Epistemographer

Panelists:
* Daniel Clancy __Google__
* Bob Stein
* Danielle Tiedt __GM, Microsoft__
* Elizabeth Lawley __Professor, RIT__

LL: Concerns ->
* chilling effect of requiring login for viewing of resources, etc.
* rankings are opaque systems

DC:
* Asked group of students how many had been to the library in last year; less than 1/2 had.
* two programs – publisher program and library program
** publisher program works with currently available materials
** library program works with out-of-copyright materials, etc.

DT:
* Sees Microsoft’s digitization efforts as intended to help them “answer questions better”
* Wishes government would take a larger role in digitization – from Microsoft’s perspective, she’d rather everything was already scanned so that all she had to do was crawl it, index it and create a user interface that makes users want to use it via Microsoft.
* Ultimately, corporations are going to be concerned about the bottom line

DC:
* Asks Bob Stein:
# Would you rather we cancel the project?
# Would you really want the U.S. government in charge?

LL: What about decentralization? Can individuals scan individual books?

Kevin Smokler (question): Is there really such a demand for digitization of 19th century lit that justifies a rush forward without concern for the cultural and ethical questions posed?

DC: Yes (particularly for still-in-copyright works)

BS: There’s a certian disingenuousness to the argument that this is all about making the materials available; the purpose of Google’s project is not so much about making the world’s information available as it is about serving ads and gathering information about us.