Those "with long memories remember the last time Google assembled a giant library that promised to rescue orphaned content for future generations. And the tattered remnants of that online archive are a cautionary tale in what happens when Google simply loses interest".It is a useful read, not so much for librarians who already understand the differences, but for librarians to point those that question their existence or funding.
The author says it best at the end, when he says:
Its a reminder that Google is an advertising company — not a modern-day Library of Alexandria.Libraries have value and important roles to play in our society. Reminders like this are useful.
Posts
6 comments:
I think there is confusion here between Google's *biz model* (primarily advertising at present—but maybe this might change over time) and its *mission* (clearly a library one--see their mission statement). If we characterise Google as an "advertising company" might we then characterise public and academic libraries as "tax institutions" (I speak from a UK perspective--where the biz model for these libraries is public (tax) funding). I guess newspapers are “advertising companies" too?
Google’s tendency to monopoly (and its behaviour regarding the Usenet stuff) is not necessarily because it gets its revenue for advertising. It is simply a well understood characteristic of a capitalist economy (that why there are anti-trust /monopoly laws). Of course we need to be wary and sceptical of what Google does.
I work with academic and public libraries and find they have much to do to gets to grip with how they can ‘compete’ in a much expanded ‘library market’ and how they can best apply their terrific values.
I must respectfully disagree. I believe the point of the article is that one must remember what the business model is that drives an organization. Sure the business model may change (as may the mission), but at the end of the day, if the mission and/or products/services don't tightly couple and support one another, the business model will win. As it did with Usenet (if they were driven purely by mission, Usenet would still be invested in and promoted). Bottom line, you can't divorce the business model from the mission and one must keep that in mind.
Libraries do offer tremendous value. Making sure that funding authorities understand why the mission and business models ARE different between Google and libraries is why I found the article useful and still do.
Google addresses the issue http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/usenet_fix/
Very good, although I believe many of the points discussed remain valid. However, good to see Usenet is back...
As a reminder, this is what happens when Google looses interest :
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/22/record
Cultural institutions, be it libraries, museums, archives, foundations, universities, departments...are here to ensure the long-term preservation and access to resources. Google is here to make sure, it's the only access point to digitized resources, for instance, and that it gets money for providing this access. There's no such thing as a free lunch, that's so obvious!
To state the obvious, Google's role remains largely a search engine; with a primary task of quick and accurate retireval of information. Like Sarah said, cultural institutions should ensure their data interfaces well with search engines. One organisation that has been proactive in this regard is http://www.europeana.eu and many of their partners and libraries around the world who are frantically digitising all the information and making it accessible to public. Question for Carl, are you familiar with the Foundation books by Asimov? If so what would be the single organisation today that's closest to the role of Earth's current comprehensive scientific and cultural knowledge?
Post a Comment