David Rothman writes “In the latest Cites and Insights, Walt Crawford attacks not just Library 2.0 but also the idea of a national library service–in effect, including TeleRead, the idea I’ve been espousing since the 1990s. He doesn’t say “national digital library service,” but based on other Crawford statements, I suspect that’s very much on his mind.
Walt’s little aside is a shame in that he also makes many excellent points. For example, Walt commendably thinks that libraries should play up their offerings in narrative, etc., rather than fixate on information-hunting alone. Walt needs to grasp that e-book technology is on the cusp of becoming much better for immersive reading of narratives and other content, thanks to wrinkles such as E Ink, even though the new gizmos still have a way to go in areas ranging from format standards to DRM.
As for the idea of a well-stocked national digital library system, the evolving TeleRead vision from the start has suggested that the national system be carefully phased in with participation from local librarians and with ways for local systems to remain responsive to local needs. Walt, as a traditionalist, is fighting the wrong battle. He should worry not about TeleRead-style approaches, but rather about such barbarities as the diversion of library money from books to DVDs. More on the Crawford piece via the TeleRead site.”
Outrageous
The story above is simply outrageous.
My comment about a national public library was specifically in the context of the Talis white paper that appeared to me to be calling for such a library, the national equivalent of Hawaii’s single public library with many branches but one administration.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with Teleread–not surprisingly, since I (a) wasn’t talking about ebooks, audiobooks, accessibility devices, or anything of the sort, (b) really don’t think about Teleread that much.
Re:Outrageous
OK, I now see that I talked about a national public library service giving me the creeps in the prologue, which of course I wrote after the primary section where I discussed Talis. Therefore, if your mission in life is to read just far enough to see something that you can somehow relate to your own pet obsession, I guess it does make sense to stop at that point and go into full-scale attack mode.
It’s still outrageous. I never used the word Teleread because I wasn’t talking about Teleread. I never attacked ebooks or assistive technology or… In fact, I didn’t attack Library 2.0 (as a set of concepts) either.
Re:Outrageous
Hi, folks. A reply appears here.
I think Walt has his share of positives. Perhaps the next issue will be one on which we agree.
Thanks,
David
A bit much
I understood Cites & Insights perfectly and I certainly didn’t see it as an attack on your pet project.
I did see your post here and at your website to be an attack on Walt. I cannot see why you take such personal offense at someone else’s opinion. I have people on LIS and in the library community with whom I differ, however I’ve never seen the need to personally attack them, or put their picture on my website.
While I see a place for digital books, or e-books, or whatever the masses decide to call them, I don’t see them or a system of national digital libraries to be of value at this point. I don’t like ebooks, I enjoy the portability and reliability of a book, however I do see certain times and circumstances in which an ebook would prove useful such as the PDR on a physician’s PDA.
I do think that you have gone over the top in attacking Walt – not just Walt’s opinion but Walt himself. Walt and I don’t see eye to eye either. As far as I can tell if I had to pigeon hole walt he is a Westcoast liberal and I am a Southern Conservative, but rather than insulting one another we can and have had reasoned debate.
I’ve looked at your site before, most recently I believe when you discussed the $100 laptops in a story you submitted to LISNews. I have also read a great deal of Walt’s works. I can certainly tell you if I had to limit myself to one or the other whose commentary I find more valuable.