« Libraries and Internet in Wired | Main | Google RSS Reader: less than stellar reviews »
July 27, 2005
Gorman blunders some more
Speaking of Michael Gorman, only a month into his term he's upsetting librarians yet again with his comments about the PATRIOT ACT and Google Print.
In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Gorman in one breath compares the PATRIOT ACT to "the '50s and the 'red scare'" but then in another breath says he would be reluctant to go to jail to defend a patron's right to privacy, saying "To be perfectly honest, I'm a 64-year-old academic librarian....I'm not going to go to prison over that kind of stuff." I'm not sure what being an academic librarian or being 64 years of age has to do with your willingness to uphold the ethical convictions of your profession, but I am sure that Michael Gorman is again making libraries and librarians look like idiots.
In an interview with the GJ Sentinel, Gorman rails against Google Print some more. Gorman says he's concerned about books being "'atomized,' meaning that online they would be reduced to a collection of paragraphs or sentences that can be taken out of context." The reply from Google is that "Providing users access to more information is better than restricting information." I think this is one of the few times where I'm going to have to side with Google against a librarian.
Eli and Karen are also especially peeved.
July 27, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/12541/2894719
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gorman blunders some more:
» i <3 atomized texts from explodedlibrary.info
Time to put into practice what I was writing about a couple of posts ago. Michael Gorman has just annoyed me again (via Librarian in Black), but I’m not going to write about him. Instead I want to write about [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 28, 2005 1:45:03 PM
Comments
I've had few moments where I HAVEN'T sided with Google over librarians.
It's a great research tool, if one knows how to use it properly.
Used to be my primary research tool for all projects and papers in the MLIS. The same ex-librarians-turned-profs who railed against it also gaped in awe at the resources I found. White Papers exist in abundance, and its amazing the relevant documents to, say, an article on KM, that can be found on corporate sites which litter the Googlesphere. Trick is knowing how to search it, what to look for and what to ignore. Knowing how to read a URL, how to do link searching and domain-specific searching, can lead to some amazing results. The proliferation of Maps and Scholar only makes Google a more powerful tool for librarians - if they are willing to open their minds to it.
Posted by: G | July28, 2005
Best case in point is probably my friend who works as a Law Librarian at a corporate partnership.
Reference requests flood his desk each day. Five times out of ten, he cannot find the requested case in the legal databases (librarian-praised resources such as Lexis and Westlaw/eCarswell). Pops it into Google, and each time the reference he's looking for is there on the first page. Usually this reveals that the request that came into him had a spelling mistake or fact such as a date wrong. He takes the corrected info from Google, pops it back into the legal database, and lo and behold, up pops the reference the lawyer was looking for.
Like I said, a good tool if used properly. The most important rule for librarians is to never rely on just one tool, and to know when to use each, and more importantly, how to use each depending on the information required.
Posted by: G | July28, 2005
Alexander Pope once said, "A little learning is a dangerous thing; / Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. / There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, / And drinking largely sobers us again." (Emphasis mine.) Replace "learning" with "knowledge" -- which is the way the line is usually misquoted anyway, in addition to being taken out of context. Changes the meaning of the phrase entirely. Context is important -- and Googleprint will only give you a few pages of it.
I think Gorman's point is more that books in general, unlike reference tools proper (e.g. encyclopaedias, dictionaries, and the like), are written to be read as a whole. Search them via Google, and you only get a few pages, out of context. Not that bad if you want to get some idea if the book is relevant to your research. Great if you can't read your notes and the exact citation you need is illegible. What worries me, and I suspect it's what worries Gorman, is that the researcher won't then follow through and read the whole book, where (s)he might find much to define, modify, or outright contradict what the Google search pulled up.
A good tool, as G. says, if used properly. However, my friends in academia have long been bemoaning the reluctance on the part of students to read -- they want instant answers and do not understand the importance of context and the Big Picture. Googleprint, as wonderful as it is, may well end up exacerbating this trend. The age of the soundbite.
Posted by: Tanuki | July28, 2005
It's a risk - one has to trust that the student using it will follow up on it. It really depends what they are using it for - for the most part in my studies, there was little we actually needed for our work that was in 'books'. Most of what we required in our own research were academic articles, news articles, organizational releases, and white papers. Mostly readily available via Google. And if not, then off to the databases.
Were I in a more theory-based program (LIS is not a professional as opposed to theory degree - big difference), the requirements in assignments would have been more condusive to having to actually use books. As it stands, a book whose newest copy is 1995 does little for me in terms of writing about comparing current developments in information systems within libraries and the workplace, whereas recent articles by say, a KM guru such as Larry Prusak, are more relevant. Again, it all depends on the program and coursework. And how much time one is willing to put into learning how to use Google. Most librarians just dismiss it ... but if they'd put in the time, they'd be surprised what they can find out there.
Posted by: G | July29, 2005
