Date:         Thu, 4 Jan 2007 07:20:43 -0800
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Interesting WSJ Article on when libraries should discard
              their holdings.
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <000e01c72f4a$e4969e30$5892a245@DELLDOWNSTAIRS>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:    >There are circulating libraries and research libraries. They >perform different functions.

  Agreed, however...
   
  What responsibilities do circulating and research collections have to their public?
   
  Are you suggesting that circulating collections are just public access bookstores? Should we have dozen copies of Harry Potter books at the expense of one copy of James Joyce? Similarly, should a circulating collection have a dozen copies of the CDs of the popular music icon of the hour versus a fair sampling of the standard classical repertoire?  Should a circulating collection strive to address the desires of the lowest common denominator of their users, or does it have a responsiblity to provide a balance and perhaps present the user with the opportunity to explore a bit. 
   
  Further, not everyone has ready access to a research collection.
   
  I have personally observed the weeding of our own University Library, supposedly a research collection, and seen first editions, signed volumes, etc, being sold as surplus. A new edition does not obviate the need for retaining a first edition. 
   
  I find informed, well considered collection management in libraries to be the exception rather than the rule. For me, the saddest part is that library school does not teach the value of information.
   
  Karl