In his essay, "Future Reading," Anthony Grafton argues that the utopian project to digitize all of the documents of human history, including books, will fail. It will fail, he says, in part because of corporate financial decisions. Google, Amazon and the rest are limited in what they can scan by copyright. Furthermore, they don't plan to offer images of early printed books. They won't be scanning documents from poor societies. "Poverty," he writes, "is embodied in lack of print as well as in lack of food."
Finally, this would-be universal library is "closed to those without access or money" -- those who can't afford computers, or subscriptions to the online databases. Unlike the New York Public Library, which serves all of the people, the Internet only serves those who can afford it.
What do you make of this economic argument? Do you think that Grafton is wrong -- that we can achieve an "infotopia"?
I definitely agree with what Grafton is saying in his essay. Even if they somehow managed to get this infotopia, where all the books, documents, essays, etc. ever written were online, there's still going to be people who can't access the internet. Poorer countries would especially have problems with this. If this did happen and all the information was online instead of in print, would the poor countries who can't access the internet become even poorer because they now have access to even less knowledge & opportunities than other people? I would think it's a great possibility. Everyone in every country would have to be wealthy enough to access the internet in order for this to work. So ultimately we need a utopia before we can have an infotopia.
ReplyDeleteyea, i agree with Bekah. it would be hard. but why cant we have the best of both worlds?? why cant we have the huge document database that goole is attempting to create as well as printed books? the data base would be very convinent for people who wont have access to a library on a regular basis. and for the people/ contries without access or who cant afford it, libraries and hard copy books will still be around. i think that would be the best way to go.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Brook -- Grafton appears to be arguing for a both/and position, not an either/or one.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Brook because there are already a number of books online that people have access to on Google Books. I love the idea of having books online and physical books, even though right now most of the contemporary books aren't online. I'm hoping some day they will be.
ReplyDeleteI think less fortunate people should still have the luxury of reading and having both online and physical books is a great idea.
I think that the online books are cool. sure but look at other factors of putting books online. The internet has many distractions that would distract most people from doing the reading they are probably supposed to be doing. I know myself when I am doing something on a computer that I have a short attention span for things taking us back to earlier essay's we read about how we tend to scan through things and not read them entirely. So I don't see how they expect us to sit and stare at a computer screen to read a entire book. I think we should stick to hard copy's of books because they bring a lot less distraction also so much more meaning in the world.
ReplyDeleteAnd I really enjoyed what Bekah said about where are all those books and documents going to go?
I think everyone has the same theme of thought, here. It's really not a bad thing that books are digital, but I don't think that we should try to make the digital library any more important or exclusive than a public library. A digital library is convenient for those doing research at a computer and can stand to read through sometimes brain-numbing research online. I, myself, prefer hard copies, but that doesn't mean that all books should be hard copies. I don't agree that the online library should be a service that is allowed to be charged for, but then again, big corporations are always after another buck. I don't think it's possible, like Grafton says, to get all books online because of the restrictions and pickiness that seems to be arising. As for the online library in a whole, I say go for it and try it, but let me keep my books.
ReplyDeleteI will continue to agree with everyone. in the sense that we need paper books and no matter how hard technology my try to replace them there will still be people who will disire them.
ReplyDeletePretty much everyone on here has the same opinion so I can't just agree with one.
ReplyDeleteThe Google Books thing is cool and convenient for, as Blair said "those doing research at a computer and can stand to read through sometimes brain-numbing research online." But I don't think any thing can take the place of books completely. Obviously there will still be millions and millions of books out there in libraries, on peoples' bookshelves at home and in schools around the world. They aren't just going to disappear: they're going to be around for a very long time.
I think Google Books will actually make the sales of books go up. They don't show the entire book. They take out parts of contemporary books so if the person really wants to read the book they'll have to buy it anyway. I think it gives books more exposure especially because it has a "Browse Sections" option. This is like having a library in your own home.
I think that Google will end up making a huge database of books. It's already happening. But I don't think that they will achieve the "infotopia" that they are striving for.
ReplyDeleteIf you're only scanning documents from the rich countries, then no matter how big it gets, it will never be a true infotopia if it still leaves over half of the world out. It's that simple.
Still in agreement. It's really nice to have digital copies of text, and I think they should definitely continue to add as much to the online database as possible. Hard copies are still very necessary though.
ReplyDeleteMy mom's a medical librarian, which I guess sort of incorporates the positives and negatives of both physical and digital text.
There's a program called Interlibrary Loan. Librarians can send/request texts and videos from each other that would otherwise run in the thousands of dollars each. This wouldn't be possible if you were trying to send out the same physical, nine-hundred page text book to multiple places at once.
The down side to digital is not only a person's possible lack of funds or interest, but computer literacy. Some people don't know how computers work, how to do a decent search, or even like dealing with them in the first place (another reason to have an actual librarian there.)
Even with a perfect idea of how the process works, there's still the issue of access itself. You can't find everything through regular search engines. The more important stuff is going to be on select sites only available to certain schools, hospitals, companies, etc. This part isn't really a downfall of digital, (because of course there also plenty of physical texts not available to the public) but more of a reason to maintain people and an established access point for information. Some people have this weird idea that you can just find anything you want through google.
On a slightly more abstract level, there's the flickering refresh rate. You may not notice it for a while, but if you're continuously pouring over texts on screen, your eyes will start to hurt like crazy. There's also just the comfort of a physical book. It's just kind of a different object in itself.
Google will not reach infotopia, there is no way for everyone in the world to access a computer or internet, there is still going to be the need for paper books.
ReplyDeleteEmily Roemerman
I agree with everyone, I think the whole idea behind an online database such as the one google is making is a great one. Its more convenient and easier which is the whole point. But having every single piece of writing ever, thats a little bit over the top. I don't think we should ever try and rid the world of the physical form of a book, its history and i don't think technology should try to over shadow books. Having both books online and still many copies is the way to go, not just one or the other.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grafton. Even though i do think its pretty cool that you can read many books online. It would be extremely hard to get every book online and it would also cost a lot of money to do so. Even though every book online would be pretty nice and very accessible for most people it just seems way to hard to do that.
ReplyDelete- Ted Merschman
I don't think that it is possible to make a complete digital library because there are too many books to scan onto a database. I also don't think that it is a good idea to put all of the digital books in one place and just rely on that instead of relying on physical books because it is too easy to lose the digital books. If your computer or whatever you are reading the online book on isn't plugged into an outlet you also run the risk of the battery dying or the electricity going out and you just don't have those problems with a physical book.
ReplyDeleteNathan
I agree with what Grafton is saying. Personally I do not like having to do everything on computers, It takes a lot out of the purpose of your main goal. I like being able to read a book and being able to flip the page. Besides, you never hear of a book freezing and you don't need to charge it.
ReplyDeleteI agreed with Grafton, I think computers are going to far these days. People rely on them far to much to get even the simplest of tasks done. Besides, Ive never had a book freeze on me where I could not turn the page, and I never had to charge a book either.
ReplyDeletei'm agreeing with grafton and everyone. sometimes i dont like how technological things have gotten lately...and computers have fallen into that category. because i dont like how i could go on the net to read a book. i think books should stay on paper. and like brendan said...people rely on the internet way to much..
ReplyDeleteI think Grafton makes good points regarding his argument. Personally, I think if this project is created and it has every book online then it will take the adventure or authentic taste away of reading a book.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grafton and most of my classmates. Even if Google and all the other search engines are able to put everything that is on paper and turn it into a infotopia there will still be many people who think reading a hard copy and turning the pages is better. Also, what happens when many problems arrive with the infotopia. Such as internet slowing down or not working, then what? I think that maybe somewhere in the far future when internet is affordable for EVERYBODY then it will be a good tool.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grafton as well. You cant beat having a paper back book over a computer screen. Having every book online would be way to hard anyway.
ReplyDeleteCollin