Reading Archives

With this blog, I am planning to offer, as regularly as possible, critical observations on the scholarly and popular literature analyzing the nature of archives or contributing to our understanding of archives in society. I hope this blog will be of assistance to anyone, especially faculty and graduate students, interested in understanding archives and their importance to society.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Googling Around


Every day, we read news articles and press releases (often it is difficult to tell them apart) about how every document, book, article, work of art, and piece of ephemera will be digitized and placed on the Web. In some ways, this is only a continuation of a historic quest to build a universal library or archive. Google, and its aim to digitize all of the world’s books, has drawn considerable commentary, most of it, at least by the public and the media, quite positive. The saga is a “seductive” one for archivists and librarians, as Ian Wilson, the head of Canada’s National Archives and Library, writes in an introduction to Jean-Noël Jeanneney’s Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge: A View from Europe, trans. Teresa Lavender Fagan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), ISBN-10: 0-226-39577-4: Google’s offer is “seductive to chronically underfunded libraries and archives, the custodians of our societies’ cumulative documentary heritage. The potential to open the extensive, sometimes fragile holdings of these institutions for education, research, and other public uses is powerful and realizes a central goal of generations of both librarians and archivists” (p. viii). Wilson, reflecting on Jeanneney’s text, then wonders if Google and such objectives are a good match.

Jeanneney, president of France’s National Library, reviews the Google approach and critiques it. He contrasts the long-term cultural mission of librarians and archivists with the short-term business aims of Google, arguing that there is the need for a renewed commitment to the work of librarians (and by implication, archivists): “The social and cultural function of librarians will be increasingly important and prestigious in the future; they will be even more useful to the public, and their profession will become more satisfying. For years. A common perception, maintained by various stereotypes, has tended to reduce the role of librarians to that of providing books, images, recordings, and other documents. In reality, librarians have always helped to organize chaos, to guide readers to the information they are seeking among the vast quality of sources and media that contain it. And now, with the irruption of digitization, this essential function will be enhanced, and librarians should benefit from renewed recognition. More than ever before, they will stand beside professors and schoolteachers as essential intermediaries of knowledge” (p. 23). One can also assume from this that the librarian and archivist also will need to be far more proactive than ever in grappling with all the implications posed by the work of Google.

What are the various challenging issues we face with Google’s digital book project? For now, Google is not charging for access, but the company makes no guarantee that it will not add a commercial aspect to this at some time in the future. Google also has caved into pressure from certain governments, such as China, to allow the censoring by restricting access to certain web sites; will it also censor who has access to the digitized books? Google has no sense about the issues of preservation. Nor has Google really developed any logical concepts about the selection of books to be digitized. The greatest problem about any of this, however, may be that Google is one of those highly volatile dot.com enterprises. If we depend on this company for digitizing massive quantities of books, what might happen when the company collapses or is bought out?

In the midst of such challenges and often perplexing matters, Jeanneney suggests reasons for hope and confidence about the future role of cultural repositories such as libraries and archives. In evaluating Google’s activities, Jeanneney poses a scenario where such professionals are facing substantial changes, but where these changes may lead to new and improved approaches. He writes, for example, that “a system for organizing knowledge should never be immutable. In this regard we are breaking away from traditional libraries, which preserve works on paper. Those libraries necessarily arrange their holdings on shelves and rarely alter them, whereas the arrangement of digital stock can be lively and changing” (p. 72). We can extrapolate such comments and suggest that archivists, librarians, museum curators, and other such professionals need to reconsider traditional approaches in light of changing expectations of researchers and the public generated by the public. However, this is different, as Jeanneney carefully describes, than placing our faith in a commercial enterprise.

From such commercial and societal changes there emerges a new mandate for professionals such as archivists and librarians. Jeanneney argues that we must educate people to have the appropriate “intellectual tools” to master the Internet. Adults, he muses, “will find our digitized collections indispensable instruments for maintaining perspective in the face of the bombardment of new information, which they themselves must place in context, classify, and weigh. Unless a culture organizes that information, society is condemned to accept the mere dissemination of information, harmful to intellectual clarity and to a rich and harmonious public life” (p. 87). And with such notions, we return to the importance of the work of librarians and archivists.

3 Comments:

At 9:53 AM, Blogger Craig said...

Whenever talking about the internet, I feel like there's at least a small tendency to speak in hyperbole. I have no problem with this, actually, and I think it speaks to the vast and exciting potential that the internet provides to Library, Archive, and Information scientists. What does bother me, though, is when people turn this hyperbole on its head and talk about the terrible daunting challenges of the internet, rather than turning those challenges into great opportunities.

Google gets a lot of this hyperbole, both good and bad. At the very least (and perhaps thinking over-optimistically) I don't think Google will be charging for the information it digitizes. Their entire business model is set up behind providing as much access as possible to information and using that desire for information, combined with advertisement, to generate revenue. For much of the same reasons sites like Nerve.com and Salon.com are fighting too strict anti-pornography laws that would cut off their unregistered viewership (and KILL them in ad revenue), it is unlikely Google will switch to a restriction of information.
Also, I think the point of Google's decision in China is a tricky one. Would it be better that Google provide no access whatsoever, or censor a bit here and there? In this case I think some access is better than none. I think the engineers at Google are smart enough to realize that the beauty of the Internet lies in people being able to find new ways to navigate around censorship. By providing its service, even under the guidance of the Chinese government, Google is providing yet another tool for people to stay ahead of censors.

Haha, I feel like I could go on for days about all this stuff, but this is just a blog comment, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Cheers.
--- Craig P. Savino
NYU Archival Student

 
At 2:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Richard,
Welcome to the blogosphere. I didn't know you had started this until I saw it on the archives list.
Here at RLG Programs (now part of OCLC Programs and Research) we have been doing a lot of thinking about the relationship between search engines and what we refer to as the "collective collection" that libraries, archives and museums will be creating as more of those collections get moved to the digital realm and pushed to the network level. We are also interested in the role that information professionals can play in shaping this future.
The recent New York METRO annual meeting featured a keynote presentation by Lee Rainie from the Pew Internet and American Life Project. The talk, entitled: Digital Natives: How today's youth are different from the 'digital immigrant' elders and what that means for libraries, gave a detailed analysis of the disparity between the ways today’s teens are using new technologies and the way adults and seniors are using (or not using) those technologies. The presentation is now available for download as an MP3 audio file on METRO’s website, and you will also find a link to Mr. Rainie’s powerpoint slides there. At the end of the presentation, he gives "10 reasons why the future can belong to librarians" (and I think you could easily add archivists to the mix here.)

check out the presentation at
http://www.metro.org/content/view/149/324/ to hear or view the keynote address.

Please also visit our blog at hangingtogether.org

Anne Van Camp

 
At 2:40 PM, Blogger Dean said...

I work for a publisher, in fact I work for the publisher of the Jeanneney book. There is a whole lot that could be said about this book, Google, libraries, and publishers. ( I'm both a supporter and a critic of the Google program, and my views are strictly my own.) A couple of comments:

(1) This is exactly right: "Nor has Google really developed any logical concepts about the selection of books to be digitized." Google is a company of engineers, not of librarians. Google is putting hundreds of thousands of out of print books into their book program. Frankly, some books deserve to be out of print--their research is dated and their conclusions have since been proven false. These books have an archival value, but the Google Book Search program treats every book the same, the up-to-date and the out-of-date.

(2) Will Google at some point begin to charge for access? As originally conceived the Google Book Search program was supposed to be supported by advertising revenue. That revenue stream has failed to materialize to any significant degree. If the program is to be a revenue source for Google, where is that going to come from? Two possible sources are a charge for access or a charge to publishers for the display of their books. Or both.

(3) You can see a great deal of Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge on Google Book Search at this URL:
http://books.google.com/books/uchicago?vid=ISBN0226395774

 

Post a Comment

<< Home