Caught a post yesterday on PSFK (Link) referring to an article on the New York Times website authored by Kevin Kelly. It’s called “Scan This Book!” (Link – registration required) and I’ve not yet had time to read it, but the excerpts on PSFK sounded so much like the kinds of things I’ve posted here and elsewhere …
Woody Evans: “Libraries would become self-aware and ubiquitous.”
Me: “The future library could itself be a kirkyan of sorts. Perhaps we need a new definition for something that collects together kirkyan physical instantiations and tracks all their activity?”
… that I intend to make time soon. I suspect there’s plenty of overlap (as I mention in PSFK’s comments).
I wonder how far he explores his comment “the now-fragile model of valuable copies”? Most people still limit their thoughts to intangibles: text, software, music, movies. Are they ever in for a surprise.
{Update: When I wrote this post, I’d intended to point out a related post over on ISHUSH (Link), but in my haste neglected to do so. It’s well worth a read.}
More on that — other librarians have pointed out the basic futility of the ‘universal library’ dream, when such a dream is built on the universality of a single platform — and said platform is a relative rarity on earth (that is, few of us actually have access to computers)…
Then again, there are the political problems — who among the powerful will deem to allow truly universal access to information?
link: http://ishush.blogspot.com/2006/05/meta-universal-library.html
There’s a really basic re-understanding of what information IS and how it works and what it DOES that must take place before any real boots-on-the-ground attempt at implementing this fictious “universal” access ever takes place. I can’t put it any more simply than to say “information is power”, can I? And who really wants to share power?
I read that post to which you link. The question you raise regarding the control of information is of particular interest to me and a serious issue. Thanks for reminding me of that post.