The $20,000 I would spend would include a mixture of both print and electronic references, depending on the type or area of reference involved. The majority would be spent on print references such as various encyclopedias (general, medicine, technology, education, etc.), dictionaries, atlases, almanacs, and periodicals. One (possibly two) reliable electronic databases that patrons could access from home and/or the library would enhance the reference collection, but would not replace print materials. It would be nice to have actual reference sources so that patrons get away from a simple Google or Wikipedia search. For people who are serious about getting information, knowing that the library provides dependable electronic references would also entice them to visit the library to expand on their research.
Print resources may be becoming obsolete to those who choose to strictly use electronic resources. However, for most people who really want to research a topic, print resources are invaluable.
5 comments:
I definitely agree that we shouldn't get rid of print sources. Another advantage of print sources is that libraries can share information and they really are that expensive when you consider that patrons can use them by themselves and that the information is almost always reliable. We need to a good job as library staff to help patrons go beyond simple google searches
Greg, you list some good examples of print references that are very useful, like dictionaries, atlases, almanacs, and periodicals, but I think that electronic resources are also a valid source of information for "people who really want to research a topic." For example, electronic databases like ERIC and ProQuest can often provide recent journal articles that just won't be found in a print reference sources. Even the most basic of print reference materials, the dictionary, is equally reliable in electronic form. I don't really see anything wrong with using Merriam-Webster.com versus the print Merriam-Webster. While I understand that for general library patrons of local public library systems, it seems simpler to just give the users the print references materials they are used to, but in order to attract the library patrons of tomorrow, it would be prudent to start to aggressively integrate the electronic resources that will be the commonplace research tools for the next generation of library users.
I sided on electronic sources only because im trying to be realistic to many (not all) peoples ways... I, myself enjoy books and its great to always have the option. you have the right idea on sources that will always be timeless.
Well, it looks like I'll have to give up my idea of including one encyclopedia in my print sources! After 244 years, Encyclopedia Britannica will no longer be going to print.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/encyclopaedia-britannica-online_n_1343263.html
Post a Comment