikipedia editor for a few years, I can assure you that Wikipedia's (and the larger Internet's) content is severely lacking in what you can find in a common library, especially if you consider content older than 20 years.
bmj 15y ago
This may be true, but do you ever go to the library? I often spend a few hours a week there while my kids are in a class, and there are TONS of people doing research (and reading) actual books. Yes, people are doing lots of work online, but in many cases, some material just isn't available (freely) there yet. Add to that interlibrary loan, and you have a wealth of information available.
zecho 15y ago
Libraries aren't just books, though. That's kind of an old fashioned view of Libraries. Many librarians coming out of schools now have degrees in information services, and they're fairly progressive programs that are a subset of computer science programs. Many of the librarians I know are experts at using the web. For example, libraries provide services like access to computers and the Internet, for modern kids and adults without access to the Internet. Many libraries also now provide ebooks available for the Kindle and Nook devices. And then there's the fact that they're merely an indoor public space, usually with rooms freely or nominally available for the public to simply meet and share ideas.

by rorrr 15y ago

I think modern kids are online already, and are exposed to all kinds of information. No library in the world can even come close to Wikipedia + Google image search.

tonyedgecombe 15y ago

In theory you are right, in reality most kids probably don't move off Facebook other than to cheat on their homework.

learc83 15y ago
Just like in reality most kids didn't go to the library unless forced, and spent half their time looking for dirty books.
- Cadsby 15y ago
  I strongly disagree. In New York you can walk into almost any library in the city in the middle of the afternoon, head to the children's/young adult section, and find a ton of kids/teens reading, browsing, engaging in local events, etc. I've found this to be especially true in poorer neighborhoods in the Bronx and Brooklyn, the kind of places where some people assume no one would interested in partaking of these resources. (I have family in these areas so I visit these neighborhoods a lot) Remember also, libraries are much more than storage buildings for lots of dead tree books. They provide important services to their communities - e.g. adult literacy assistance, job/resume services, basic internet access and a whole lot more. A lot of kids (and adults) get a great deal out of their local library. I still vividly remember the very first book that I picked up by chance while browsing the Sci-Fi section and couldn't put down until I fell asleep with it in my hands at 5am.
  - learc83 15y ago
    >a ton of kids/teens >A lot of kids Yes, I was one of those kids, but most of the kids I went to school with weren't readers and never went to the library for fun. In a densely populated area if 1% of kids regularly vist the library, it will be packed. Still--most kids don't. I also wasn't implying that libraries are without merit. The OP implied that the internet wasn't beneficial as an educational tool because most kids don't take advantage of it's potential. I merely pointed out that the same was true for libraries.

firefoxman1 15y ago

It's true that this generation just receives information differently. I was pretty much a non-reader my first 2 years of high school, like most people I knew. Then I received a Kindle for my birthday. Knowing where to find thousands of really great public-domain books and the ease of access gave me so much (free) knowledge I wouldn't have taken the time to discover in a library.

asimeqi 15y ago

My modern kids visit the local library every 2 weeks and in each visit borrow about 10 books. I don't think I could afford to buy all those books and I would have no space to store the books after the kids read them.

yardie 15y ago

Wikipedia relies on primary sources. So at some point, whether it was academic, national, or local, a library was used to acquire some of those sources. Anyway, wikipedia relies on sourced research, which requires people that know how to do research. And this was taught...at the library (You'll have a hard time finding Basic Research Methods 101 in any university catalog). When someone says that wikipedia can replace libraries I immediately want to shake somebody violently. Please understand that wikipedia isn't a primary source. Jimmy never intended it to replace them. They'll give you a topical understanding and a list of ISBN numbers at the bottom of the page. Now you can go to the library and using your freshly acquired ISBN numbers check out the books you actually need.

krschultz 15y ago

You can only come to that opinion if you don't read books. I aim to read a (non-fiction) book a week, but usually end up finishing them in roughly 10 days. My split is about 50% library 50% Amazon.com purchases. Without the library my reading habit would be massively more expensive. Right now I'm reading a book by Bain about the transcontinental railroads that I picked up at my local library (after reserving it online, picking it up at the front counter without even having to look for it, and walking out the door in <60 seconds using the automated checkout machine) and a book on startups I got off of Amazon. I've read the wikipedia entry on the transcontinental railroad, it's good. But it's not as detailed as book. And there are about 50,000 blog posts on startups, but none are as detailed as the book I'm reading. Wikipedia and blog posts are all shallow overviews of the subject. If you want nuance, if you want depth, then you need a book. And the internet doesn't even come close.

Retric 15y ago

Depends on the library. EX: Library of congress still orders of magnitude ahead of Wikipedia.

riffic 15y ago

Having been a Wikipedia editor for a few years, I can assure you that Wikipedia's (and the larger Internet's) content is severely lacking in what you can find in a common library, especially if you consider content older than 20 years.

bmj 15y ago

This may be true, but do you ever go to the library? I often spend a few hours a week there while my kids are in a class, and there are TONS of people doing research (and reading) actual books. Yes, people are doing lots of work online, but in many cases, some material just isn't available (freely) there yet. Add to that interlibrary loan, and you have a wealth of information available.

zecho 15y ago

Libraries aren't just books, though. That's kind of an old fashioned view of Libraries. Many librarians coming out of schools now have degrees in information services, and they're fairly progressive programs that are a subset of computer science programs. Many of the librarians I know are experts at using the web. For example, libraries provide services like access to computers and the Internet, for modern kids and adults without access to the Internet. Many libraries also now provide ebooks available for the Kindle and Nook devices. And then there's the fact that they're merely an indoor public space, usually with rooms freely or nominally available for the public to simply meet and share ideas.