Why Google’s universal library is an assault on human identity. How’s that for a headline? Andrew Keen pull sno punches in this short ZDNet blog post.
“John Updike put it best in his response to Kevin Kelly’s notorious 2006 New York Times magazine piece about Google’s universal library. For some of us,” Updike said. “Books are intrinsic to our human identity.” Exactly. So, by undermining the autonomy of the stand-alone book, Google’s vast database of indexed content is actually a blooming assault on human identity.
editing Updike
“For some of us,” Updike said. “Books are intrinsic to our human identity.”
And for some of us they aren’t. Butt out, John and Mr. ZDNet-contrarian, journalist wanker. The book is a false idol. Long live the word.
*rolls eyes*
I hate this paranoid crap with every inch of my body.
Well, at least I don’t need paper books to be my “human identity”, not that books are going anywhere.
right and wrong
From the article: “What Google want to do is “liberate” words from the text.”
And yes, that is a bad thing. And everyone who has ever defended a book against a removal and arguing about ‘context’ should understand why. An information hierarchy means that the liberated words have less value than the actual text. Does that mean they shouldn’t do it? No, because you can then use those liberated words as building blocks to build your own research and create your own books focused on possibly related topics with a different focus. But we should still always be on the side of the stand alone book.
Re:right and wrong
Which would be the case if Google was the only place to get said items. But their not.
ESPN doesn’t pervert sports because it shows highlights and box scores. If you want the whole game just watch it. It’s still there.
further
Don’t Google books just sit there in standard “page 1, page 2, page 3” format like pages in a PDF file? The whole book, context intact, is there. You can search and pick it apart if you want. But the whole thing is there as it was in paper, right?
Blooming something or other
Yes, Google Book Search leads either to snippets of books or to PODFs that are one page followed by another page followed by…
No, GBS doesn’t lead to some bizarre “book mashup.”
No, GBS doesn’t give the words more importance than the books. It offers new ways to find books.
If the byline was John Dvorak, I’d understand, but I guess I expect better from other ZDNet writers. Silly me.
Stop the Google-bashing!
Yet another Google-bashing commentary. I think these comments are made by people who have insecurity or inferiority complex.
Re:right and wrong
No its not the only place to get the book. But I think argument has to do with it being advertised as a universal library.