Two articles on the related topic of libraries and access to knowledge:
From The Independent, Michael Savage asks “The Big Question: Does the decline in book lending spell the end for the public library?” He notes that figures just published show that the British “are taking out fewer books from libraries than we were 10 years ago. Library users in England borrowed just under 269 million books in the last financial year, according to official figures compiled by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. That is down 34 per cent on the amount borrowed back in 1997.”
It may not be that Brits have lost any interest in reading; in fact, “2007 was a record-breaking year in terms of the amount the British spent on a good read,” with book sales up 6.2 per cent over 2006.
Savage suggests that factors involved in libraries’ reduced book borrowing include lower book prices (cheaper than ever for people to just buy the books), comfier digs at bookstores than libraries, changes in social structure, and perhaps most likely, library patrons using the library for reasons other than borrowing books, as number of library visits has remained roughly the same at least over the past 3 years.
Savage ends the column with the question “Do libraries still have a role in 21st-century Britain?” and answers it with some pros and cons.
===
A second column at Times Online, “Reference books? Give me Wikipedia” by Magnus Linklater, argues against Tara Brabazon, professor of Media Studies at the University of Brighton, who “has banned her own students from using Wikipedia or Google as research sources, and insists they read printed texts only. In a lecture, she argues that only thus will we produce the critical thinkers that the nation needs.”
Linklater embraces “the new socialism” (a bit tongue in cheek) of “offering equality of information to everyone.” He views students’ lack of critical thinking as a function of “the way they have been taught to think — and the way their written work is marked.” He says that if students “learn that they have a gateway to knowledge unprecedented in the history of man, and that this opens up access to sources of information that they might never have glimpsed as they struggled with poorly equipped libraries, unhelpful staff and unimaginative lecturers, then they will realise that, far from blunting curiosity, it sharpens it.”
In his haste to praise quick, easy, and often very good information found online, Linklater, it seems to me, makes the common error of exaggerating or taking as universal the negative aspects of that which she seeks to argue against — in this case, in part, libraries. I agree with his argument that Wikipedia and other online sources offer a great opportunity for finding information to anyone with internet access and the ability to read the screen, and I agree that critical thinking is not a function of the medium but rather of being taught how to use the medium and the content. I also value the library, and the librarian, many of whom are excellent discerners of knowledge and are willing to share their insight with library users.
===
At rhetorically speaking, Scottish blogger ‘bookdrunk’ thinks that Linklater misunderstands or misinterprets Brabazon’s point and essentially argues against a straw man: “Tara Brabazon isn’t opposed to wikipedia or google in principal, but concerned that the ease with which information is made available has not been matched with a critical appreciation of different sources. The revelation that what you read online in or in a newspaper can’t be taken at face-value (or that a columnist might completely misrepresent someone’s views) is probably not news …” He (?) quotes Brabazon: “We need to teach our students the interpretative skills first before we teach them the technological skills.”
Why not teach interpretive skills before, as, and after technological and reading skills are taught?