John Miedema

I have been thinking deeply about neutrality in web-based “libraries”. I used the term “libraries” loosely to refer to digital collections of bibliographic data, catalogues. It includes Open Library, WorldCat, LibraryThing and catalogues such as Amazon. The whole thing began with Amazon. I was very annoyed with Amazon’s recent announcement that it would only sell print-on-demand books printed by its own print-on-demand service (TechCrunch). Amazon is abusing their virtual monopoly on book sales for their profit. What really gets me is that we gave this power to them, and we still maintain it. Links are coin on the web, and every time we link to Amazon we reinforce Amazon’s monopoly.

When I built the OpenBook plugin for WordPress, I was performing a small act of resistance to Amazon, giving people an easy alternative to link to a not-for-profit data source, Open Library. I described Open Library as neutral. Later, I called it “more neutral.” But I have been thinking quite a bit about neutrality, and wonder if that is the right word at all. (This train of thought is being aided by my current reading of Questioning Library Neutrality. Look for my review of it.) I worked for not-for-profits for some years and there are about the same number of self-serving people with personal agendas. I have worked for even more years in the private sector and found many sincerely community-minded people. Is neutrality the right word?

What really seems to work for me about Open Library is that they are both open source in their software and open in the book data, i.e., I can add titles. This matters very much to me. I read titles from independent publishers fairly often. Just like aficionados of music, I find some of the most interesting stuff comes from these sources, sometimes from a e-book that doesn’t even have an ISBN. I can add these titles at Open Library so readers can get more information. I can’t do that at Amazon or WorldCat.

I can add titles at LibraryThing. It is not open source, but it has open book data. So what’s the difference? Is it the neutrality factor, or something else? LibraryThing is privately owned and operates for profit. That’s fine; more power to them. We all must make a living. But if we want to talk about professional library issues, is there a problem with a profit-based source of book data?

One library issue is the quality of the data. Like most Web 2.0 companies, the social aspect of the data is obtained without renumeration to its collectors, i.e., people do it for free. Andrew Keene makes this point in Cult of the Amateur. While Web 2.0 is clever in this way, it also often means that the quality of the data is more diluted that might be obtained from the more labour-intensive curation and classification of professionals, i.e., librarians. Argue if you like, I decided this is really beside the point. The same is true of the not-for-profit, Open Library. And some of the most noble human activities are done without renumeration. So let’s move on.

In the end, I came back to Amazon. When a company is profit-based, and good at what it does, it gains control in the marketplace. It may start out with a social conscience. I suggest that many startups get their fingerhold in the market by being community minded; it differentiates them from their larger competitors. But once they grow in the marketplace, especially if they incorporate, they must keep finding profit somewhere, and finally they must find a way to dispense with the costs of their social-mindedness. Once they grow to the size of Amazon, it is very difficult to resist them. They account to shareholders. On the other hand, not-for-profits are accountable to policy-makers and funders, bodies that exist to make a social difference. Should the not-for-profits be found to be corrupt, one yanks their funding; they must be more accountable on social issues.

So where are we with neutrality? Who do I favour to host bibliographic data, and why? I favour not-for-profits like Open Library not because they are more neutral, but because they are ultimately more accountable. Am I splitting hairs? Profit-based companies are compelled by the market to eventually grow beyond the professional ethics of librarians. Amazon is a clear example of this problem.

June 22, 2008. The fact that Open Library is open source makes them even more accountable. If you don’t like what an open source company is doing, you can at least start up an alternative with the exact same level of software by simply downloading it. Private companies typically used closed source to prevent this competition.

June 23, 2008. I do realize that Open Library uses Amazon data. So? Amazon also gets its data from other sources, and Open Library also uses library data. And Open Library links to Amazon. Fine. Amazon has a right to do business, just not steal the show. Open Library also links to AbeBooks, Barnes and Noble, WorldCat, etc. That’s the spirit.