4 ms·

It seems like you would need some cultural consensus about the function of libraries for them to stage a comeback without inifinte scope creep. Are they infrast

It seems like you would need some cultural consensus about the function of libraries for them to stage a comeback without inifinte scope creep. Are they infrastructure to support bestseller book clubs? Collective pricing structure for Libby? internet cafes? Places that should have a wide range of generally useful reading material? Places where you should be able to find classic literature? Places that focus on supporting upcoming writers? Places to run child reading programs and hand out low quality picture books to kids?

spease 3y ago
Yes. The underlying purpose of public libraries is to support an informed citizenry and society. They provide an opportunity to acquire knowledge to anyone who wants it, irrespective of their economic standing. Removing them would have the effect of further reducing social mobility. Even if we took steps to ensure that every person has a digital device, there will still be value in having a physical sanctuary dedicated to that purpose for people who need to share their living space. Compared to a university, libraries lie on the extreme DIY side of the spectrum. It’s free, but they’re less labor-intensive. If I were to rework the library system for the 21st century, I’d focus on making it more useful for people retraining because of AI altering supply/demand for careers. The only constraint I’d put on it would be to keep it universally accessible. Charging and screening enrollment is for public colleges and universities that additionally provide a service to assist in acquiring knowledge. Actually, I’ll go one step further and suggest that a hackerspace / makerspace like TechShop or Hacker Dojo could enrich the surrounding community in much the same way as a library does. They’re just focused around loaning access to modern tools and technology rather than books.
RecycledEle 3y ago
Here is the mission for libraries: Libraries are places for students to learn on their own. Libraries provide books, digital resources, maker spaces, guest speakers, clubs, and more to help students learn on their own. Some of those resources can be used in the library, and some of them can be checked out on loan. Please do not prevent others from learning or a librarian will correct you. Source: I am a teacher this is what I hear from my students.
15457345234 3y ago
> It seems like you would need some cultural consensus about the function of libraries for them to stage a comeback No, no. Looking for consensus at the moment is pointless, the dividers and wreckers will storm in and elongate the discussion until nothing occurs, which is their objective. Just recreate the library system of the 80s and 90s without taking any input from anybody. Just do it from the top down. Buildings full of books and a membership and tracking system. That'll do. No 'events' because someone will get upset about something. No censorship. No giving ground. Just books.
- musicale 3y ago
  Revitalizing physical collections is certainly a great idea, but it doesn't go far enough as publishing moves into the digital realm. (I'm also not sure "no censorship" is practical but we seem to be moving toward small and very bland collections where anything remotely controversial has been removed.) As Brewster Kahle notes in the article, current copyright law is unfavorable to libraries and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to build digital library collections legally. To preserve existing publishing models, we have also destroyed many of the intrinsic benefits of ebooks, such as unlimited readers and nearly free global distribution. Copyright reform, such as a statutory first-sale doctrine and resale and lending rights for ebooks (and other digital media) might possibly help, though it could also provide a perverse incentive for publishers to adopt even more restrictive approaches, such as a service/subscription-only model. Compulsory licensing (e.g. to public libraries) could perhaps be made a prerequisite for copyright protection. The Library of Congress could also be granted digital lending rights.

spease 3y ago

Yes. The underlying purpose of public libraries is to support an informed citizenry and society. They provide an opportunity to acquire knowledge to anyone who wants it, irrespective of their economic standing. Removing them would have the effect of further reducing social mobility. Even if we took steps to ensure that every person has a digital device, there will still be value in having a physical sanctuary dedicated to that purpose for people who need to share their living space. Compared to a university, libraries lie on the extreme DIY side of the spectrum. It’s free, but they’re less labor-intensive. If I were to rework the library system for the 21st century, I’d focus on making it more useful for people retraining because of AI altering supply/demand for careers. The only constraint I’d put on it would be to keep it universally accessible. Charging and screening enrollment is for public colleges and universities that additionally provide a service to assist in acquiring knowledge. Actually, I’ll go one step further and suggest that a hackerspace / makerspace like TechShop or Hacker Dojo could enrich the surrounding community in much the same way as a library does. They’re just focused around loaning access to modern tools and technology rather than books.

RecycledEle 3y ago

Here is the mission for libraries: Libraries are places for students to learn on their own. Libraries provide books, digital resources, maker spaces, guest speakers, clubs, and more to help students learn on their own. Some of those resources can be used in the library, and some of them can be checked out on loan. Please do not prevent others from learning or a librarian will correct you. Source: I am a teacher this is what I hear from my students.

15457345234 3y ago

> It seems like you would need some cultural consensus about the function of libraries for them to stage a comeback No, no. Looking for consensus at the moment is pointless, the dividers and wreckers will storm in and elongate the discussion until nothing occurs, which is their objective. Just recreate the library system of the 80s and 90s without taking any input from anybody. Just do it from the top down. Buildings full of books and a membership and tracking system. That'll do. No 'events' because someone will get upset about something. No censorship. No giving ground. Just books.

musicale 3y ago
Revitalizing physical collections is certainly a great idea, but it doesn't go far enough as publishing moves into the digital realm. (I'm also not sure "no censorship" is practical but we seem to be moving toward small and very bland collections where anything remotely controversial has been removed.) As Brewster Kahle notes in the article, current copyright law is unfavorable to libraries and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to build digital library collections legally. To preserve existing publishing models, we have also destroyed many of the intrinsic benefits of ebooks, such as unlimited readers and nearly free global distribution. Copyright reform, such as a statutory first-sale doctrine and resale and lending rights for ebooks (and other digital media) might possibly help, though it could also provide a perverse incentive for publishers to adopt even more restrictive approaches, such as a service/subscription-only model. Compulsory licensing (e.g. to public libraries) could perhaps be made a prerequisite for copyright protection. The Library of Congress could also be granted digital lending rights.