Quote:
Originally Posted by kirant
Maybe I'm a little confused, but is there much difference between physical and digital libraries now? I mean, I've done a lot of research through the U of C and I needed to visit the actual library once (very specific data in a massive 16 volume handbook...and the handbook actually didn't contain the data I needed). In theory, I think I get what they're are trying to state: that a digitized library may be more efficient than a standard one. But I'm not sure I fully understand the consequences of removing physical libraries.
Certainly, the physical assets of the library need to be better handled; wasting material like that is atrocious. Getting them a home is important. But, again, I'm wondering if having an online database is much different from the physical (aside from the obvious aspect of it being inaccessible if you don't have a computer).
The one net negative I could think of is how easy it is to get lost if you're not technically competent and how much misinformation by poorly written articles could crop up. Any Google Scholar trip can show you the latter's impact.
|
Well one thing is, libraries pay for the subscription to those online databases, so if the physical library is closed, there is no access - which means paying upwards of $30 or $60 or even more for the right to view/use one article.
Also, like you said in your last paragraph - we are trained to do online research...so without library staff there would certainly be some 'lost' people. It really depends on how comfortable you are with doing research. I work in an academic library, so it's a bit different than these (federal) ones, but I am amazed at how many people don't know how to do even a basic search...like they have no clue where to even start.
So that is one big advantage - even though most of our physical collection is online, we are still there to teach people how to use it.