>> 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 indu

>> 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.