public libraries

[shreena]

I listened to an interesting little piece on Radio 4 this morning about the purpose of public libraries. It's available on Listen Again here if anyone is interested

Comments

[ingaborg]

I LOVE our library. It is full of books, computers and PEOPLE. You can go in and sit at a desk with books, you can work on the internet, it's pretty quiet but not oppressively silent. I know one person for sure who uses the library to check her email because she doesn't own a computer. Internet access is getting to be a necessity if you want to function in our society, and where else could the government provide it for free? Also if I'm on holiday, the local library is a place I can pop in and check my email

[thalassius]

I still use lending libraries for a great chunk of my reading material, and have almost my whole life. And there's no substitute at the moment, unless you both live in London and have the income for something like the London Library. The view Somerset library took for a while, that only reference matters and fiction is unimportant (they stopped buying fiction for a couple of years) rather implies that fiction is only a luxury for those who can afford it.

I must admit to beliveing firmly that libraries should be quiet (or quiet except for special noisy rooms), because what other public spaces can offer such quiet? However, this may only be a personal view, because I find it impossible to concentrate with noise levels much above the Bod (and always have). Does anyone have any actual figures about what proportion of the population concentrates better when its quiet?

[wychwood]

Other places can and do provide internet services, but nowhere else provides books.Jobcentres don't generally have internet access, though, do they? At least, my local Jobcentre Plus doesn't; they have terminals with access to the JCP vacancy database, but nothing more than that. In fact, I was rather under the impression that they directed people to local libraries for internet access. As to "community colleges", if you mean adult education centres and that sort of thing, aren't they mostly only open limited hours, and for people who have paid to sign up for the courses there? Honestly, the library is the only place I know of that people can go to for free internet. It's clearly a popular service in Central Library, too; it's rare to see an open computer

[wychwood]

librarians would say that it's not subsidised entertainment, that it's all about education/information but I'm not at all convinced that that's the case for public libraries at the momentInformation and education are important, but I think that entertainment is too. I can see the argument for cuts, obviously, and even very major ones if it's a choice between "books" and "food" or "houses" or "medicine", but given that there is still funding for new aircraft carriers, the arts, ministerial expenses, the BBC, etc etc etc (not that I'm citing these as Things Which Should Be Cut, you understand), the choice is clearly not quite that stark. In fact, perhaps Radio 4 would be a good comparison; what is the purpose of that? People need nice things too, after all

[shreena]

I think you have done your maths wrong - the 18% is 18% of the 17% of the total population who don't have internet. So, roughly, 3% of the total population of London. And some of that 3% will be people who have access to internet, just not at home, i.e. students/people who have access to internet at work. It seems a bit silly to me to be designing a whole service around 3% of the population at the most, and more likely 2%. Like I say in the footnote, I don't dispute that, in some areas, internet be a very useful service for libraries to provide; I'm just far from convinced that it should be the #1 priority for all libraries everywhere as seems to be the stated goal

[wychwood]

I did do the maths wrong, but not where you thought! I wasn't talking about London specifically - the national percentage is 73% of households connected, which means 27% without internet, and 18% of that is 4.86% of the population. So 5% rather than 16%, because I am an idiot. And you're right that some of those will have internet at work or school, but perhaps not as many as you assume; my current job is the first time I've ever had actual internet access at work, though my jobs have always involved extensive computer use. I would guess that people who fall into the "can't afford internet" category are more likely to be in the kind of job where they don't have internet access at work either, but that is only a guess on my part.