[Rylon]

Originally Posted by wizwor

96% of Americans (I know not everyone here is American, but I happen to beand this is from our last census) have a computer and 78% have internet access at home. Every public building in my small town has wireless internet access. I'd bet we could set up something at the food pantry.

I don't know where you got your 78% figure, but the U.S. Census Bureau said in 2009 that 31.3% of all households don't have "internet use at home". Which would put your figure off by 10%.

It's been my experience that internet access is a well-used service at libraries. The main branch of The San Jose Public Library has many, many computers dedicated to internet access (as well as in-house database access) and it's very popular. The wi-fi all branches provide is also very popular. And, unlike McDonald's or some similar spot, you don't have to (or are simply not encouraged to) buy anything. And unlike other public buildings, staying in one spot and reading is the point of going there in the first place.

Of course, it's not just San Jose. When I lived in San Diego recently, the City Heights library had a few computers up for use and there was always a wait to use them. If you didn't need it for very long, you could use one of the 15 minute computers. (This was a life saver when me and my wife went down there for two days to find an apartment, as it gave us the ability to search Craig's list entries and set up appointments while were down there.)

I was at the San Francisco Public Library recently and the first day I was there, I got there a hour after opening. I was to late to get there really for an outlet for my laptop. Fortunately, a guy brought his own power strip and let me plug into it. This was good because my battery is crap. The next day I got there before it opened, and there was a huge line.

Public libraries do not provide complete and convenient access to the most needy. If you are too poor or too young to get to a public school, then maybe you are too poor or young to get to the public library.

Not true in urban environments where poor people without internet access at home (or maybe not have a home at all) often live near a library (and the main library at that) and use that for all their internet needs. Densely populated urban areas like the Bay Area, Los Angeles, San Diego, and New York have great demand for their services.

Worse, with the arrival of the internet and the demand for entertainment, libraries are no longer the best place to do research -- limited publications and old encyclopedias are no match for the internet.

You are wrong.

First, public libraries have out of print books that are still under copyright, but haven't been digitized. If you want some obscure book in that grey area, public libraries are your best bet.

Second, public libraries have out of print books in general. Many, many books worth reading are out of print. But, even though they can be digitized and released for free, they often aren't.

For example, consider Frederick Dorr Steele. He was the illustrator of Sherlock Holmes stories in the U.S. from The Adventure of the Empty House on. A quick internet search will give you some examples of his work. But it is usually without any context, and systemic reprints of his work along side the stories they illustrate aren't in print anymore. The only two that I know of are Heritage Press's definitive printing of the cannon, and a Mysterious Press printing of The Return of Sherlock Holmes. The Heritage Press edition doesn't have all of Steele's work, and none of it is in color, even if the original illustration was. The Mysterious Press edition has color plates, but only goes up to The Adventure of the Second Stain (the last story in Return).

So, when I wanted more, I had to go to the source: the original Collier's printing of the stories in the U.S. You know where I found volumes of a 100 year old weekly? The San Francisco Public Library. And I could scan the images for free. I'm putting together an ebook of the stores with Steele's pictures.

Third, public libraries have books that go into more depth than most internet sources. Particularly if the subject isn't currently in the public interest. For example, Wikipedia's article on 1960 Winter Olympics in Squaw Vally, California is o.k., but the book in The California Room at The San Jose Public Library is better if you need more detail. I'm willing to bet that Los Angeles's hosting of the 1932 Summer Olympics is covered in detail at their public library.

Fourth, books themselves are often historical objects. The San Diego Public Library has a special room for rare books. When I was there, they had some illuminated manuscripts on display. And yes, some of them were available for check out. Or you could just read them there. All the books were available at any given time. These books are historical objects and subject of study in and of themselves, beyond the information they contain.

In my opinion, the need for public libraries has passed.

You are wrong. Public libraries preserve knowledge in the way that has yet to be achieved on the internet. Information is organized better and is more in depth. On top of that, there is some information that simply isn't available on the internet at all. A lot of time, particularly in the arts and humanities, research requires going to primary sources. The internet has many secondary sources, but primary sources are few and far between. Sometimes, those primary sources are in public libraries. Often in special collections.

I understand that you, personally, may not need a public library. But many others do. Not just the poor, but often middle class people who just love knowledge.