Pay for Play libraries…

So,when it comes to information, do we value more highly information we perceive as being free to access? I recently came across the online library Questia,which bills itself as the only research resource you need. The site boasts over 75,000 books, as well as access to journals, magazines, and other periodicals. Questia offers a free trial followed by a subscription for $99.95 per year or $19.95 per month. On the one hand,Questia offers some nice benefits. It creates a bibliography and keeps track of your resources, which you can organize by project. However, many of the top tier academic journals are not available through Questia and a solid portion of the books are in public domain which gives them a publication date of the early 1920s or earlier. This begs the question, what factors prohibit greater access to more current books and more relevant journals?

Or at least, that seemed to be the right question. But this sort of evaluation belies an inherent prejudice against the institution of the pay for play library. Isn’t it true that all libraries have holes in their collections and that many libraries cannot afford subscriptions to all reputable academic journals? Specific institutions highlight the greatest aspects of that institution for the benefit of marketing and locating audience.

For instance, I could accurately say to you, “The Art Institute of Chicago is not as good a museum as the Fricke in New York. The Fricke has four Vermeer and a Rembrandt. The Art Institute is sadly lacking in Baroque master works.” And this would be an accurate argument but a wrong thinking conclusion. The Art Institute’s Impressionist and Modernist collections are world class.

So a better question might be, what is it about Questia’s practices that cause me to want to review it with a sense of distrust?