Talk:DCMS consultation on e-lending in libraries

Please do use this page to discuss the potential submission to the consultation. Thank you. --Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Stevie, we need a link to the consultation request on the page. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to what is on the page at the moment.. the e-lending model doesn't fit Wikipedia certainly, but I am not sure the DCMS believe it would :D On the other hand, as a Wikipedian I strongly support e-lending! The ability to obtain reference material in digital form via the library system (i.e. for free) would help significantly both with research and for Wikipedia readers who want to follow the sources trail. Unless I have totally mistaken what this consultation is about I think it absolutely is a brilliant thing for editors and the movement (opening up access to knowledge). --ErrantX (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

r.e. #4; we need to take care with this argument. Wikipedia is extremely unfinished and much of it is low-quality; that is OK as a tertiary reference work (because we can link through to sources which are better prepared). But if the sources are equally "collaborative" in nature, written by unskilled persons, then we risk undermining the concept of neutrality to its core. I think arguing our model works for e-publishing is problematic and not what is being looked for here.

r.e. #5; this answer misses the point about the usefulness of publishers, which is not limited to "someone with a supply chain to print dead-tree-copies". Publishers provide editorial control & copy editing services; the first of those, at least, is important to us at Wikipedia in relation to reliable sources! --ErrantX (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The point of the consultation is to tell the government how we think e-lending should work; not what Wikipedia is. We need to think of how, for example, we would like editors to be able to access sources as loaned e-books. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As Andy says, this seems an odd response as currently worded (more: "why Wikipedia won't be e-lended, thank you very much" :)). I've made an outline of what I think we might like to say here --ErrantX (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

+1 to Andy Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys why don't you delete and amend the page. I don't think we will make a submission in this timescale but we may enjoy a debate on the subject? I was going to let it remain blank but thought that if someone doesnt offer a strawman then we will won't find out what we think. In reply to ErrantX - I agree that is where publishers can still add value. The editorial control is very valuable. I have the millions of hours of video I could watch but I choose the BBC (say) cos I know its will be quality sorted for me. However if you agree that publishers are useful then its not an obvious step to then argue that we need e-lending Victuallers (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if we don't make a submission I think this is a really good conversation to have. Perhaps then, if we don't establish a position in time for the consultation, perhaps it's a way for us to establish a community position for the longer term - which will be particularly helpful with the "L" element of GLAM.

"The ability to obtain reference material in digital form via the library system (i.e. for free) would help significantly both with research" ... agreed. My worry is that e-lending implies you have to give it back Victuallers (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What's the "would"? Most British libraries let you get OED, ODNB, Oxford Online etc online at home already, and yes it is extremely useful. You don't "give it back", you just close the window. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I'd say it is an argument for us to encourage publishers to adopt e-publishing models! And... sure you'd have to give it back, that is the point of e-lending. :) but I do that with dead-tree copies all the time (and have the charges to prove it :)), so unless we are suggesting the whole library model is broken then that seems an odd direction to argue. --ErrantX (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that we're talking about electronic resources, I think an interesting point would be to look at "why only lending? Why not sharing?" But there would need to be a distinction between academic and educational resources (which are often institutionally funded or indirectly government funding) and artistic resources (novels etc) which are often created independently. You can argue that anything remotely funded by taxpayers in one way or another should be made shareable, but it's less easy to make that argument with novels. (The fact I write a lot of fiction and will one day win the Booker Prize - stop sniggering! - has nothing to do with it.) --Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the library model isn't going to break. There is a lot of information moving behind pay walls and Harry Potter it would seem will not be released until there is a more responsive protection. Stevie's Booker Prize winner may follow Corey Doctorow's model for its release. It would appear that the Scientific paper model is broken already. Anyway, do feel free to change my strawman. These are big issues and they deserve more debate. The bit I feel more strongly about is the closing paragraph. Maybe in 30 years all the books will be behind a Chinese pay wall and we (Europe/US) won't be able to afford to borrow them ;-) Victuallers (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, Roger - I removed most of your stuff & just added simple responses about whether it is a good idea that you can access the OED & other paywall stuff online via your library, which is I think what we are talking about here. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Submission not made... yet

Hello everyone, I think it's pretty clear that we aren't going to be in a position to make a submission to this consultation. I don't think this is disastrous and I still think that this is a worthwhile conversation to have as it may be an area we have an opportunity to get involved in at a later stage. Please do continue this interesting conversation and let's see where it takes us. Thanks. --Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually I don't see why we can't put in what we now have. It's not long, but that may be welcome. If there had been a link to the consultation request that would have focused discussion. Please categorize the page. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just been in touch with the DCMS and they are happy to receive our submission by the end of Wednesday 7 November so we have a little time to delve a little deeper. --Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)