Revisiting “10 Reasons”

I think everyone is spot on.
Libraries still provide access to information we can’t get as individuals, including scholarly journals and other “premium” sources.
The other social and community benefits mentioned are also extremely important.

One other benefit I don’t think has been mentioned is the institution itself.
Having a body dedicated to the preservation and sharing of knowledge is immensely - perhaps critically - valuable to society.

The internet is a revolutionary tool, not a body with such a goal.

I completely agree that our internet vs. library stance (which was the mood of that article) is completely antiquated and alienates patrons. It’s not a competition, it’s a collaboration. Instead of playing off the internet as a “non-mobile information source” and then looking like fools later (Oh, hey. I just got an email on my phone), we should promote that libraries use the internet to refine a learner’s search.

It’s also important to avoid statements that accuse patrons of being so dumb, dense, or ignorant that they didn’t realize a library’s purpose in the first place.

You can either spend 4-6 hours clicking around the internet, trying to find credible information OR you can come to a library and get FREE assistance from a librarian expert, who can easily find you exactly the information you needed in less than an hour.

If you are looking forthe most current articles about something important such as health information come to a library. The internet will only give you access to the full-text articles that are 10+ years old.

Libraries are…
1. A gathering place in the community
2. A non-discriminatory institute of learning
3. A haven for disenfranchised individuals
4. One of the oldest ‘green’ institutions in the world, recirculating billions of items each year
5. A first step to early literacy
6. An excellent and visible return on tax dollars

One drawback of the internet that immediately spring to mind for me is the issue of source bias. An article from the New York Times, “Define Gender Gap? Look up Wikipedia’s Contributor List” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?scp=1&sq=wi…) reports that 85% of Wikipedia’s contributors are men. Sure, all media has its inherent biases, but if Wikipedia is the only place you look for information, how can you be aware of those biases? Even this New York Times article has a hillarious bit of sexist bias present. The article notes that famous fashion designers and “Sex and The City” have very short articles, as though those topics exemplify “women’s interests”! On a more serious note, the article also asks “Is a category with five Mexican feminist writers impressive, or embarrassing when compared with the 45 articles on characters in ‘The Simpsons’?”

The “libraries vs. internet” concept is foolish because libraries work WITH the internet to bring patrons information. We purchase databases that individual patrons could never afford. We provide internet access for those who cannot afford it. We contract with e-book lending companies to bring patrons free reading in that medium. We provide research assistance to patrons who know how to type, but not how to formulate searches or choose keywords properly. We bookmark sites that are handy for common reference questions. I’m often amazed that we managed to do our jobs so well before the internet.

Our libraries are community gathering places—a venue for social and cultural discourse—and are much more than the books, journals, technology and newspapers that attract crowds of all ages. They are a safe place of education where our masses, young and old, can have a moment of peace or an impassioned dialogue exchanged with others. Libraries simply help to preserve and prepare our civilization for the future.

You need libraries and librarians
when you need to see a big map spread out,
when you’re alone and tired of your own company,
when you’re looking for wifi that doesn’t come with $5 coffee,
when you want to share the book that changed your life at 15, but you can’t remember the title,
when you need more background than Wikipedia,
when you need a cheap place to meet to tackle that neighborhood problem,
when you want your privacy respected,
when you are out of work and can’t afford your own Internet access,
when you need a new story to read to a child,
when the censors come,
when Google gives conflicting answers,
when you’ve written an important book that will never sell big, except to libraries.

I am director of a public library and also serve as adjunct faculty and PT librarian at a community college. I’ve met a lot of people (patrons and students) who thought the Internet was a perfectly good substitute for the library—until they realized they were drowning in “information” and still hadn’t found what they needed. I help those people by teaching them better search techniques, how to search the “deep web” (where commercial search engines can’t go), and ways to evaluate the good from the bad among the resources they select. When all is said and done, those folks realize the tremendous value of the library and the librarian. They also understand that in spite of all its usefulness, the Internet really doesn’t replace the library.

“Getting information off the Internet is like getting a drink of water from a fire hydrant.” -Mitchell Kapor

Librarians provide the wrench to turn down the volume and fill the cup with quality information.

Reason #1: The “interface” between a librarian and the client is priceless. Patrons who seek help in selecting a “good” book could use online reviews but nothing beats the “try this one, I’ve read it and I think you’ll like it approach” or “other patrons have said this is a really good book so you might want to try this”. We get to know our clients.