4 ms·

I see libraries as very useful and like to hang around books. A few times I had to ask for a librarian's help with research I was blown away by the speed and qu

by ptero 2y ago

I see libraries as very useful and like to hang around books. A few times I had to ask for a librarian's help with research I was blown away by the speed and quality of the response. For example I needed a list of FM transmitters in Europe above certain power and after failing to create one via a bunch of national registries asked for help -- and got exactly what I needed in a few hours. That said, let me be the devil's advocate. I see two key functions for librarians: research and access to unusual media, like microfiche. For research, the librarian does not need to be co-located with the library. Several librarians can work in a central location, like a research university or a national library, and serve the whole country. Microfilm or microfiche can (and probably should) be digitized and served out of the central location anyway. When someone was using the readers every week in a library it made sense to keep them everywhere. But now the use plummeted and machines (at least in some libraries) are always broken. We should scan those films and support a more modern access to the archives. My 2c.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> For research, the librarian does not need to be co-located with the library. Several librarians can work in a central location, like a research university or a national library, and serve the whole country. Schemes to do this sort of thing repeatedly fall across time and industries. The first problem is that people overestimate the amount of efficiency there is to be had. Oh, if we put them in a central location we can make 80% of them redundant. Ha! Librarians don't currently spend most of the day idle and somebody has to do the work they currently do regardless of where they're located. Meanwhile putting people in a central location generally makes things less efficient because now they're in a different location than the patrons and you've added communications overhead and, in the common case, a layer of middle management. The second problem is that knowledge is local. When a patron comes in and wants to know about historical buildings in the library's city, or local regulations, or community events, the local librarian knows where to find the information because that's where they are. The librarian 100+ miles away may not, because they're most familiar with where to find their locality's information rather than some far away place. The third problem is that diversity is advantageous. This is the sort of "laboratories of democracy" or "competitive markets are better than monopolies" effect. When everything is under one roof it becomes bureaucratic, resulting in ossification and resistance to change. Including changes that improve efficiency or outcomes. Whereas independent systems can each try a different thing and find out what works best in parallel, then look at how the others did and adopt their way of doing it if it seems better. Centralization efforts stamp that benefit out, and its long-term effect is cumulative because the benefits of the alternative accrete over time. This ultimately eats any nominal efficiency gains from the limited amount of legitimate redundancies that could be achieved through centralization. The fourth problem is that central locations tend to become a single point of failure. Having multiple copies of information stored at multiple independently-operated facilities has high resilience. Centralized systems have systemic risk, and the best known way to mitigate that risk is to redecentralize the system to remove the monoculture. In general if someone proposes to centralize a decentralized system to "improve efficiency" you should suspect them of malice, because the most steadfast proponents of centralization are generally adversaries who want to monopolize the system or adversaries who want to corral the system all into one place so they can more easily butcher it.
- ptero 2y ago
  >> For research, the librarian does not need to be co-located with the library. > Schemes to do this sort of thing repeatedly fall [fail?] across time and industries. The first problem is that people overestimate the amount of efficiency there is to be had. ... The second problem is that knowledge is local. ... The third problem is that diversity is advantageous. Those are good general points. My main counter-argument is that they would trump the desire for change if we had a well working system. We do not. The current system is failing (and the article contains strong indication of this) and needs restructuring to avoid extinction. There are different ways to try it but all require honest, public discussions on what we want to have and how much we are willing to pay. > The fourth problem is that central locations tend to become a single point of failure. All else being equal, yes. But today's local library archives are often a mess that no one really cares about. Paper, microfilm and microfiche are vulnerable to the elements. I have seen a leak take out a local archive. A local volunteer can box records and move them to a home as a last resort, but there are fewer and fewer of such people around. At this point there is no excuse not to scan those archives and store a local backup, a cloud backup and a few more backups for good measure, too.
matwood 2y ago
A big part of libraries and librarians is knowing their local community. Think about helping local adults learn to read or local authors publish a book. But also being local helps them curate a catalog that is informed by the community. If I walk into a library in city A, it is more likely to have books about city A on hand. This is much harder to do at a national level. IMO, the hyper local nature is also one of the big differentiators for the library to avoid being usurped by something like Amazon.

by ptero 2y ago

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> For research, the librarian does not need to be co-located with the library. Several librarians can work in a central location, like a research university or a national library, and serve the whole country. Schemes to do this sort of thing repeatedly fall across time and industries. The first problem is that people overestimate the amount of efficiency there is to be had. Oh, if we put them in a central location we can make 80% of them redundant. Ha! Librarians don't currently spend most of the day idle and somebody has to do the work they currently do regardless of where they're located. Meanwhile putting people in a central location generally makes things less efficient because now they're in a different location than the patrons and you've added communications overhead and, in the common case, a layer of middle management. The second problem is that knowledge is local. When a patron comes in and wants to know about historical buildings in the library's city, or local regulations, or community events, the local librarian knows where to find the information because that's where they are. The librarian 100+ miles away may not, because they're most familiar with where to find their locality's information rather than some far away place. The third problem is that diversity is advantageous. This is the sort of "laboratories of democracy" or "competitive markets are better than monopolies" effect. When everything is under one roof it becomes bureaucratic, resulting in ossification and resistance to change. Including changes that improve efficiency or outcomes. Whereas independent systems can each try a different thing and find out what works best in parallel, then look at how the others did and adopt their way of doing it if it seems better. Centralization efforts stamp that benefit out, and its long-term effect is cumulative because the benefits of the alternative accrete over time. This ultimately eats any nominal efficiency gains from the limited amount of legitimate redundancies that could be achieved through centralization. The fourth problem is that central locations tend to become a single point of failure. Having multiple copies of information stored at multiple independently-operated facilities has high resilience. Centralized systems have systemic risk, and the best known way to mitigate that risk is to redecentralize the system to remove the monoculture. In general if someone proposes to centralize a decentralized system to "improve efficiency" you should suspect them of malice, because the most steadfast proponents of centralization are generally adversaries who want to monopolize the system or adversaries who want to corral the system all into one place so they can more easily butcher it.

ptero 2y ago
>> For research, the librarian does not need to be co-located with the library. > Schemes to do this sort of thing repeatedly fall [fail?] across time and industries. The first problem is that people overestimate the amount of efficiency there is to be had. ... The second problem is that knowledge is local. ... The third problem is that diversity is advantageous. Those are good general points. My main counter-argument is that they would trump the desire for change if we had a well working system. We do not. The current system is failing (and the article contains strong indication of this) and needs restructuring to avoid extinction. There are different ways to try it but all require honest, public discussions on what we want to have and how much we are willing to pay. > The fourth problem is that central locations tend to become a single point of failure. All else being equal, yes. But today's local library archives are often a mess that no one really cares about. Paper, microfilm and microfiche are vulnerable to the elements. I have seen a leak take out a local archive. A local volunteer can box records and move them to a home as a last resort, but there are fewer and fewer of such people around. At this point there is no excuse not to scan those archives and store a local backup, a cloud backup and a few more backups for good measure, too.

matwood 2y ago

A big part of libraries and librarians is knowing their local community. Think about helping local adults learn to read or local authors publish a book. But also being local helps them curate a catalog that is informed by the community. If I walk into a library in city A, it is more likely to have books about city A on hand. This is much harder to do at a national level. IMO, the hyper local nature is also one of the big differentiators for the library to avoid being usurped by something like Amazon.