Hacker News Reader

Comment by ITB | Hacker News Reader

How much do libraries matter now? Hard to say they matter as much as several decades ago.

> How much do libraries matter now? Hard to say they matter as much as several decades ago.

Why wouldn’t they? Is the idea that a person can get any content a library might offer online (and for free, if willing to pirate it)? I can’t disagree with that, though if you’re not ok with pirating things then I think the value is enormous.

I think libraries are more than just the sum of the books, CDs, and DVDs on the shelves. In my experience they often have discounts to area activities (e.g., museums), offer classes and activities across the age spectrum (from story time for children to tech help geared toward the elderly or just the tech disinclined), and provide a nexus for community.

I think folks that haven’t been to a library in awhile would be pleasantly surprised with what they offer nowadays — though of course I only have personal experience with libraries across a few states in the northeast. It’s totally possible that I’m spoiled and don’t even know it.

To repeat a point I posted yesterday, it is true that libraries around the world are seeing themselves as community centers, to the point where new prestige central libraries like Helsinki’s Oodi have few actual books, but have signs hung up saying people are invited to just talk and hangout. But since the linked article is about the US specifically, I think the odds are stacked against libraries continuing to fulfill that role, since the US has had such a strong dislike of “loitering” for over a century now, and it has a homeless problem that library staff – not being state officials or social workers – are unable to solve themselves. Just look at some of the comments here in this thread for how quick Americans are to associate public libraries with the smelly homeless.

> Why wouldn’t they?

Because their primary purpose was to provide open access to literature and information, which is now widely available thanks to the internet.

> open access to literature and information, which is now widely available thanks to the internet.

Citation needed. If you don't have money and aren't willing to pirate, what you can get on the internet is quite limited. There's Wikipedia and Project Gutenberg. A lot of the most reliable knowledge is still locked up in books, because the internet is disproportionately used for entertainment, advertising, etc

Most information was locked up in the hay day of libraries as well. It’s not like your local library contained every book that has ever existed. But, back then, if your library didn’t have it then you had almost no chance of even knowing it existed. There is simply vastly more information available, for free, on the internet. I’m actually surprised you’re asking for a citation. I would be very interested in seeing evidence that more information was available in libraries than is currently available on the internet.

> But, back then, if your library didn’t have it then you had almost no chance of even knowing it existed.

This is flatly untrue - and begs the question, have you ever actually used a library? Or a librarian?

Library science is information science. Librarians are the key to finding new information when you don’t know where to go. Professional librarians are incredible resources that are criminally underused and woefully under-appreciated. Libraries will even order books for you from other libraries, if they don’t have a local copy.

> This is flatly untrue - and begs the question, have you ever actually used a library? Or a librarian?

Yes, I've been to a library. When I go, the librarians tend to look up what's available on... the internet. So, prior to the widespread use of the internet, their ability to look up information was severely limited.

You're wondering if I've ever been to a library. I'm wondering if you understand what a monumental shift the internet was.

Are they using publicly accessible free resources on 'the internet' or library-focussed databases that aren't generally accessible to a person sitting at home?

Because I've never encountered a librarian that just uses 'the internet' to find out what books are available on a subject, they have specific databases at their disposal which are updated versions of the card-file of old, and those databases are not generally accessible to the public

> Because their primary purpose was to provide open access to literature and information, which is now widely available thanks to the internet.

Even if you reduce a library to this primary purpose (and maintain that’s it purpose must be static for time immemorial), there are still people that don’t use the internet.

Some can’t. Some think they can’t. Some just won’t. Some don’t have affordable access. Some don’t have access at all.

Libraries still fulfill this information access purpose to a not-insignicant portion of the population in the US.

I think we’re in a bubble here where our idea of minimal computer / internet skills can greatly diverge from the reality of the broader community around us.

And that’s not even touching on the other reasons I listed in my original comment about why libraries still matter.

There just has been a whole distrust with academia and places of learning due to corruption, bureaucracy and political ideologies as the central organizing force. It's so sad. Instead of courageously chasing truth, hiding behind these things is easier. Universities, libraries are some of the best things humans have come up with. Libraries also fall in a similar place. We need to rebuild the trust and value in the populace to chase objective truth without having to commit to any ideology.

I mean sure, but why would Joe random citizen ever go to a library when Wikipedia exists?

Seems like libraries are _only_ for academics and record keepers now. Makes sense they’re facing issues

A Wikipedia article is at best a shallow introduction to a subject that wouldn’t fill out one chapter in a cheap paperback; and at worst a fact-hoarder’s opiate, an indiscriminate mass of motivated opinion and decontextualized facts that really only serve as edutainment.

I used to think the internet democratized information, and then I learned about books. Article-readers don’t know what they miss out on; in its current form, the internet primarily serves to make people feel informed. I find that far more insidious than censorship.

Because again we have not made learning fun. It is no longer cool to be learned.

Yes. When I was a kid, my family couldn’t afford electronics and internet access. Used to stay in the school library every day until 7 pm to read. I’m much more well off now but there are probably still multitudes of families where libraries are the only source of free learning materials.

Fair question so I upvoted.

Your life experience may well be very different than mine.

My first memorable taste of freedom in a public space as a child was in a library; my parent left me in the kid section and I was so happy about that, exploring the space and the books.

I have not stopped feeling joy and wonder upon entering a library. So much potential! So much to explore! Public libraries allow me and my family to access so many more books than we can reasonably pay for, paid for collectively with tax money, which benefits so many people: job training, access to educational and entertainment media, access to a public restroom, access to a librarian who can help answer questions, and a generally calm and quiet space to simply exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com