I visited the local library (California foothills) during a “book sale”, and what didn’t sell was left out in boxes, either for cheap or free. What didn’t move was destined for the landfill. I was aghast, but without enough room to take in the strays. Real estate is unforgiving.
I am in favor of “little free libraries” [0] where books circulate freely, and if they aren’t returned, hopefully are read and not destroyed. They offer plans to build little libraries, and I hope to build some. “Owner” will have to build the supports, though.
I've actually worked in libraries. Public libraries are not historic archives preserving knowledge in perpetuity. You want an academic or research library.
Public libraries are nothing more than a group-buy scheme. Everyone throws tax money in the pot and the library buys books and media for everyone to use. Since one can't fit infinite physical objects in a finite space, the collection must be continually pruned and curated. Library systems track circulation figures and unpopular works get weeded.
In my case, weeded books go on the $.50 shelf. If they stay there they go to a different organization for bulk sale, or eventually trashed.
The harsh reality is that there is an almost infinite number of books. The vast majority of which will never be lasting or consequential works. Nobody needs a copy of a 1998 vampire smut thriller, and the world is not worse off for destroying your copy.
Librarians do, however, try to keep notable and important works in the collection regardless of circulation. Some books, but only some, are important enough to stick around forever, and in large part they do.
Libraries only get rid of materials that aren't being used and which take up space for materials that will be used. The goal isn't to preserve knowledge, it's to allow every citizen the same access to knowledge and entertainment as their neighbors. It's to use your population's limited resources to procure the most needed/desired materials for their money. They're optimizing accessibility and foot traffic because that's their purpose.
We have a small local company that takes bulk book (and cds, dvds, video games, vinyl records) donations. That company has couple of retail used bookstores and also sells both retail and wholesale online but, according to their owner, most of what they get is sold for pulp.
My wife is an elementary school reading teacher and runs a yearly family book night where she takes book donations she gets all year and fills a bunch of portable tables in the gym with kids (and adult) books that are free for the taking. What is left over is taken (by me) to that local company and dumped in huge bins. If you are looking to get rid of a bunch of books I'd also suggest contacting your local schools to see if they take donations.
A lot of the bad actors are scanning prices on them and selling them. Deface the title page and inside covers and they will be fine to read but worth almost nothing at sale. A stamp saying "Taken from the Little Free Library of X. Share and enjoy. Please report sellers." would do the job.
I think I'm going to get my wife a stamp that says some thing like that. I'll probably note that if it was sold, it was stolen, but not put any personal details on it. It's not like I could really do anything about it anyhow, and people would be mad if I told them that when they reported it.
I was thinking more like "of XYZ town" than anything about you personally. And since most of these are getting sold online, you want the duped buyers to report the sellers to the site where the books were listed. A bunch of one-star reviews for selling LFL books will tank someone out of abebooks or similar pretty fast.
You might even put a stamp on a sheet of paper with a note that it's in every book in the library to discourage the thieves from looking in the first place.
FROM THE LITTLE FREE LIBRARY OF SPRINGFIELD
ENJOY IT AND PASS IT ON
ANYONE WHO SELLS IT IS A THIEF
ONE-STAR REVIEW THEM WITH WHY
ON THE SITE WHERE YOU BOUGHT IT
Where I live actually has the opposite; there are ~6 within a mile, and they're usually completely full. People are always dumping huge collections into them, to where I never even have the chance to give back myself.
I don't know what makes it different here. But it is possible for them to work without safeguards.
Libraries’ resources are not infinite, therefore most of them are explicitly optimized for circulation, not preservation. If they’re allocating valuable shelf space and staff time on something no one is using, they’re misallocating resources. You know what makes librarians’ hearts warm up? For people to use their spaces, collections, and services.
Little free libraries are fantastic when possible. With that said, assuming the final disposition will be a landfill or pulping via recycling, as a last resort the Internet Archive will accept for scanning and long term cold storage books they have not yet archived. They have an app available to scan UPC codes or OCR ISBNs to dedupe.
These free book shelves are no substitute for a real library, are they? In my experience, the offering is really limited. It's nice for a random find, but that's all. It's tough that books get burned, but if nobody wants to read them, there's no alternative.
It takes the right sort of library owner to curate the library and a community amenable to helping out. My wife runs our library and one thing she does is pulls out some books when the library is flush and puts them back in when it’s a little dry. But she works in the book industry so she also has a source of high quality books and knowledge about them.
She’s specifically a children’s book person, so we made sure our library could fit kids books (picture books are big). But many of the kits won’t.
We also live in a walkable college town. There are 5 libraries within 4 blocks of ours. Our neighbors take it upon themselves to clean up and donate. We came back from our Christmas break to someone having installed a motion activated light in the library!
So under the right conditions they work. But you know what works better? Professional librarians, with appropriate resources and facilities. But in all cases, free libraries, public libraries, research libraries, etc. deaccessioning is required so sad for the op, we throw books away.
I had a lot of good books that I finished reading and wouldn't realistically touch again.
Whenever I went to browse for some books I would leave one of them in exchange. Over time, the quality went up because other people started doing the same.
To be honest, I did curate the available books at it as well.
Obvious crap (self-published conspiracy theory stuff) was thrown out. At some point you will also have to simple throw out some old ones if they never get taken. Space is limited and a 50 year old book that is collecting dust is not useful to anyone.
We have those around our town in a bunch of neighborhoods. Not sure on the usage rates, yet thought they were a pretty cool idea when I saw them, and they seem to always have books available (ie, not like they're just being taken and emptied)
Librarians do hide books. But not as a way of hiding from public but as a way of not throwing them away. Let me explain. Even though libraries are very big still they run out of space and regularly throw out (in India because most don't care) / ( or in Texas sell out books cheaply) and it pains the librarians deeply so they kind of stash books secretly from being thrown away. And if you really show interest in a particular book and request it nicely then the librarian will give it to you and tell you not to tell anyone. Why I know this because it happened to me in my college library in India. I can still after decades remember the love of books on that librarian's face
Almost every library regularly throws out books, and all librarians I know are happy with this. New books arrive regularly, and unless you plan on your library growing unlimited, you need to, in general, a 1 in 1 out policy.
Article is about a librarian in Virginia. OP is commenting about practice in India. Unless there is some secret code to global librarian conduct, chances are you're all correct.
Judging books by their unborrowedness is like judging a youtube video's educational content by its view count.
It's a bad reality created by the powers that be
Depending on goal of library and possible value of book this seems reasonable enough process. If you have library with goal of sharing popular enough content, keeping the popular books and removing truly unpopular that do not have significant value seems reasonable.
Unlike digital world where storage is cheap, in physical world it is limited. Thus focus on what the customers want is reasonable.
Archival libraries are different game. There keeping at least one copy is often reasonable.
I once borrowed a book, to find a previous borrowers receipt in it, placed as a bookmark. Upon inspection it turned out that the previous borrower was myself(!) (I recognized the library card number), about ten years earlier.
So probably, no one had borrowed it in the time between. I was very happy the book had not been thrown out.
You can find entertaining stuff there. My interests can be really niche. I remember once finding an amazing book in our college library from the sixties or seventies about the use of LSD in treating psychiatric disorders. While I didn't agree with all the suggestions in there, it was a fascinating time capsule (with colour illustrations, many of them by patients). With the microdosing debate, it's probably relevant again.
Yet when I took the book off the shelf it looked like no one had touched it in many years.
What you are saying is especially true for fiction, less so for nonfiction. Many nonfiction topics are important and require a large volume of materials to remain as reference. For example, you never know when it might be important to know how something was manufactured 50 years ago, or what happened in Congress 20 years ago, or what a newspaper reported a hundred years ago. This makes it really hard to judge which items could be culled. I'm inclined to agree that borrow rates are relevant but they are not the only thing that matters. The possibilities of digitization and interlibrary loan make culling less risky, but someone still has to decide to keep unpopular reference materials for them to remain available.
Ah Gizmodo, always the paragon of good journalism. The person has explicitly asked her tweets not be used in external websites, and of course this zombie tabloid doesn't give a damn
just because something is public doesn't mean it should be shared with everyone, imagine you and your (ex: facebook group) have a nice spot near a public lake that you worked to clean up and even put a nice fireplace / furniture around it and then some tiktoker comes and says check out this amazing spot and now it's ruined.
Yes it's public, anyone outside the group can find and see it, but it's clearly meant to be enjoyed by the people who made it or/and happened to come across it by chance.
> imagine you and your (ex: facebook group) have a nice spot near a public lake that you worked to clean up and even put a nice fireplace / furniture around it and then some tiktoker comes and says check out this amazing spot and now it's ruined.
This happens all the time though, and it's expected it might happen when you do it.
I live nearby a couple of lakes within a nice little forest, me and some friends found a spot a couple of summers ago a bit out from the trails which we improved to have a fire pit, some log benches, built a mobile sauna, and left notes that its intended to be used publicly. We knew that at some point it'd be found, and potentially ruined. It kinda happened, someone broke the sauna, we didn't feel we were owed anything since we decided to make it public, we knew the dangers.
it was just the result of me trying to express the loss of respect for public spaces / content and content in as little words as possible I could go on forever writing an entire book about changes in the definition of public and private and how disrespecting such spaces / content is how we end up with only powerful people having such things while the rest lose it entirely as they fight over whatever remains.
Well, in this case it is. Regardless the analogy is beside the point because this problem has a technical solution: Bluesky could disallow posts from being embedded per the author’s request.
Also, does that message reflect the author’s preferences at the time they write that post, or is it possible it was enabled after Gizmodo embedded it?
In this case it does. I use that same spot next to eh lake to rest with my wife and watch the ducks and appreciate nature. But then you can into the public area, changed it and added furniture and even a fireplace! Treating it like private land owned by you and then you get upset when others use it. There is an inherent disrespect and narcissism in the example you provided.
If I host an event at a public park and hang up a sign "no journalists allowed, no telling anyone about this event, it's our little secret" I don't think it's reasonable to expect that to be honored. I wouldn't be offended to see that reported in the local paper. Quite the opposite.
Nah, I think the point is that if you do something deliberately in public, be it social media or something tangible in the real world, you relinquish control over its usage.
If you don’t like this, then you can either try to restrict things to an extent e.g. by obscurity, like posting a YouTube video as unlisted, or building your fireplace somewhere public but remote or hidden, or you keep things enforceably private, like a private online group, or building on someone’s land.
When you switch the topic to some analogy about a spot in meat space by some lake it derails the conversation as to whether your analogy is on point rather than the conversation topic.
The person who has that setting is the user being quoted, not the top-level post; the bluesky is indeed blocking that post in question, so it isn't appearing on Gizmodo
The tag to not display on external websites is up to Bluesky to enforce. I mean, you understand those Bluesky chirps or whatever are literally being served by Bluesky, right?
The "magic" of why AI is trusted over humans is that so many humans are terrible at their jobs that people default to not trusting someone who is telling them something they don't want to hear.
The AI always tells them what they want to hear, and so they trust it. It's not magic.
Is there any empirical evidence that librarians are terrible at their jobs?
The reason is not the supposed fallibility of humans but rather the supposed infallibility of technology. Nontechnical people don't know how the technology works, don't know how the sausage is made, and they mistakenly assume it can't go wrong, just like a calculator can't go wrong.
Also, people are not good at revising their beliefs. A lot depends on what they hear first, and they usually hear from the internet before they hear from an expert, because it's easier and faster to consult the former. It's embarrassing to admit to yourself that you were suckered into believing something false, so the emotional coping mechanism is to get angry at the person who contradicts your beliefs, which preserves your self-respect.
A library which was known for having a "last policy" system in place, should not have this difficulty. I would further argue that any library should be willing to accept a copy of any book which they do not have and safely store it until someone wishes to borrow it. I'm still salty that I had to buy a copy of Glenn Reid's _Thinking in PostScript_ when a local library discarded it from their stacks (there are other books which I would check out semi-regularly which have also been discarded which I also need to purchase, but missed seeing on their "discarded" table or at the annual library sale).
Yes, this would require better funding, and yes, I regularly donate to my local library every year.
Yes, but the principle here is that a library (system) should function as a repository for physical embodiments of knowledge, and should not be discarding books.
We're going through this at my workplace as well, converting from cubicles to an open floor plan, so workspaces which had decades of accumulated books are being cleared out --- I've rescued as many as I can justify from the recycling bin, but that's a tiny portion, so I'm feeling this sort of decision quite viscerally.
I think the library system does a good job of that. For example, here's the WorldCat entry for Thinking in PostScript[1] that shows its 4 editions physically available at 107 libraries. It's also available as an eBook and (since 2024) on Archive.org[2]
Which highlights why Archive.org is so important as an archival and lending library. It's like the idealized version of microfiche. The content of the books have been made so small that not only can they be trivially stored, but beamed to your pocket at any time, almost anywhere in the world.
There are at least ~158 Million books in existence as of 2023[3], and between 2 and 4 million added every year. To ask that each library be an unopinionated store of physical books is too much, and reduces their function to a well-organized warehouse, when the real power of libraries are its librarians. They are research specialists available to anyone and everyone, and well worth a conversation the next time you want to know just about anything.
Libraries are overwhelmed in their inability to store all the "good" books. I was cleaning out my book collection of, what I thought are really good books, but I came to the realization there is no space for them. So, they get sold or pulped.
“The citation seems to have been included in many lower quality papers—likely due to laziness and sloppiness rather than an intent to deceive.”
Yeah … no. If you use a citation and you didn’t read the article yourself then it is absolutely intentional deception, and it should be treated as such.
Quick, someone found a startup called Vibrary and hire vibrarians (I mean, spin up some agentic tablets on wheels) to generate these books on demand for people who request them, working backwards from the halluci-citations. Lawyers will love it! Forgeries were common for thousands of years after all. The last few hundred years of "truth" was a glitch waiting to be patched.
I am in favor of “little free libraries” [0] where books circulate freely, and if they aren’t returned, hopefully are read and not destroyed. They offer plans to build little libraries, and I hope to build some. “Owner” will have to build the supports, though.
[0] https://littlefreelibrary.org/