Week 2 Readings
Required Articles
Carvajal, D. (2007, October 28). European libraries face problems in digitalizing. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/technology/28iht- LIBRARY29.1.8079170.html?_r=1&
Required Articles
Carvajal, D. (2007, October 28). European libraries face problems in digitalizing. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/technology/28iht- LIBRARY29.1.8079170.html?_r=1&
D. Carvajal (2007) explains the
attempts of European libraries to create a digital archives that would compete
with Google. Named the European Digital Library, it would have “held the
promise of a counterstrike to Google domination of digital archives” (Carvajal,
2007, para. 1), which, to some such as Jean-Noel Jeanneney, former leader of
the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, represents the encroaching dominance of
American interpretation on European literature, history, and politics
(Carvajal, 2007, para. 10). However, the libraries involved in the project face
a crucial challenge: funds. The European Commission refuses to pay more than 60
million euros for the project – the additional basic digitization costs 250
million euros for over four years (Carvajal, 2007, para. 5), so the
organizations are having trouble finding financial support from private
backings.
After reading C. E. Smith’s (2008)
article, Carvajal (2007) illustrates a new, more realistic view on
digitization. Smith (2008) remains ideal; according to him, Google is
“liberating” books for all, allowing everyone to benefit from easier, freer
access of ideas (Libraries and Access, para. 2). Thus he looks towards the
future, believing in the positive results Google’s project will theoretically
provide to all. Carvajal (2007), though, is concerned with the present, or at
least the near future. As summarized above, she notes how European libraries
and similar institutions feel threatened by Google rather than happy about what
they are doing. To them, Google is their rival, a competitor in providing not
only digital resources but in dictating ideas and marking international
differences for future ages. As such, the two articles represents various
parties involved in the aftermath of Google’s project: national and
international, future and present, companies and libraries, to name a few. Such
a reading is fascinating – digitization has become a greater issue than I have
imagined, already dividing people up on how to use it.
C. E. Smith (2008) begins his
article by noting how he has noticed that a good number of people (who remains
in question) are concerned over “Google’s initiative to scan thousands of books
in major research libraries and make them available online” (Introduction,
para.1). He, however, is not worried but enthusiastic about Google’s attempts.
To him, such digitization will ensure that print materials will not become
obsolete (Smith, 2008, Making the Past Accessible, para. 1), a wider range of
people all over the country will have equal access to academic works (Smith,
2008, Libraries and Access, para. 2), and – since “it is, after all, the ideas
that are essential” – the knowledge contained in these works will survive their
former print forms and live on in the digital world (Smith, 2008, Conquering
the Pre- and Post-Internet Digital Divide).
I agree with his sentiments; Google
is doing a service in providing relatively free access to such works. Smith’s
wording concerning print resources and archives, though, annoys me. He states
that if digital copies did not exist and only one option remained, “to go where
the “old stuff” is kept, in archives somewhere in the basement or a dark
attic,” users will seek the sources reluctantly (Smith, 2008, Conquering the
Pre- and Post-Internet Digital Divide, para. 1). In a couple of sentences, he
disregards the importance of the print sources and implies that archives are
isolated, out-of-date, merely storage areas. Print still has its uses. It
provides the original context of the sources, which can be overlooked as a
digital work. Also, as a future archivist, I view archives in a way contrasting
Smith’s assumptions; while archives do store “old stuff,” they also possess
wide range of materials, including current holdings and documents, and analyze
the works they have.
J. Vaughan writes his case study on
the Lied Library, which has been in existence for four years at the time of the
publication. Describing the library as a leading institution among other
academic libraries expert in technologies (Vaughan, 2005, p. 34), he outlines
its origins and developments over the past few years. He also includes an
in-depth analysis of the problems it faces currently, including finding ways to
pay the expenses for maintaining and updating the systems (Vaughan, 2005, p. 40),
calculating resource management, controlling the spread of malicious hardware,
manipulating physical spaces, and dealing with security, hardware, and software
problems (Vaughan, 2005, p. 40). At the end of the article, Vaughan (2005) evaluates
what he believes is the future for the Lied library, citing such possible
future problems as providing computer resources to all users (p. 47) or the
change in leadership when the dean retired (p. 48).
While
I was reading the article, I felt that Vaughan put too much emphasis on his
enthusiasm for Lied Library. I understand why he did so. It was his case study,
so he would be positive about it. Additionally, I could be reading too much
into it; the article is all about the library, providing it as a model for
managing and organizing other libraries. How he describes it, though, is a
little too much. He begins the main body of his article with “Given the title
of this paper, it is appropriate to illustrate that technology never stands still,
and such has been the reality at Lied Library” (Vaughan, 2005, p. 35) which
reminds me a lot of old propaganda and newsreels. When he admits of any
problems that occur, he is quick to mitigate them. For example, concerning
security issues, Vaughan (2005) tries to lower concerns by explaining that the
Systems area, computer room, and wiring closets remain safe (p. 44) and that,
for the four years it has been open, the library has experienced little theft
problems but “the goal is to have zero theft” (p. 45). He appears to be
deflecting any thought of serious problems, trying to convince readers that the
Lied Library is the best of its kind.
Background Article
IFLA Guidelines for Digitization Projects (2002)
IFLA Guidelines for Digitization Projects (2002)
The text
provided gives guidelines that would “identify and discuss the key issues
involved in the conceptualization, planning and implementation of a
digitization project, with recommendations for “best practice” to be followed
at each stage of the process” (McIlwaine 5). The guidelines seem to support
this; it is full of details and covers many components of how to do a digital
imaging project which I believe will benefit me if I should over tackle such a
project. What caught my attention in the introduction was its explanation that
the guidelines were collected for libraries and archives themselves alone
(McIlwaine 6). Could only libraries and archives use them? At that, are they
the only institutions who could use them to their full capacity? Maybe other
complexes – not just IS institutions – could benefit from the guidelines. The
world is becoming more technological, practically concerning digital devices.
Digital imaging is not only a tool for the IS field, but could benefit others –
companies, law firms, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment