Some argue that funding the public library system is wasteful since the computer network can now achieve most of its functions. I disagree with such claims. Although technology makes information and knowledge more accessible, it lacks a physical presence to attain some specific roles and services.
Provided that computer technology only exists in the cloud, which lacks tangible facilities, it cannot replace local the library branch's role as the community centre. For starters, libraries regularly hold off-line events for residents. For example, they provide master-gardener lessons, language exchange sessions, and book-signing events. All those activities require physical space for gathering and cannot be substituted by an online system. Secondly, public libraries can be considered as a haven for deprived people. For those who couldn't afford to install air conditioning, in particular, can enjoy the free cold breeze in libraries in the summertime.
Libraries also offer in-person services that computers don't. To begin with, librarians in local branches can provide free on-site reference consultations. In other words, they assist readers with their research topics and make suggestions on research scopes. At the same time, libraries usually sustain partnerships with academic institutions, which means they can assist users in reaching out to topic-related experts. Another crucial point to consider is that public libraries can help save and store antique books. Ancient manual scripts, for instance, need substantial efforts to preserve and restore, whereas the internet would not be able to aid this particular task.
In conclusion, provided that information technology lacks physical presence, I do not consent to the argument that it can swap out libraries entirely, nor do I agree with the assertion that we should stop supporting them financially. On the contrary, I believe the government should allocate more funding to libraries as they play a significant role in society.
Some
argue that funding the public library system is wasteful since the computer network can
now
achieve most of its functions. I disagree with such claims. Although technology
makes
information and knowledge more accessible, it lacks a physical presence to attain
some
specific roles and services.
Provided that computer technology
only
exists in the cloud, which lacks tangible facilities, it cannot replace local the library branch's role as the community
centre
. For starters, libraries
regularly
hold off-line
events
for residents.
For example
, they provide master-gardener lessons, language exchange sessions, and book-signing
events
. All those activities require physical space for gathering and cannot
be substituted
by an online system.
Secondly
, public libraries can
be considered
as a haven for deprived
people
. For those who couldn't afford to install air conditioning,
in particular
, can enjoy the free
cold
breeze in libraries in the
summertime
.
Libraries
also
offer in-person services that computers don't. To
begin
with, librarians in local branches can provide free on-site reference consultations.
In other words
, they assist readers with their research topics and
make
suggestions on research scopes. At the same time, libraries
usually
sustain partnerships with academic institutions, which means they can assist users in reaching out to topic-related experts. Another crucial point to consider is that public libraries can
help
save and store antique books. Ancient manual scripts,
for instance
, need substantial efforts to preserve and restore, whereas the internet would not be able to aid this particular task.
In conclusion
, provided that information technology lacks physical presence, I do not consent to the argument that it can swap out libraries
entirely
, nor do I
agree
with the assertion that we should
stop
supporting them
financially
.
On the contrary
, I believe the
government
should allocate more funding to libraries as they play a significant role in society.