Editorial Gives Sage Advice – Real Libraries and Books Are Better Than GooglePrint

stevenj writes “Here’s an editorial from the Philadelphia Inquirer that, while acknowledging the value of GooglePrint, reminds us that it won’t replace those things that make print books and libraries special. It even quotes Michael Gorman on the weaknesses of digitized book collections. From the editorial: “A digitized collection must not be thought of as a substitute for a bricks-and-mortar library. Set aside the visceral pleasures of a library; the smell of old newspapers and new books; the reading chairs that swallow you up as you leaf through a magazine; and the impromptu discussions with strangers about a book both of you have read. Find this editorial at:
philly.com“

January 1, 2005 by Uncategorized 1

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. pamplemousse says:
    January 2, 2005 at 10:15 am

    Duh!
    This article falls into the same errors as just about every other article I’ve read on Google Print.

    First, it begins with the idea that the idea of scanning books is original: “going boldly where no one has gone before”. Someone should tell them about all the existing digitisation projects that have been under way (usually driven by libraries) for maybe ten years or more. Not to mention Project Gutenberg (now 15,000 titles and counting, with no corporate backing).

    Second, it assumes, like everyone else from Michael Gorman (who should know better) down, that Google are creating an online library of books. Nothing in Google’s own statements confirms this (although they are a little ambiguous). What Google do intend is to *index* books, so as to make their content available in Google searches, along side their traditional web content. When and if your search turns up a book reference, you’ll still have to go find the book, either at a bookstore or in a library.

    What Google Print will give you, eventually, is enough of the book on screen for you to decide whether it’s worth your while to track it down.

    This is certainly a great project, but it doesn’t seem to be at all what people think. However, perhaps the common misconception of this as collection-building suggests that people really are wanting an online collection of books (despite all the warm fuzzies about the smell of old books etc.) Which is something librarians need to think about.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LISNews Archives