There are exciting things happening in Korean libraries. In The Korea Times article, “Library Going Digital,” B. Ji-sook reports on the opening, the first of its kind in terms of physical space and scope, of the National Digital Library in southern Seoul. Ji-sook writes that this library, with its 380,000 digital books, 116 million pieces of digital content, 626 computers, and 8-story building, “complements” the National Library. I might argue that this is an understatement. In any case, this digital library offers the opportunity for people to come in and access the digital materials, either on one of the library computers, or by accessing the library website on personal or rental computers. The National Digital Library is able to cater to both national and international visitors, and also provides accommodation for disabled people. I think one of the more impressive features of the NDL is found in its collaboration with national, public and academic libraries in Korea and abroad in creating “a huge database.”
In theory I cannot find fault in with the NDL; in reality there are a few concerns that were not addressed in the article, which I think are important, including the general purpose of the NDL (beyond opening "[...]eyes to the world of books" (Mo Chul-min, NDL director)). Granted, this article is for a more general audience and promoting the library to a foreign audience, but I am still full of questions! Chul-min readily admits to a couple of the challenges he feels face the library: copyright issues and e-book competition. I am interested in the library’s philosophy. Obviously, in many cases, it sounds like the NDL offers alot of information and fabulous access. This library will benefit countless people; I can think of a 10 reasons why I would love to use the NDL purely for academic research. Also, the fact that they store important “historical” websites, for example, will make the NDL a valuable library in the future. The questions I have revolve around what is being collected, and more importantly, to what purpose. According the Chul-min, the NDL ‘dibrary’ collects information online that “… will be assessed according to several standards: whether the information can benefit many people; whether it is necessary; and whether it (is)worth saving for a long time.” Again, in theory, this sounds like a reassuring answer.
I am concerned that a digital library of this magnitude, at the national level, is setting an example for other digital collections regarding what information/knowledge is worthwhile. If knowledge equals power, who decides what is beneficial from online sources? Who has the power to choose what is necessary and valuable? I realize that limits must be drawn somewhere, and perhaps the answer is simpler than I expect and can be found in the general collection policies governing a library. I fear, however, that these policies may not have been created with the digital information explosion in mind and may not properly accommodate the massive amounts of information available online. I accept that a national digital library will represent a “national” bias if it has the resources to collect a large amount of information for storage and people are able to access it, but it is disquieting to imagine what is being left out of this collection.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
My immediate reaction was to question whether or not something like the concept of a “dibary,” as it has been labeled, could be catching on a larger scale in other places. While it is innovative, and admittedly impressive, I was inclined to dismiss the idea based on the fact that one of the advantages of digital resources is that they can usually be accessed freely and easily from anywhere, including one’s home, office, etc. That convenience is, I think, the factor that attracts a wider audience when it comes to digital resources and it almost defeats the purpose to house those same resources in one place then offer the public access to them upon entrance to a building. Why not go to a traditional library and access the same resources there, if at all possible? Admittedly, the “dibary” sounds like it has much more to offer in the way of computer usage, including facilities for the handicap, and database access than most libraries, I question whether or not those kinds of advances cannot be made in existing libraries in a more cost effective manner than building an entirely new library from the ground up.
It is definitely illustrates a shift in the concept of “what a library is.” It challenges the convention of a building with tangible materials, such as books and magazines, and also calls into question the role of librarians in this scenario. What part do they have to play and how does an institution such as an entirely digital library alter the skill sets one must learn to be a librarian? And I think Jen makes an excellent point of something I was thinking towards the end of this and that is who is going to dictate which digital sources are going to be worthy of making it into the NDL.
I also never realized that Koreans were so turned off to books and, as the article suggests towards the end. While I am a bit skeptical of that particular statement, it begs the question that if Koreans are already in what the article calls an “intellectual lethargy,” I question whether or not digitization will really make that much of a difference. Simply because the service is offered does not people will use it, just like offering people free use of a tradition library does not make people who do not like to read more inclined to do so. While the library proves to be a great novelty in promotion of literacy, what with its hi-tech nature and array of eye-catching gadgetry, I wonder what happens when the novelty wears off.
I'm not sure how I feel about a "dibrary."
I would like to know more, specifically, about what the dibrary is collecting and offering to the public. The article states that it's not just random blog and article postings, that there's more to it than that, but the web has more than just random blog and article postings, but that doesn't stop people from stopping there, if that makes sense. I realize some of the things being offered, such as archives of historical websites, will be tremendously valuable for the future, what is being collected now for use in the *now*?
I'm particularly struck by the last bit of the article (and I think Beth and Jen commented on it as well), that Koreans are supposedly anti-reading and aren't interested in "philosophy" or "deeper" reading, but instead prefer "lighter" materials. What exactly does that mean--"lighter" materials? Does that mean best-sellers or does that mean celebrity dish? With the copyright issues relating to books that the dibrary would like to offer, does this mean that the "dibrary" will eventually be forced into nothing more than an AOL-Time Warner database full of sensational news and information? (Which does serve a function in society, but certainly does not constitute "deeper" or more "philosophical" material.)
I guess I would just like a little more clarity here in exactly the kind of materials the dibrary is offering. It's great that it seems to have worked hard to overcome access barriers, but rather than hear about that, I'd like some examples of its offerings and what its patrons are actually accessing.
While reading the article about the new dibrary of South Korea I had a multitude of emotions and questions in my head. I think that the new library is fascinating. And entire library with nothing in it except for computers Now to tell the truth I am a huge fan of having something tangible in front of me. Questions about the viability of the dibrary came to me though. How much is this going to cost? I mean, if this is the only library in South Korea and they stockpiled all the money they had then A-OK, but if not where are they getting all the money for over 600 computers, electricity bill, lab techs (because most people know that computers break down) and the money to replace things such as ink and toner? I do like the fact that so much information can be at ones’ fingertips. But there are limits to this dibrary-the number of computers and the amount of people on the server. I would find it hard to compare articles when they are on two different windows. Not to mention this only gives people more reason to stop talking with their peers. “Why go outside of my room to do anything now? I have it all of my computer screen?” In an era where people communicate by computer and technology so much (ah-hem, this is an online course) I don’t know if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
I am very opposed to this form of library. I think some people like to be able to go out and find what they are looking for. To touch, smell, and take home the book/item they are searching for. I know I am one of these people. Last but not least the quote “He added that instead, the dibrary is focusing on collecting information online. It isn't all just articles posted on blogs or Web sites often listed as ``information,'' but will be assessed according to several standards: whether the information can benefit many people; whether it is necessary; and whether it worth saving for a long time.” The library is only going to find things that they think are viable to society. But what if I want to find a article on underwater basketweaving in swamps for dummies? Doesn’t that subject hold a place of viability in society? I think that there are more limits to this kind of library than the limits of a non-digital library.
I have a few concerns after reading the article. The first one involves the acquisition of online contents. The article indicates that the "National Assembly passed a bill to oblige all online contents be turned into the library". What does that mean? Because this material is online the libraries no longer have to purchase copies of things/go through proper acquisition channels? Doesn't that put traditional libraries at a disadvantage if they have to purchase hard copies of materials?
Second, what is this idea of "intellectual lethargy"? Why are Koreans intellectually lethargic? How did this happen? I think rather than building what is obviously a very ambitious and expensive "dibary", perhaps they should deal with the underlying issues the Koreans have with reading. Really, if I don't like libraries, will walking into the dibary and seeing 600+ computers encourage me to read? I doubt it.
I love the idea of online access. I'm envious of what appears to be a great place to do online research. However, I think there will always be a need for a traditional library. Along the lines of what Leanna said, nothing can replace the touch and smell of books in a traditional library. Banks of hundreds of computers don't give me the warm fuzzies and I doubt my kids would get excited about staring at a screen to read a book. Part of the wonder and fun of libraries, for my kids, is picking the books they want, bringing them home, and sitting in mom's lap reading them.
I am definitely not a supporter of the dibrary. I'm not sure if that seems close minded and old fashioned, but I don't think they will ever catch on the way traditional libraries have.
I find a few major issues with the dibrary, as most of the others have. Just as Leanna and Lynn thought, I also think that there is much less attraction to an all digital library. I may use it for research, but I could never go to a digital library to sit down and and enjoy the latest best seller. I can't imagine staring at a screen sitting in an uncomfortable computer chair for that long. I think my eyes get sore reading now, I can't imagine how they would feel after staring at a computer screen for hours.
Also, I admit that I'm pretty lazy. If I didn't enjoy going to the library to research information for a term paper, a dibrary definitely wouldn't get me off the couch. Why would I leave the comfort of my home, where I have readily available internet with almost as much info as the dibrary? That seems like a waste of time to me.
Also like the others, I was very confused about the statement at the end of the article about South Koreans being 'lethargic' when it came to reading. Thats like saying middle school/high school aged children are lethargic and don't like to read. That's a generality. If you asked every single high schooler or every single Korean, I guarantee at least 1 would say they liked to read. Maybe Koreans just don't have access to much that interests them at the traditional library. Why not offer more programs or revamp the book selection to try to spark some community excitment about reading?
In general, I have a hard time dealing with new technology, so I'm not sure if I have such a strong opinion because I myself wouldn't like to use the dibrary, but I think the creaters of this dibrary are trying to solve the Koreans supposed lack ok interest in reading the wrong way.
The National Digital Library or “dibary” is a very interesting concept. I hope that some market research was done before so much money was spent on building the space and creating the collection. Everyone else mentioned that they were unsure of what was meant by Korean’s suffering from “intellectual lethargy”. I just wonder if offering the information in a different format will really help the issue. I personally cannot get the hang of reading a novel or a book from a computer screen. It is harder for me to focus when I don’t have a physical book or paper in my hand. I guess I’m just curious to see how the “dibary” will catch on. I hope it is a huge success, and I hope it will show how libraries are evolving to meet the needs of the community. I am just not convinced that this will be the case.
In a world where 'going digital' has become synonymous with living a regular life, a "dibary" has its strong points and the glaring question marks that dog traditional libraries. Having a public library that is devoted entirely to digital media would be a boon to the millions that are unfortunate to fall in the digital divide, similar to what was mentioned in the previous post topic about Multnomah County's struggle to keep up with patron needs. Granted, this is a national library and not a public library, but is it not easier to test the idea on a large scale before determining how to disseminate the concept to more regional locales? When nearly everyone around carries a Kindle, an Ipod, a Blackberry, or a laptop easy access to e-books, mp3 files, e-audiobooks, and online journals is a no-brainer. Most public and academic libraries just do not have the funds to keep up with ongoing technological advances and therefore often lag woefully behind and in many cases just do not have the computer terminals to keep up with a skyrocketing demand (again, reference the last post. A 'dibary' could help to remedy that concern.
One of the glaring concerns is again copyright conflict, but if publishers found a way to co-exist with traditional libraries, chances are they could find ways to do the same with 'dibaries.' Another potential problem is funding. how can a nation, let alone state, city, town, or college, rationalize having to different libraries that cater to the same population but different functions? Maybe if a global conglomerate like Microsoft or IBM set up something a la Andrew Carnegie the public would catch on, but no sane community would logically fund (excepting of course the Koreans, who obviously did) a digital library. A solution could be to increase the funding for the traditional library, expand its size and capacity, and bring in more staff to handle the e-books and other digital media. House the two together as a single entity without conflicting missions and keep the public from having to run from one library to the other to satisfy its needs.
Though the idea at first glance is intriguing and eye-catching, it is just another example of using a technological patch to conceal instead of remedy the societal problem of access and bridging the divide.
My first thought on this was "Korea? Then won't they keep detailed records of what every patron is accessing?" I assume this dibrary is in South Korea which means it is a capitalistic democracy, not a communist country like North Korea, but still, I don't think they have the same standards of privacy that we have here in the USA. I think I would think twice before I entered such a building, which may be the real reason Koreans are "turned off" to reading, because they know what they read can and will be used against them in a court of law. And doesn't a physical building you must enter to access electronic digital information sort of go against the whole idea of the internet, in that it is available anywhere? I really know almost nothing about the daily lives of Koreans so it is pointless to speculate if they do or do not have PC's in every home, but, unless the dibrary is extremely centrally located and very accessible, it sort of seems pointless. However, innovation and trailblazing are always to be commended, and I wish them the best of luck in their experiment. I don't think we will emulate them here in the US, though.
The first thing that struck me when reading this article, much like the rest of you, is 'Why would anyone go to a library to sit in front of a screen to read, instead of accessing this material from home?' I do hope they can work out the intellectual copyright problems and form some sort of effective partnership with authors and publishers, though. Of course, the idea of digital libraries has been around for a while, and in general, I agree with Ian - it's a 'no brainer' - a good idea. I think that the ability, for example, to compile and share obscure digital documents such as photos, census documents and journals in a coherent, online exhibition is amazing. What I find interesting about this dibrary is the idea of conserving webpages - which I must admit I have never thought of as types of 'documents to preserve', but of course it's obvious, now.
Perhaps Koreans are not too interested in 'intellectually heavy' reading because in their spare time, they like to try to forget that not too far from their homes, there is a crazy despot with the capability to launch nukes and annihilate them on a whim. Just speculating, of course. Further speculation leads me to observe that this endeavor smacks of a weird kind of 'nationalistic' monument-building flavor. Like building this library is sending a message of openness, in regard to information access - perhaps in an obvious attempt by South Korea to set itself apart from the prohibitive regime of North Korea, and to show that it is serious about being open and progressive.
Like others before me have mentioned there are many faults with the concept of a "dibrary" and I wholeheartedly agree. However, I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the strengths!
I think that it is awesome that they have creative multimedia labs available to the dibrary patrons. This means that people who never dreamed of creating their own movie or recording a speech will now have the tools to do so. Yes the role of the traditional librarian will change as well as thier title. The former librarian may become a dibrarian. But ultimately they would still be there to assist the patron. With the vast amounts of information available at the patrons' fingertips they are bound to have questions about narrowing their search topic or which search engine is best to use for certain types of research. Despite the kinks that need to be worked out. As future librarians we should be able to think beyond what is right in front of us and see the possibilities.
It is clear that none of us are experts on Korean culture but one would think that research was done before building such a massive digital center. I would like to think that this dibrary is playing to the needs of it's patrons by providing new and improved ways for them to access information rather than guess that an entire country waisted their money. Hey maybe I'm an optimist.
Post a Comment