Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge: A View from Europe

Citation

du Preez, M. (2009), "Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge: A View from Europe", Online Information Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 617-618. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520910970013

Google, one of the most popular and widely used internet search engines, has embarked on an ambitious library project aiming to provide free online access to all works no longer in copyright and to give limited access to all other publications published since 1923. To enable Google to realise this aim, it has entered into agreements with a number of libraries. Their cooperative aim is to digitise extensive print, cartographic, film and other documentary materials. The question now arises as to whether the cooperative agreements between Google and its partners are in keeping with the partners' responsibilities as stewards of significant public resources.

Jeanneney, president of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, seriously debates whether Google's approach should be allowed to dominate all attempts to make the holdings of national literatures, publications and other documents available in a global digital environment. In Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge Jeanneney challenges Google's claim that it will “organise the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful”. He argues that Google's unsystematic digitisation of books from a few partner libraries and its reliance on works available in anglophone countries constitute acts of selection that can only extend the dominance of American culture abroad.

The questions and issues Jeanneney addresses in this book are crucial, and they prompt readers to reflect on whether there should be a much wider participation from the public and private sectors in the selection of books and journals to be digitised and disseminated electronically. He argues that the short‐term thinking characterised by Google's digital repository must be countered by long‐term planning on the part of cultural and governmental institutions worldwide. Jeanneney further indicates that the Google Library Project hopes to thus create a truly comprehensive library based on the politics of inclusion and multiculturalism. These hopes are different from those of the Google Library, which promises to be Anglophone in focus.

The foreword by Ian Wilson places Jeanneney's debate in context. The introduction, eight chapters debating various issues regarding the Google Library Project and a conclusion then follow. Throughout the book Jeanneney comments on Google's plans to digitise some 15 million printed volumes. He discusses the progress that has been made since 2004 and raises concerns regarding the sources that will be selected. Jeanneney also takes note of Google's short‐term profit philosophy and expresses concern about how this philosophy will affect access to certain sources; that is, how will Google's search algorithms influence the retrieval of non‐Anglo‐Saxon sources?

Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge was first published in France in April 2005. The current volume is an updated, revised and supplemented version intended for an English‐language, specifically North American, audience. Despite the fact that Jeanneney has adapted the book to respond to specific concerns, the book remains completely faithful to the spirit of the original French publication.

This small volume is an interesting and thought‐provoking read on the progress made by Google in setting up a true digital library. It is a must read for anyone interested in Google and the reasons why Google should not be allowed to become the sole custodian of all digitised cultural resources.