something we should keep in mind as we build our centroids....

Paul Francis <> Mon, 07 November 1994 00:18 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03580; 6 Nov 94 19:18 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03573; 6 Nov 94 19:18 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11459; 6 Nov 94 19:18 EST
Received: by (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id QAA06115; Sun, 6 Nov 1994 16:10:44 -0800
Received: from by (8.6.9/UCD2.50) id QAA06102; Sun, 6 Nov 1994 16:10:42 -0800
Received: from by (8.6.9/UCD3.0) id QAA09428; Sun, 6 Nov 1994 16:10:27 -0800
Received: by (8.6.9/COREMAIL.4); Mon, 7 Nov 1994 09:10:35 +0900
Received: by (8.6.9/core-slab.s5+) id JAA19894; Mon, 7 Nov 1994 09:10:36 +0900
Received: by (4.1/core*slab.s5) id AA15008; Mon, 7 Nov 94 09:10:05 JST
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 94 09:10:05 JST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Paul Francis <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: something we should keep in mind as we build our centroids....

Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 16:48:59 -0800
From: Phil Agre <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Access: Not Just Wires, by Karen Coyle
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/441
Precedence: list
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 12916

Date: Fri, 4 Nov 94 16:10:46 PST
From: Karen Coyle <>

*   Copyright Karen Coyle, 1994      *
*                                    *
*  This document may be              *
* circulated freely on the Net       *
* with this statement included.      *
* For any commercial use, or         *
* publication (including electronic  *
* journals), you must obtain the     *
* permission of the author           *
*              *

ACCESS: Not Just Wires
By Karen Coyle
University of California, Library Automation
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility/
  Berkeley Chapter

** This is the written version of a talk given at the 1994 CPSR Annual meeting
in San Diego, CA, on Oct. 8. **

I have to admit that I'm really sick and tired of the Information highway.  
I feel like I've already heard so much about it that it must be come and 
gone already, yet there is no sign of it.  This is truly a piece of federal

I am a librarian, and I and it's especially strange to have dedicated much of
your life to the careful tending of our current information infrastructure,
our libraries, only to wake up one morning to find that the entire economy 
of the nation depends on making information commercially viable.  There's an
element of Twilight Zone about this because libraries are probably our most
underfunded and underappreciated of institutions, with the possible exception
of day care centers.

It's clear to me that the information highway isn't much about information.
It's about trying to find a new basis for our economy.  I'm pretty sure I'm
not going to like the way information is treated in that economy.  We know
what kind of information sells, and what doesn't.  So I see our future as
being a mix of highly expensive economic reports and cheap online versions of
the National Inquirer.  Not a pretty picture.

This is a panel on "access."  But I am not going to talk about access from 
the usual point of view of physical or electronic access to the FutureNet.
Instead I am going to talk about intellectual access to materials and 
the quality of our information infrastructure, with the emphasis on
"information.". Information is a social good and part of our "social
responsibility" is that we must take this resource seriously.

>From the early days of our being a species with history, some part of
society has had the role of preserving this history: priests, learned
scholars, archivists.  Information was valued; valued enough o be
denied to some members of society; to be part of the ritual of
belonging to an elite.

So I find it particularly puzzling that as move into this new "information
age" that our efforts are focused on the machinery of the information system,
while the electronic information itself is being treated like just so much
more flotsam and jetsam; this is not a democratization of information, but a
devaluation of information.

On the Internet, many electronic information sources that we are declaring
worthy of "universal access" are administered by part-time volunteers;
graduate students who do eventually graduate, or network hobbyists.  Resources
come and go without notice, or languish after an initial effort and rapidly
become out of date.  Few network information resources have specific and
reliable funding for the future.  As a telecommunications system the Internet
is both modern and mature; as an information system the Internet is an amateur

Commercial information resources, of course, are only interested in
information that provides revenue.  This immediately eliminates the entire
cultural heritage of poetry, playwriting, and theological thought, among

If we value our intellectual heritage, and if we truly believe that access 
to information (and that broader concept, knowledge) is a valid social 
goal, we have to take our information resources seriously.  Now I know that
libraries aren't perfect institutions.  They tend to be somewhat slow-moving
and conservative in their embrace of new technologies; and some seem more 
bent on hoarding than disseminating information.  But what we call "modern
librarianship" has over a century of experience in being the tender of 
this society's information resources.  And in the process of developing 
and managing that resource, the library profession has understood its
responsibilities in both a social and historical context.  Drawing on that
experience, I am going to give you a short lesson on social responsibilities
in an information society.

Here are some of our social responsibilities in relation to information:

It is not enough to passively gather in whatever information comes your way,
like a spider waiting on its web.  Information collection is an activity, and
an intelligent activity.  It is important to collect and collocate information
units that support, complement and even contradict each other.  A collection
has a purpose and a context; it says something about the information and it
says something about the gatherer of that information.  It is not random,
because information itself is not random, and humans do not produce
information in a random fashion.

Too many Internet sites today are a terrible hodge-podge, with little
intellectual purpose behind their holdings.  It isn't surprising that visitors
to these sites have a hard time seeing the value of the information contained
therein.  Commercial systems, on the other hand, have no incentive to provide
an intellectual balance that might "confuse" its user.

In all of the many papers that have come out of discussion of the National
Information Infrastructure, it is interesting that there is no mention of
collecting information: there is no Library of Congress or National Archive of
the electronic inforamtion world.  So in the whole elaborate scheme, no one is
responsbile for the collection of information.

Not all information is equal.  This doesn't mean that some of it should be
thrown away, though inevitably there is some waste in the information world.
And this is not in support of censorship.  But there's a difference between 
a piece on nuclear physics by a Nobel laureate and a physics diorama entered
into a science fair by an 8-year-old.  And there's a difference between alpha
release .03 and beta 1.2 of a software package.  If we can't differentiate
between these, our intellectual future looks grim indeed.

Certain sources become known for their general reliability, their timeliness,
etc.  We have to make these judgments because the sheer quantity of
information is too large for us to spend our time with lesser works when we
haven't yet encountered the greats.

This kind of selection needs to be done with an understanding of a discipline
and understanding of the users of a body of knowledge.  The process of
selection overlaps with our concept of education, where members of our society
are directed to a particular body of knowledge that we hold to be key to our
understanding of the world.

How much of what is on the Net today will exist in any form ten years from
now?  And can we put any measure to what we lose if we do not preserve things
systematically?  If we can't preserve it all, at least in one safely archived
copy, are we going to make decisions about preservation, or will we leave it
up to a kind of information Darwinianism?  As we know, the true value of some
information may not be immediately known, and some ideas gain in value over

The commercial world, of course, will preserve only that which sells best.

This is an area where the current Net has some of its most visible problems,
as we have all struggled through myriad gopher menus, ftp sites, and web pages
looking for something that we know is there but cannot find.

There is no ideal organization of information, but no organization is no 
ideal either.  The organization that exists today in terms of finding tools 
is an attempt to impose order over an unorganized body.  The human mind in 
its information seeking behavior is a much more complex question than can 
be answered with a keyword search in an unorganized information universe.
When we were limited to card catalogs and the placement of physical items 
on shelves, we essentially had to choose only one way to organize our
information.  Computer systems should allow us to create a multiplicity 
of organization schemes for the same information, from traditional
classification, that relies on hierarchies and categories, to faceted schemes,
relevance ranking and feedback, etc.

Unfortunately, documents do not define themselves.  The idea of doing
WAIS-type keyword searching on the vast store of textual documents on 
the Internet is a folly.  Years of study of term frequency, co-occurrence 
and other statistical techniques have proven that keyword searching is a
passable solution for some disciplines with highly specific vocabularies and
nearly useless in all others.  And, of course, the real trick is to match 
the vocaubulary of the seeker of information with that of the information
resource.  Keyword searching not only doesn't take into account different
terms for the same concepts, it doesn't take into account materials in other
languages or different user levels (i.e. searching for children will probably
need to be different than searching done by adults, and libraries actually use
different subject access schemes for childrens' materials).  And non-textual
items (software, graphics, sound) do not respond at all to keyword searching.

There is no magical, effortless way to create an organization for information;
at least today the best tools are a clearly defined classification scheme and
a human indexer.  At least a classification scheme or indexing scheme gives
the searcher a chance to develop a rational strategy for searching.

The importance of organizational tools cannot be overstated.  What it all
comes down to is that if we can't find the information we need, it doesn't
matter if it exists or not.  If we don't find it, we don't encounter it, then
it isn't information. There are undoubtedly millions of bytes of files on the
Net that for all practical purposes are non-existant .

My biggest fear in relation to the information highway is that intellectual
organization and access will be provided by the commercial world as a
value-added service.  So the materials will exist, even at an affordable
price, but it will cost real money to make use of the tools that will make it
possible for you to find the information you need.  If we don't provide these
finding tools as part of the public resource, then we aren't providing the
information to the public.  Dissemination: There's a lot of talk about the
"electronic library".  Actually, there's a lot written about the electronic
library, and probably much of it ends up on paper.  Most of us agree that 
for anything longer than a one-screen email message, we'd much rather read
documents off a paper page than off a screen.  While we can hope that screen
technologies will eventually produce something that truly substitutes for
paper, this isn't true today.  So what happens with all of those electronic
works that we're so eager to store and make available?  Do we reverse the
industrial revolution and return printing of documents to a cottage industry
taking place in homes, offices and libraries?

Many people talk about their concerns for the "last mile" - for the delivery
of information into every home.  I'm concerned about the last yard .  We 
can easily move information from one computer to another, but how do we 
get it from the computer to the human being in the proper format?  Not all
information is suited to electronic use.  Think of the auto repair manuals
that you drag under the car and drip oil on.  Think of children's books, with
their drool-proof pages.

Even the Library of Congress has announced that they are undertaking a huge
project to digitize 5 million items from their collection.  Then what ?  How
do they think we are going to make use of those materials?

There are times when I can only conclude that we have been gripped by some
strange madness.  I have fantasies of kidnapping the entire membership of the
administration's IITF committees and tying them down in front of 14" screens
with really bad flicker and forcing them to read the whole of Project
Gutenberg's electronic copy of Moby Dick.  Maybe then we'd get some concern
about the last yard.

In conclusion:

No amount of wiring will give us universal access

Just adding more files and computers to gopherspace, webspace and FTPspace
will not give us better access

And commercial information systems can be expected to be.... commercial