LawLibTech

It all started with a L.A. Times commentary written by Gorman called "Google and God's Mind." (Dec. 17, 2004) In that article he explains why he opposes Google's plan to digitize the holdings of several major research libraries. His main concern seems to be that he's afraid that people will read small pieces of these scholarly books out of context, without the full experience of consuming the entire book, from cover to cover.

First, let me get this out of my system. Since when do librarians try to dictate how people use information? Are there Gorman-police who watch users in libraries to make sure they don't just glance at a page, but instead read the entire book because Michael Gorman think that's what they should do?

Of course, it's true, there are advantages to the context provided by entire works. And having the book at hand in an easily perusable form is important. But there's a missing piece here. Regardless of all the work done by dedicated catalogers, it's not always easy to identify books that contain the information you want. Books are cataloged as a whole, with general subject headings applied, typically 3 or 4, to describe the entire contents of the item. Yet works often contain a wealth of information that's not reflected in the subject headings. And yes, Google can tap that specific content better than any library catalog can. That's the beauty of full-text searching.

That's why I was so excited when Amazon started loading the full-text of many of the books they sell. They knew something that Michael Gorman doesn't. They knew that many people would use Amazon's full-text search as a finding tool. In fact, the publishers and authors, who were a little wary of having their works available on Amazon in full, learned what Amazon must have suspected all along; those that have their books available in full-text sell more books.

And so it may go for libraries as well. That's the beauty of digitizing what is now a relatively invisible collection. We talk about the invisible web, but with so much research is done online, by both "regular" people and professional researchers, it is the content of books that's truly invisible.

These materials will become quite visible once they're digitized. Then, when a researcher finds a book that they're interested in as a result of a Google search, they may very well want to read the hard copy. That's were we get them back to libraries. If Google chooses to include Worldcat records for the digital titles, so much the better.

On the other hand, sometimes readers may find the information they want and need, and find reading it in digital form works for them. That's okay, too.

At any rate, my opinion on this differs from Gorman's. That happens among reasonable people. And this L.A. Times article itself is not Gormangate. Nope, it's what happened afterwards. The bloggers, obviously people who are digital by nature and tend to have, how shall I say it, strong opinions on things, read the article and reacted. And they weren't always very nice. Gorman was clued in by friends that the "blog people" were talking about him.

That's when we get to the Library Journal article, a public relations disaster for librarians called "Revenge of the Blog People."

Gorman's credibility is shot right up front when he refers to Google as a "notoriously inefficient search engine" that gives you thousands of hits in "no useful order." (Huh? Has he actually ever used Google??) Then he moves on to an insulting tirade against bloggers, including possibly the most quoted section:

"It is obvious that the Blog People read what they want to read rather than what is in front of them and judge me to be wrong on the basis of what they think rather than what I actually wrote. Given the quality of the writing in the blogs I have seen, I doubt that many of the Blog People are in the habit of sustained reading of complex texts. It is entirely possible that their intellectual needs are met by an accumulation of random facts and paragraphs. In that case, their rejection of my view is quite understandable."

That's a fancy way of saying that bloggers, a rather diverse group ranging from the teenager next door to professional journalists to librarian-bloggers, some of whom no doubt pay ALA dues, are all...idiots.

This Library Journal article is getting more coverage on blogs than probably anything else right now relating to libraries and librarians. So thanks for that, Michael Gorman. I must say that this is not how I would have chosen to have my profession represented among the many young people (and older ones!) that you've insulted. Yes, I know, they insulted you, too, but you're a big boy, and as president-elect of ALA I would expect your responsibility would be to enhance the image of librarians. So much for that idea.

As Gorman says, "I have spent a lot of my long professional life working on aspects of the noble aim of Universal Bibliographic Control�a mechanism by which all the world's recorded knowledge would be known, and available, to the people of the world." Well you know what? I'm sorry, Mr. Gorman, but when it comes to making information available to the masses, the "boogie woogie Google boys" as you condescendingly call them are making a tad more headway on that goal that you were ever able to in your lifetime. And that's something we should all be happy about.

For more information on Gormangate see:

Free Range Librarian - Gorman on Reflection

An Accumulation of Random Facts and Paragraphs From The Blog People on Michael Gorman

Blog People Buttons & T-Shirts - Somebody's got to have a sense of humor!

Google Search - Revenge of the Blog People