[I forward the following collection of notes from FICINO, with apologies to
those who have seen some or all of them before, because it seems to me
that the issues raised here should be of interest to most Humanists,
whatever side of the library desk they may tend to find themselves on.
--WM]
[1] From: "Robert L. Maxwell" <RLM@mail.lib.byu.edu> (45)
From: Roger Kuin <rkuin@YORKU.CA> (3)
Subject: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist) (fwd)
[2] From: "Peter C. Herman" <herman2@MAIL.SDSU.EDU> (91)
Subject: Re: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist)
(fwd)
[3] From: David M Levy <dlevy@VMS1.GMU.EDU> (15)
Subject: Re: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist)
(fwd)
[4] From: Thomas Izbicki <izbicki@JHU.EDU> (19)
Subject: Re: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist)
(fwd)
[5] From: BGECKLE@UBMAIL.UBALT.EDU (29)
Subject: Re: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist)
(fwd)
[6] From: "Peter C. Herman" <herman2@MAIL.SDSU.EDU> (13)
Subject: Re: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist)
[7] From: "Heinrich C. Kuhn" <hck@ipp-garching.mpg.de> (54)
Subject: Re: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist)
--[1]----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:51:36 -0500
From: Roger Kuin <rkuin@YORKU.CA>
Subject: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist) (fwd)
This (from the "exlibris" list) might, I thought, interest Ficinians.
Roger Kuin, English
York University, Toronto
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Robert L. Maxwell" <RLM@mail.lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist)
> I recall reading Nicholson Baker's article in "Atlantic Monthly" about the
> conversion to on-line card catalogues some time ago, and my first reaction
> to the idea of Harvard or the Library of Congress throwing out their card
> catalogues was, "What if someone pulls the plug?" Without electricity
> there is no card catalogue, and hence the library becomes little more than
> a place to browse.
>
> Any thoughts?
Actually, I only just had a chance to read the "other" Barker article
in the New Yorker about the San Francisco PL's extraordiary (to say
the least) weeding program. It looks as though if anyone pulls the
plug not only will there not be any catalogue, but no books to look
at either.
Someone called exlibris's attention to the Barker New Yorker article
a month or so ago, but there was little discussion of it that I can
remember. I understand that Barker's activities in San Francisco have
been controversial and possibly his article was one-sided; however,
this question of how to deal with technocrats who feel that the book
is obsolete and existing examples are junk that are just cluttering
up the space in libraries is a real one whatever the actual facts of
the SF case (surely we have all met such people), and one which I
think needs very much to be addressed and thought about by the
exlibris community. I understand we had problems getting funding for
an expansion of our library because "why do they need more space?
everything's electronic now anyway ..." (I actually overheard this
exact conversation on campus one morning. Thankfully, the much-needed
space is coming, anyway.)
In moments of deep paranoia I fear that future ages may look at our
own time as a dark ages because (a) we junked the physical evidence
of our civilization, and (b) by then the electrons will have either
disappeared or will be unreadable. A professor of mine used to like
to say "The only thing dark about the "Dark Ages" is your knowledge
of it." Will our age appear dark because no one knows anything about
it--through our own destruction of the evidence?
Does anyone have any thoughts? Also, can anyone tell us more about
the situation at the SF PL?
Bob Maxwell
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages cataloger
6428 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
(801) 378-5568
robert_maxwell@byu.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--[2]----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 13:25:56 -0500
From: "Peter C. Herman" <herman2@MAIL.SDSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist) (fwd)
I think that Roger Kuin is absoloutely right that we need to take this
problem very seriously, and in light of my recent experience with Emory
University, I doubt that his article is very much off the mark. Emory, like
so many other libraries, has thrown out its card catalogue and now has
everything on-line. While doing the revisions to my book, I needed to look
at a copy of Tyndale's response to More that his republished in the Parker
Society series. Now, I knew that Emory had this book (along with the rest of
this series) as I had taken it out before. How had I found the original
reference: the card catalogue. But, when I looked this up in the on-line
catalogue, no such reference. So, I went up to the stacks, pulled the book
out, and immediately informed the relevant authorities. I have to say that
they were duly appreciative and contrite, but they also mentioned that they
expected the online catalogue to miss 1% of the books (1% of two million is
still alot of books) and they were relying on library patrons to find the
lost books. What scares me is that if I didn't know that Emory had this
book, I would have just assumed that they didn't and proceeded accordingly.
What also scares me is that the people running our libraries have no
committment to the preservation and increase of the written word, and
furthermore, assume that on-line is the panacea to everything. One wonders
if they have ever tried to read a dense, 35 p. article on-line. Further
furthermore, we are increasingly reliant on a system that is anything but
reliable. I don't know about anybody else, but the servers at my institution
crash with alarming regularity.
Peter C. Herman
--[3]----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 13:42:40 -0500
From: David M Levy <dlevy@VMS1.GMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist) (fwd)
Fortunately, the library reference people at the Library of
Congress are *very* fond of the physical card catalog. In the
last few months, technical questions about 19th c publications
have been answered with "have you looked at the card catalog?"
The physical card catalog is easy to access and it has
information which has not been moved to the computer. Indeed,
if you read the electronic catalog -- locis.loc.gov --
you'll see that PREMARC -- the e-version of the physical
cards -- is not warranted to be bug free.
Don Knuth pays $1 for each bug report for *Art of Computer Programming*.
If LC had that policy on PREMARK I wouldn't have to pack my lunch.
David M. Levy
Center for Study of Public Choice
George Mason University
Fairfax VA 22030
703-993-2319 (fax) 703-993-2323
--[4]----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 13:52:35 -0500
From: Thomas Izbicki <izbicki@JHU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist) (fwd)
As a professional librarian, I want to say a few things about the San
Francisco PL doings.
1. Catalogues
Frankly, I have no great use for card catalogues as such, since they
involve running around the cabinets following leads; but I was really
annoyed when we threw ours out - since it is the only backup which does
not depend on electricity.
2. Weeding
A public library may find itself forced to weed, but too often the books
of enduring value get weeded to make way for pulp fiction, which is not
kept long either. The public needs access to solid information & works
of enduring value.
One of our students started worrying about academic libraries doing the
same, but most of our institutions deal with space problems by going to
off-site shelving, not casually discarding volumes.
3. The future of paper
I think paper is likely to stay long term, but delivery of text is likely
to change - printing being done at point of use, rather than at a remote
site.
Tom Izbicki
--[5]----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:04:35 -0500
From: BGECKLE@UBMAIL.UBALT.EDU
Subject: Re: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist) (fwd)
As a library employee I feel I must respond to Peter Herman's statement:
>What also scares me is that the people running our libraries have no
>committment to the preservation and increase of the written word, and
>furthermore, assume that on-line is the panacea to everything. One wonders
>if they have ever tried to read a dense, 35 p. article on-line. Further
>furthermore, we are increasingly reliant on a system that is anything but
>reliable. I don't know about anybody else, but the servers at my institution
>crash with alarming regularity.
It should be noted that there are different points of view within the
library world concerning card catalogs and online systems. I actually
am an advocate in the library where I work of maintaining a backup (shelflist
cards) for our online system and have questioned other libraries who have
discarded all of their printed records of their holdings. However, I
believe Dr. Herman's statements are a bit extreme and feel I must defend
the on-line system and library personel. I believe most of those working in
this field are committed to the written word and are actually working to
maintain access to it. The on-line format provides much more flexibility for
patrons to find what they are looking for (e.g. word searches) and information
about the items status (shelf status) as well. It is unfortunate that some
holdings are not found on an online system. However, no system is perfect,
including card catalogs. In addition, the use of on-line catalogs and online
full-text documents are very different topics. I agree that reading on-line
is difficult and I prefer text on paper.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly J. Geckle "...thought's the slave
Technical Services of life, and life time's
University of Baltimore Law Library fool."
bgeckle@ubmail.ubalt.edu
Henry IV, part i
--[6]----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:48:05 -0500
From: "Peter C. Herman" <herman2@MAIL.SDSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist) (fwd)
At 03:04 PM 1/9/97 -0500, you wrote:
>As a library employee I feel I must respond to Peter Herman's statement:
>
>>What also scares me is that the people running our libraries have no
>>committment to the preservation and increase of the written word, and
>>furthermore, assume that on-line is the panacea to everything. One wonders
>>if they have ever tried to read a dense, 35 p. article on-line. Further
>>furthermore, we are increasingly reliant on a system that is anything but
>>reliable. I don't know about anybody else, but the servers at my institution
>>crash with alarming regularity.
I apologize for the over-statement. I should have written, "alot of the
people running our libraries . . .," and added that much of the impetus for
this comes from many within administration.
Peter C. Herman
--[7]----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 04:37:09 -0500
From: "Heinrich C. Kuhn" <hck@ipp-garching.mpg.de>
Subject: Re: Technocrats (was Re: Libraries in The Economist)
As I'm spending most of the time I'm payed for to spend with
library issues (and "electronic" issues having the by
far geatest share of this time) I'm very pleased of the
awareness shown by the various contributers to this dis-
cussion. Let me add a few lines:
Thomas Izbicki <izbicki@JHU.EDU> wrote on Thu, 9 Jan 1997 13:52:35
-0500:
> 1. Catalogues
>
> Frankly, I have no great use for card catalogues as such, since they
> involve running around the cabinets following leads; but I was
> really annoyed when we threw ours out - since it is the only backup
> which does not depend on electricity.
I prefer electronic catalogues to the paper based ones as
well (no card catalogue will help you really to answer questions
like "what was the impact of the translocations of Universitas
Ludovico Maximilianea from Ingolstadt to Landshut and then
to Munich on the output of Landshut publishers?" ...) but:
When asked I always advise our libraries *not* to throw out
their card catalogues, or if they at some time should *have*
to throw them out to keep at least a microform copy of them
(and to have had a look at the backs of those cards as well
when having them copied to microform). This not only in order
to have a backup that is independent of electricity, but as
well because I did up to now *never* come accross *any*
project of conversion of card catalogues to OPAC entries that
did *not* involve at least *some* loss of information in the
process. (There are several reasons for this, depending on the
method choosen to convert the catalogue.)
The backup-issue should not be neglected for "new" catalogues
that exist in database-form only either. But there it is not
too unlike to the backup-issue for card catalogues: Not too
few of them have been destroyed by wars and other types of
catastrophes in the past. And it is far easier to keep a backup-
copy in some other place for an electronic catalogue that for
a card-catalogue. And it is cheaper than to have a "traditional"
catalogue published. Plus: Cooperative cataloguing makes
the electronic catalogue of one library available in several other
more or less distributed databases that can serve as a basis
for a "restore" in case of misfortunes happening to the
electronic system of your library.
>
> 2. Weeding
>
> One of our students started worrying about academic libraries doing
> the same, but most of our institutions deal with space problems by
> going to off-site shelving, not casually discarding volumes.
I'd not be too optimistic here: Muenster University library is
reported (two years ago, if I remember correctly) to
have thrown out all copies of printed PhD-theses that were not
authored by Muenster doctoral candidates and not accessed at
least once during the last so and so many years ... [:-(].
I hope that this will remain a singular case, but I'd not be
too optimistic ... .
Robert L. Maxwell <RLM@mail.lib.byu.edu> wrote on
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 08:36:51 -0800 in the message
>I understand we had problems getting funding for
>an expansion of our library because "why do they need more space?
>everything's electronic now anyway ..." (I actually overheard this
>exact conversation on campus one morning.
When starting my job here, I came accross views like that
as well. Heartily agreeing in principle that yes..., of
course..., nobody who gets his views on developments in
the world of publishing and libraries from certain daylies
and weeklies would object to this..., the crystall ball looked
into certainly shows the right picture..., electronic publishing
*is* the future, ... and then adding some lines on the time
that was necessary for the transition of the mode of difussion
of texts from manuscripts to printed texts, seems to help ... .
At least sometimes ... .
Heinrich C. Kuhn
+---------------------------------------------------------
! Dr. Heinrich C. Kuhn (coordinator libraries &c.)
! Max-Planck-Gesellschaft / Generalverwaltung IIb3
! Postfach 10 10 62 / D-80084 Muenchen
! T: +49-89-2108 1565 / F: +49-89-2108 1565
! eMail: hck@ipp-garching.mpg.de, kuhn@mpg-gv.mpg.de