Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ViskerRatio t1_jab17is wrote

Reply to comment by hobbitzswift in The Day the Librarians Disappeared - We Can't Let This Story Come True! by playplaylearn

> I'd allow the 70s, but 90s is wildly recent. This is incorrect.

The change in libraries is very recent. All of that space given over to media and digital presence? That was - at the earliest - in the 90s. Prior to that, you might have had a room full of vinyl records. But no computers, visual presentation devices, etc.

Likewise, most of the 'social' functions of libraries are within the past few decades because that space was taken up by physical books. If you needed a conference room for a public event, you were far more likely to use a church or school.

> Library science programs teach the tools to organize digital archives. Aka their job.

If this were true, library science graduates would be paid lavishly by private sector organizations. They are not. They are public sector-only employees that no organization that has to organize digital data on a large scale has any interest in hiring.

I know what you want to believe about librarians and their training. But they are largely obsolete, kept around mostly by the inertia of government and nostalgia.

> So this is again, incorrect, and frankly incredibly rude and dismissive of an entire profession you very obviously know nothing about.

I actually know a very great deal about the organization of digital information - and I know that actual professionals in the field consider the idea that librarians have any meaningful expertise in it laughable.

Again, there's a reason that the serious people who do this for money (rather than simply being on the government payroll) don't recruit from library science programs.

I get it. Change is scary. You have fond memories of a world that is going away. But that world is going away and neither you nor I can stop it.

−3

hobbitzswift t1_jab2znu wrote

>All of that space given over to media and digital presence? That was - at the earliest - in the 90s. Prior to that, you might have had a room full of vinyl records. But no computers, visual presentation devices, etc.

Was it maybe because digital presence was not as big a thing before the 90s, when everyone started having computers in their houses?

>If you needed a conference room for a public event, you were far more likely to use a church or school.

Yeah, because libraries generally use their conference spaces for their own activities lmao

>I know what you want to believe about librarians and their training. But they are largely obsolete, kept around mostly by the inertia of government and nostalgia.

I actually do know what I'm talking about! There is no need to condescend. What you're saying continues to be incorrect. If you hate librarians and think librarians are useless that's cool, good for you. That doesn't mean the spaces are obsolete. They aren't.

>I actually know a very great deal about the organization of digital information- and I know that actual professionals in the field consider the idea that librarians have any meaningful expertise in it laughable.

Why is your argument that librarians wouldn't be good at whole separate field supposed to hold any water in what we are talking about? Librarians are trained in the tools they need to help a modern library function (many people aren't aware of what librarians' training entails so I would take these data professionals' opinions with a grain of salt, not having any further information on them). And yes, I know a great deal about the profession of library science as well. So please assume that I'm not talking out of my ass. It's clear to me from your comments that you don't actually know the purpose of a library or how it functions - you admit you don't use them frequently. That's fine, it's not for you anymore. The world IS changing and the library spaces are going to continue to change with it. They already have changed, wildly, from what they were in the 1950s and 1960s. That's a great thing! It doesn't mean they're obsolete, it means they're adapting to the needs of the modern world, which is awesome.

5

ViskerRatio t1_jab3omj wrote

> Was it maybe because digital presence was not as big a thing before the 90s, when everyone started having computers in their houses?

Undoubtably this was part of the reason. However, knowing the reasons doesn't change the reality - the transition of libraries to community spaces and digital media sites is within the past few decades.

> Yeah, because libraries generally use their conference spaces for their own activities lmao

Libraries didn't have those community spaces. Perhaps the easiest way to see this is to visit a major research university and compare the newer vs. the older libraries. Those older libraries - with their endless stacks, lack of conference rooms or 'open office'-style spaces - are how libraries used to look.

> What you're saying continues to be incorrect.

Again - if what you believe is true, then why aren't any of the institutions that deal with large-scale digital data hiring graduates in library science?

What you're arguing is equivalent to arguing that astrologists are essential to space travel in the face of the reality that NASA doesn't hire astrologists.

0

hobbitzswift t1_jab5n53 wrote

>Perhaps the easiest way to see this is to visit a major research university and compare the newer vs. the older libraries. Those older libraries - with their endless stacks, lack of conference rooms or 'open office'-style spaces - are how libraries used to look.

Oh, I see! We're talking about two different things. I'm talking about public libraries. Also, yes, even public libraries used to look like that, especially pre-90s. The fact that they've evolved is a good thing because not all media is stored in books anymore, which you obviously agree with.

>What you're arguing is equivalent to arguing that astrologists are essential to space travel in the face of the reality that NASA doesn't hire astrologists.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that librarians have important jobs that are distinct from other professions. You're arguing "if they're so good, why don't they all do this whole other job"? It's more equivalent to you saying why aren't college professors working in c-suites for businesses or something. Or why don't local public service government workers go work for the FBI.

Edit: left out a word

3

KickFriedasCoffin t1_jacklax wrote

I trained in nursing and work as a nurse. Apparently that's wrong lol

2

hobbitzswift t1_jad1rrs wrote

Yes, clearly we should all get degrees in specific fields and then go work in a different field to prove our education was worth something, lol.

1