Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hobbitzswift t1_jaaqbcs wrote

Reply to comment by ViskerRatio in The Day the Librarians Disappeared - We Can't Let This Story Come True! by playplaylearn

This is..... incredibly short-sighted. You think just because YOU don't need a library, NO ONE needs a library?

Libraries provide community activities, summer reading programs for children, a place for the homeless to shelter (as well as serving as disaster relief shelters in some communities!), a place where people go to vote, storytime and activities for children, movie nights for families (btw, the only place you can rent movies for free in most communities is the library), game rentals, book clubs, language classes for adults, assistance with applying for jobs, a place for seniors to congregate and exist, a place for local historical archives and artifacts to be housed, digitized, and to SURVIVE....and who do you think organizes ALL of that? Couldn't be those useless librarians, could it? (I am aware that not all libraries have all of this. This is due to under-funding and under-staffing.)

You don't have to personally care about libraries if they're not useful to you but if you like books they actually ARE important to the future of literacy and publishing and so what is happening to them matters. If you care about the less privileged members of your community libraries are important too.

16

ViskerRatio t1_jaar077 wrote

> Libraries provide community activities, summer reading programs for children, a place for the homeless to shelter (as well as serving as disaster relief shelters in some communities!), a place where people go to vote, storytime and activities for children, movie nights for families (btw, the only place you can rent movies for free in most communities is the library), game rentals, book clubs, language classes for adults, assistance with applying for jobs, a place for seniors to congregate and exist, a place for local historical archives and artifacts to be housed, digitized, and to SURVIVE....and who do you think organizes ALL of that? Couldn't be those useless librarians, could it? (I am aware that not all libraries have all of this. This is due to under-funding and under-staffing.)

Your litany of reasons for having libraries has essentially nothing to do with libraries. You're not arguing for libraries - you're arguing for public spaces. And, for that matter, why would you hire a librarian to oversee it? Their training isn't in the logistical matters necessary for the tasks you describe but rather in the organization of information in a pre-digital age.

−20

Klau5_Dieter t1_jaavzty wrote

The library IS the public space. And the fact that this public space also provides access to a free source of information on just about any topic is great and should be kept that way.

Also, the sale of print books has been steadily on the rise, increasing every year since 2012. Books are not dead.

11

hobbitzswift t1_jaatpp9 wrote

>Your litany of reasons for having libraries has essentially nothing to do with libraries. You're not arguing for libraries - you're arguing for public spaces.

This has always been part of the purpose of libraries, especially since the 1960s or so. Why start some new type of public space when there already exists an institution that is supposed to do that? (I'll never argue against MORE public spaces but this is part of why libraries exist and ignoring that leads to less funding for libraries to do this type of community service.)

>Their training isn't in the logistical matters necessary for the tasks you describe but rather in the organization of information in a pre-digital age.

Uh. Nothing you said here is correct.... Current librarians are trained in organization of information in a DIGITAL age AND ALSO in the logistical matters that go into organizing community activities like the ones I described, with the exception of things like voting and disaster relief.

10

ViskerRatio t1_jaayp7j wrote

> This has always been part of the purpose of libraries, especially since the 1960s or so.

More like "since the 1990s" - and was largely a reflection of the declining utility of warehousing printed material.

Most of what you see as the modern purpose of libraries was more commonly performed by churches and other religious institutions in the past.

In any case, it doesn't really matter. If you're using a stables as a restaurant, that doesn't magically make stables relevant just because restaurants are.

> Current librarians are trained in organization of information in a DIGITAL age

Library science programs do not teach the mathematical tools for the organization of digital data. That's why you don't see organizations operating large-scale repositories of digital data hiring librarians.

> ALSO in the logistical matters that go into organizing community activities like the ones I described

Again, if this were true you'd see non-library organizations hiring library science graduates. But you don't. Whatever training they receive is not sufficient to make them experts in the tasks they're being asked to perform.

−10

hobbitzswift t1_jaazpmk wrote

>More like "since the 1990s" - and was largely a reflection of the declining utility of warehousing printed material.

I'd allow the 70s, but 90s is wildly recent. This is incorrect. "Warehousing printed material" also isn't a very accurate description of what a library does and it proves your disdain for the field.

>Library science programs do not teach the mathematical tools for the organization of digital data. That's why you don't see organizations operating large-scale repositories of digital data hiring librarians.

Library science programs teach the tools to organize digital archives. Aka their job.

>Again, if this were true you'd see non-library organizations hiring library science graduates. But you don't.

Well, firstly, librarianship is a specialized field and most people who get their MLIS go on to work in a library of some sort since that is, you know, what they paid to go to school for. However, some MLIS graduates change careers and work elsewhere. So this is again, incorrect, and frankly incredibly rude and dismissive of an entire profession you very obviously know nothing about.

7

ViskerRatio t1_jab17is wrote

> I'd allow the 70s, but 90s is wildly recent. This is incorrect.

The change in libraries is very recent. All of that space given over to media and digital presence? That was - at the earliest - in the 90s. Prior to that, you might have had a room full of vinyl records. But no computers, visual presentation devices, etc.

Likewise, most of the 'social' functions of libraries are within the past few decades because that space was taken up by physical books. If you needed a conference room for a public event, you were far more likely to use a church or school.

> Library science programs teach the tools to organize digital archives. Aka their job.

If this were true, library science graduates would be paid lavishly by private sector organizations. They are not. They are public sector-only employees that no organization that has to organize digital data on a large scale has any interest in hiring.

I know what you want to believe about librarians and their training. But they are largely obsolete, kept around mostly by the inertia of government and nostalgia.

> So this is again, incorrect, and frankly incredibly rude and dismissive of an entire profession you very obviously know nothing about.

I actually know a very great deal about the organization of digital information - and I know that actual professionals in the field consider the idea that librarians have any meaningful expertise in it laughable.

Again, there's a reason that the serious people who do this for money (rather than simply being on the government payroll) don't recruit from library science programs.

I get it. Change is scary. You have fond memories of a world that is going away. But that world is going away and neither you nor I can stop it.

−3

hobbitzswift t1_jab2znu wrote

>All of that space given over to media and digital presence? That was - at the earliest - in the 90s. Prior to that, you might have had a room full of vinyl records. But no computers, visual presentation devices, etc.

Was it maybe because digital presence was not as big a thing before the 90s, when everyone started having computers in their houses?

>If you needed a conference room for a public event, you were far more likely to use a church or school.

Yeah, because libraries generally use their conference spaces for their own activities lmao

>I know what you want to believe about librarians and their training. But they are largely obsolete, kept around mostly by the inertia of government and nostalgia.

I actually do know what I'm talking about! There is no need to condescend. What you're saying continues to be incorrect. If you hate librarians and think librarians are useless that's cool, good for you. That doesn't mean the spaces are obsolete. They aren't.

>I actually know a very great deal about the organization of digital information- and I know that actual professionals in the field consider the idea that librarians have any meaningful expertise in it laughable.

Why is your argument that librarians wouldn't be good at whole separate field supposed to hold any water in what we are talking about? Librarians are trained in the tools they need to help a modern library function (many people aren't aware of what librarians' training entails so I would take these data professionals' opinions with a grain of salt, not having any further information on them). And yes, I know a great deal about the profession of library science as well. So please assume that I'm not talking out of my ass. It's clear to me from your comments that you don't actually know the purpose of a library or how it functions - you admit you don't use them frequently. That's fine, it's not for you anymore. The world IS changing and the library spaces are going to continue to change with it. They already have changed, wildly, from what they were in the 1950s and 1960s. That's a great thing! It doesn't mean they're obsolete, it means they're adapting to the needs of the modern world, which is awesome.

5

ViskerRatio t1_jab3omj wrote

> Was it maybe because digital presence was not as big a thing before the 90s, when everyone started having computers in their houses?

Undoubtably this was part of the reason. However, knowing the reasons doesn't change the reality - the transition of libraries to community spaces and digital media sites is within the past few decades.

> Yeah, because libraries generally use their conference spaces for their own activities lmao

Libraries didn't have those community spaces. Perhaps the easiest way to see this is to visit a major research university and compare the newer vs. the older libraries. Those older libraries - with their endless stacks, lack of conference rooms or 'open office'-style spaces - are how libraries used to look.

> What you're saying continues to be incorrect.

Again - if what you believe is true, then why aren't any of the institutions that deal with large-scale digital data hiring graduates in library science?

What you're arguing is equivalent to arguing that astrologists are essential to space travel in the face of the reality that NASA doesn't hire astrologists.

0

hobbitzswift t1_jab5n53 wrote

>Perhaps the easiest way to see this is to visit a major research university and compare the newer vs. the older libraries. Those older libraries - with their endless stacks, lack of conference rooms or 'open office'-style spaces - are how libraries used to look.

Oh, I see! We're talking about two different things. I'm talking about public libraries. Also, yes, even public libraries used to look like that, especially pre-90s. The fact that they've evolved is a good thing because not all media is stored in books anymore, which you obviously agree with.

>What you're arguing is equivalent to arguing that astrologists are essential to space travel in the face of the reality that NASA doesn't hire astrologists.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that librarians have important jobs that are distinct from other professions. You're arguing "if they're so good, why don't they all do this whole other job"? It's more equivalent to you saying why aren't college professors working in c-suites for businesses or something. Or why don't local public service government workers go work for the FBI.

Edit: left out a word

3

KickFriedasCoffin t1_jacklax wrote

I trained in nursing and work as a nurse. Apparently that's wrong lol

2

hobbitzswift t1_jad1rrs wrote

Yes, clearly we should all get degrees in specific fields and then go work in a different field to prove our education was worth something, lol.

1