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

by Jean-Noël Jeanneney, Teresa Lavender Fagan (Translator), Ian Wilson (Foreword)

The recent announcement that Google will digitize the holdings of several major libraries sent shock waves through the book industry and academe. Google presented this digital repository as a first step towards a long-dreamed-of universal library, but skeptics were quick to raise a number of concerns about the potential for copyright infringement and unanticipated effects on the business of research and publishing. 

Jean-Noël Jeanneney, president of France’s Bibliothèque Nationale, here takes aim at what he sees as a far more troubling aspect of Google’s Library its potential to misrepresent—and even damage—the world’s cultural heritage. In this impassioned work, Jeanneney argues that Google’s unsystematic digitization of books from a few partner libraries and its reliance on works written mostly in English constitute acts of selection that can only extend the dominance of American culture abroad. This danger is made evident by a Google book search the author discusses here—one run on Hugo, Cervantes, Dante, and Goethe that resulted in just one non-English edition, and a German translation of Hugo at that. An archive that can so easily slight the masters of European literature—and whose development is driven by commercial interests—cannot provide the foundation for a universal library. 

As a leading librarian, Jeanneney remains enthusiastic about the archival potential of the Web. But he argues that the short-term thinking characterized by Google’s digital repository must be countered by long-term planning on the part of cultural and governmental institutions worldwide—a serious effort to create a truly comprehensive library, one based on the politics of inclusion and multiculturalism. 

Genres: Nonfiction, Technology, Politics

96 pages, Hardcover

First published November 1, 2006

About the author

Jean-Noël Jeanneney is a French historian and politician, born on 2 April 1942 in Grenoble. He is the son of Jean-Marcel Jeanneney and the grandson of Jules Jeanneney, both important figures in French politics.

Reviews

[Nikki · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not too jargon heavy for something written in the field of library science. He expressed concerns about the hegemony of a western corporation over the cultural heritage and collective memory. He suggested public funding as a means to handle that. I think the french version was far more urgently worded (“Quand Google Défie l’Europe”), and the translator brought that down a notch. But this still articulated his concerns about a definitive universal library that had a strong bias in collecting without being representative of cultural diversity. It’s a neat snapshot of the time period when Google Books was really involved with mass digitization and copyright law hadn’t been as well addressed.

[Xysea · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting extended essay (it's about 85 pages total text) on Google's attempt to digitalize quite a few of the world's most famous literary works for the Internet.

It's an amazing enterprise to undertake, and there was much hew and cry about how it should be done. Many people, of all different backgrounds, took issue with Google's attempt and the manner in which it was going about achieving this goal. One of those people was Jean-Noel Jeanneney.

As President of France's Bibliotheque Nationale (National Library), his concern is that Google may (whether knowingly or unknowingly is unclear) damage the world's cultural heritage by dint of the fact that they were anticipating using primarily English translations for digitalization. M. Jeanneney argues that without the original language, history, and context, future generations may not be able to conceive, nor understand, or recall the importance and relevance of certain literary works and additionally what that may mean in terms of world-culture longevity.

Furthermore, he argues that this is yet another example of an English-language cultural dominance.

His main assertion, that an archive that doesn't include extensive 'other-than-English-language' editions of books could never be the proper foundations for a universal library, is supported through is actual use of Google as a search function. I, too, used the search function while reading this book, and can understand his concern.*

Jeanneney claims that he is supportive of the web archival process, but that it is the process for archiving items that requires the input of all librarians, record custodians, archivists and literary activists - and is not just a matter of corporate policy at Google. That is certainly understandable - the goals of each group are hardly the same.

I found the writing direct and well-reasoned, for the most part, though I felt some of his premise was wrong. I agree that the percentages are distorted, heavily in favor of English-language translations of major works, but I found 'Histoire D'Un Crime de Victor Marie Hugo' in its original French, so I believe that opinions such as that of M. Jeanneney have been heard loud and clear and that custodians of this project will work to ensure as fair a balance as humanly possible.

However, the issue of language is one of supreme importance to the French and I am unsure that they would be happy with any percentage achieved. I may be incorrect about this assertion of mine, but what is not in dispute is that his complaint is also an oft-repeated one (specifically by the French who object to Americanization of French culture - 't-shirt, snack-bar, hamburger'), from a historical and cultural perspective.

Additionally, the world is undergoing a huge globalization process, finding itself one globe rather than just 1000s of countries. Each country will want its language to be primary, will want its culture to be retained, will want its great literary works remembered. It is unclear how this process will shake down, as we are literally making up history as we go along.

I would, very tongue-in-cheek, state that the French have less to fear regarding American cultural dominance over the long haul, than say - authors from African, or perhaps even Middle Eastern, countries. The concern is valid to a degree, but Americans (by and large) share and appreciate French culture, even when they aren't too keen on the French themselves.

Hopefully, Google will bear all this in mind while undertaking the 21st century equivalent of mass literacy. There are a million ways to do it, 999,999 of which are wrong by most peoples' standards. With valued input, maybe - just maybe - Google has a shot at getting it right.

*I had slightly better results for foreign language editions than did M. Jeanneney, but this is 2007 and this book is from 2005.

[Dustinjones · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jean-Noël Jeanneney’s Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge tackles the politics, economics and global issues surrounding the digitization of archives, libraries, and print media in general. His reasoning for writing the book came from the announcement in 2004 that the company Google, mostly known for their ever popular search engine, had set out to digitize millions of printed works over a six year period. While the idea was greeted positively by many, Jeanneney, then and now the president of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, was among many others, especially those outside of the United States, who reacted with concern regarding this project. Their concern stemmed primarily from the possibilities of a western monopoly on digitized work, as well as the eventual biases in the works digitized that would appear from an American corporate entity such as Google. Jeanneney response is to encourage European action in order to challenge Google’s monopoly through cooperation across the European continent in digitizing European works. Jeanneney feels that Europe as a whole has not taken advantage of the internet nearly as much as it should have. Jeanneney also raises many issues that come from digitization, such as the loss of context through term searches, as well as the impact that capitalist sponsorship may have on the process of digitization and the results of internet searches.

The reader will likely find Jeanneney’s thought provoking and well explained and the book, at a mere 91 pages in total, is a quick and simple read that allows one to become immersed in the ongoing debate surrounding Google’s digitization project. Jeanneney, or at least his books translator, generally uses accessible language that allows even the most unfamiliar reader to become well versed in the situation without feeling lost in jargon, and each argument is well thought out and usually well argued. However, the most distinct trouble with Jeanneney’s book is that it, unsurprisingly, feels outdated. Truly any book written on a topic surrounding the internet has a small window of relevancy, and it is entirely expected that a book originally written nine years ago as of this review would feel dated in its arguments. That being said, the book still contains many statements that remain relevant to this day.

For example, one of Jeanneney’s primary concerns comes in the form of money. Being a company, Google is quite obviously interested in a profit, but what does that then say for its digitization? Can a ‘best match’ truly be accepted as best when the possibility of money changing hands in order to boost a specific works popularity is at stake? If a corporation sponsor’s digitization, would any work that speaks negatively of them or their ideals be left behind purposefully? These are the sorts of questions that Jeanneney right raises. His solution involves emphasizing public funding for the creation of a European search engine and digitization project to rival Google, an idea similar to Wikipedia’s current model. However, as users are frequently reminded, Wikipedia costs a lot to keep afloat, and donations can often be scarce, especially when an already well known, and free, alternative exists. Jeanneney even points out that many users lack the ability to differentiate advertising and other information (p. 32), and if that is the case then it could easily be said those same users don’t find said advertising at all intrusive or problematic and therefore convincing them to make a shift may prove difficult.

Jeanneney also brings to light issues with digitization in reference to research. He makes claim that Google is interested only in keywords and is unwilling to address the fact that this may lead to harvesting knowledge from specific pages of works while the work as a whole is largely ignored. (p. 68) This argument still applies today, thought it feels increasingly dated. While in 2005 internet research may have been less abundant, the usage of digitized works is very prevalent among scholars worldwide, and, while some individuals may be inclined to search simple keyterms and ignore texts, it is quite obvious that most scholars recognize the importance of reading a work for context rather than just citing specific quotations. The age of the book is further prevenlant after Jeanneney’s argument in reference image and text modes. (p. 54) At the time the book was written, searching document images was still in its infancy whereas now the technology has advanced drastically making this less and less of an issue each day.

The book also suffers from a distinct lack of sources. Throughout the work, Jeanneney references several key events, quotes important figures, and speaks of statistics that are important to his argument but these points lack citation. This detracts from the work as it leaves the reader questioning the validity of sources while also depriving the reader of works that they may reference for further investigation.

Overall the book presents an interesting case against Google, and indeed against the myth of universal knowledge, but its lack of relevancy due to its age severely impedes its arguments. However, I would be interested in seeing new up to date work from Jeanneney in order to rectify this situation.

[Mattu Fynleitr · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jean-Noel Jeanneney wrote this book in response to Google's announcement that, with the help of several major libraries, it would be digitizing fifteen million books. Jeanneney, a historian and (at the time of writing the book) president of the National Library of France, offers a critique of Google's effort to 'democratize' knowledge arguing that it is doomed to perpetuate English/American cultural dominance.

Jeanneney points out the obvious; that as a corporation, “Google's dominant philosophy is still that of short term profit... ensuring revenue for shareholders” (p. 28). Google can't really be faulted for behaving as corporations are designed to behave. Of course, Google will find ways to commodify this project, as it would any of its projects; but is it acceptable for Google to do so in this case? Jeanneney argues for a digital library controlled by the state with focus on preserving culture for culture's sake, rather than controlled by a corporation for the sake of profit. The idea of having a state led digital library funded by taxpayers is probably the idea that divides American and European sensibilities more than anything else put forward in this book; but Jeanneney reminds those who might decry government spending on such a project that “citizens are always the ones who pay – if not as taxpayers, then as consumers” (p. 53). We have to ask ourselves whether we want an entity whose primary focus is profit to be the keymaster and gatekeeper of human knowledge and culture at the dawn of this new digital era. On why we shouldn't trust the market alone, Jeanneney quotes Charles de Gaulle, that “(the market) creates injustices, establishes monopolies, and favours cheaters...” and that, “it is up to the state to keep an eye on the market.” (p. 27)

A less controversial opinion Jeanneney offers in the book is that all the knowledge in the world is useless without trained hands to guide us through the void. There is a difference between information and knowledge, something that Google's project fails to recognize. Jeanneney quotes an article by Michael Gorman (president of the American Librarian Association) to highlight this point: “The books in the great libraries are much more than the sum of their parts... information found is almost meaningless out of context” (p. 68-69). The scope of Google's book scanning project is enormous, and without proper guidance, trying to wade through so much information will leave many lost in a sea of irrelevance. This isn't necessarily just a problem for Google's book digitization project, but for any attempt to consolidate thousands of years of knowledge into a single database. Jeanneney identifies librarians, who have “always helped organize the chaos... guiding readers to the information they are seeking,” (p. 23) as the solutions to this problem.

Now to address the cheese eating, cigarette smoking elephant in the beer soaked, star spangled room. The book has been translated from its original French for an English, and presumably largely American audience. The problem with this is that the book is clearly written for Europeans. Any of the excellent points Jeanneney makes will likely be dismissed by North American readers (at least by those who do not already agree with the premise of the book), because attached to his argument is an implied American inferiority. Combine this with the fact that most Americans will not be able to relate to the idea of defending ones culture from the dominant culture, and it's easy to see why this book likely wont be changing many minds on this side of the Atlantic. The book is meant as a call to arms for Europeans and other parts of 'not-America' to fight to preserve their cultures from the unrelenting force of American hegemony, and I, for one, am on board.

Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge is a good read, and remains relevant today despite being published in 2007 (2005 if you count the original). While much has changed involving the specific topic of Google over the past 7-9 years, the issues raised are ones we are sure to be talking about for years to come. How can we best preserve culture against American dominance? How do we digitize, organize and distribute the accumulated knowledge of humanity? Should the custodians of such an immense pool of knowledge be public or private?

[Otis Chandler · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very interesting and very French perspective on the Google Book Search project and digitization in general. Jeanneney basically makes the point that there are certain dangers for France and Europe since Google, which is an American company, has undertaken the monumental task of digitizing a great deal of the world's knowledge. His worry is that Google will prioritize in the digitization queue primarily books in english, as well books that are most pertinent to American culture. Now since human knowledge is little more than the sum of our written history, this unfair digitization has the potential in coming years to cause damage to cultures that aren't represented in it.

Jeanneney is (very wisely actually) trying to create an uproar around the issue in order to rally support in the EU around creating and funding a European digitization project. He even presents all the possibilities: 1. government funding 2. create their own search engine 3. do it open source wikipedia style.

I sympathize and even understand Jeanneney's perspective (although did I mention it was very French?:). But what was most interesting to me was that I realized how lucky I am to live in a country where Capitalism is at work. What Jeanneney is so desperate to accomplish in Europe has happened in America not magically or by chance, but because of incentive. In Freakonomics I think the author said something like "economics is the study of incentives". And Google is evidently has incentive to scan a whole lotta books.

One last thought. At the end Jeanneney finally gets to the interesting part, and wonders what to do with this cultural wealth of 1's and 0's once its been created. He says: "Here again, the government, taking care not to stifle imagination or inhibit civic efforts, must be the driving force." Talk about lack of incentive. I wonder who will be better at figuring out a good way to organize and search all the worlds data: Google, or the EU? My money is on Larry and Sergey all the way.

[Negativenancy · Rating 2 out of 5]

In his work, Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge, Jean-Noel Jeanneney presents a chronological discussion of his recent experiences with digital archives. Jeanneney expresses concerns for Google’s digitalization project, Google Book Search, and gives a detailed explanation of the European alternative, which Jeanneney believes is crucial in protecting European culture form domination by Anglo-America. The author explores issues surrounding digital archives and, what he sees as, the dangers of private digitalization. Ultimately, his arguments are often deflated due to lack of evidence and results-based conclusions.
Jeanneney highlights two important issues surrounding digital archives; longevity and, in the case of Google, the effects of advertising. Jeanneney is sceptical of a privately run digital archive and argues that Google will not be able to support this information long-term. (p.63) He fears that if the company fails the archived information will be lost; which would have been a logical conclusion in 2005, however today Google has a strong holding over the market and is less likely to go bankrupt. Jeanneney proposes that a government run archive would be much more secure than a private company. (p.65) He believes that government participation will increase the stability of the European project and will protect the archive from potential financial failure. Jeanneney also articulates concern about the technology used to archive the data. He looks at the rapid out-dating of technology and stresses the importance of Google using a system that will be transferable to future technology, a system he claims the Bibliotheque nationale de France has perfected. (p.64)
Google’s conception within a capitalist economy and its past profits from advertising leads Jeanneney to believe that Google’s book list, and how the books are presented within the search engine, will be corrupted by advertising and profit margins. He examines how sponsored links are shown as top results in Google’s search engine and believes that this hierarchal result system will mislead users’ book choices. (p.30) Jeanneney uses a survey conducted by Pew Internet and American Life Project to demonstrate that the majority of Google users are unable to distinguish between sponsored and unsponsored results. (p.32) Jeanneney argues that advertisers should not have influence over archived data. He believes that a publically funded system would solve this issue as it would remove the need for advertisements; once again making the European project, arguably, better than Google. (p.33)
Jeanneney presents these two strong arguments among other topics within the work; however, they are based on speculations and opinion. The author is only able to speculate, based on previous occurrences, what the results of the projects will be. For example, Jeanneney is assuming that advertising will affect Google’s archive based on the hierarchal advertisement system in place for web searches. Jeanneney’s argument is significantly weakened by the lack of evidence. With very few sources used, such as academic surveys and scholarly works, Jeanneney argument is based on speculation and opinion; resulting in unreliable conclusions. As well, Jeanneney’s opinions prove to be quite bias, especially toward America. Throughout the work, the author’s vocabulary and arguments paint America and capitalism is harsh light, usually without evidence, which suggest this is the author’s opinion, not fact. The work is most impaired by the constant contradictions in the text. He repeatedly contradicts previous statements, removing legitimacy from his claims. This is most evident in Jeanneney’s anti-capitalist statements; where he follows a position arguing against capitalist archives with an opposing statement. For example, “[profits] will further accentuate the imbalance in favour of the private sector and reduce the influence of those institutions serving the common good. Let me be clear: I do not reject the cooperation of multiple agents, regardless of the sector they belong to” (p.33) Jeanneney discusses significant topics but his argument is drastically weakened by lack of evidence, speculation and bias; resulting in a poorly comprised and unconvincing work.
Overall, this book would be more impactful as an academic article if the author were able to address the weak points within his argument and actively encourage his contemporaries to further pursue study on this topic. Jeanneney offers several good points, most of which are developed in the introduction. The following chapters offer little new information and frequently discuss redundant and less relevant topics; such as Jeanneney’s discussion of the Clinton scandal and George W. Bush which added little to his argument, other than anti-American sentiment. (p.36) The text is premature. The work was published shortly after the European digitalization project was announced and only a beta-run of Google Book Search had been launched. (p.13) This left Jeanneney with little concrete information, forcing him to speculate on how Google will present its digital collection and to what extent it will be effected by advertising profits; thoroughly weakening his work. The prematurity is evident through Jeanneney speculation of longevity, advertising hierarchies and an Anglo-American dominated book list - a main concern within the text. Jeanneney also argues that the European project is needed to preserve European culture. (p.77) Jeanneney slams America for having, what he predicts to be, an American dominated archive; while he plans to have a European dominated project. He fails to consider that Google’s American based project may be looking to preserve American culture. Furthermore, the author’s comparison of the Google and European digital archive projects is exceptionally hindered by the lack of conclusive evidence at the time publication.
On the other hand, if the author had published the work after the projects had made considerable headway in publishing the archives online, Jeanneney would have been able to make fact-based conclusions. The combination of evidence and statistics would have likely led to book worthy elaboration. That is, Jeanneney would have had sufficient information to compile a monograph; in compared to the redundant filler that plagues his chapters now.
The author discusses significant topics surrounding digitalization and expresses valid concern for European cultural protection; however, Jeanneney’s work is thoroughly hindered by its premature publication and lack of evidence. The author’s introduction is informative but as the book continues with little new information and less than worthy elaboration, Jeanneney becomes increasingly pedantic and unreliable.

(Word Count: 1012)

[Sasha · Rating 3 out of 5]

When one the biggest American corporations declared that it was going to make 15 million books available to search for anyone with access to a computer and internet, people around the world became excited, and for good reason. In Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge (A View From Europe), Jean-Noël Jeanneney, who acted as president of the Bibliothèque nationale de France from 2002-2007, raises valid concerns and questions for the general population to ponder in concerns of the Google Library Project. Jeanneney wrote this book after Google’s 2004 announcement to digitize millions of previously printed books over the span of six years. He saw what many others who heard the announcement had; optimism. However, Jeanneney took a moment to critically think about what Google’s announcement meant to those outside of America, in particular Europe and its potential role in the future of how individuals access information. Throughout the book Jeanneney focuses on why people should be concerned about what will become of Google carrying out this monumental task, and what it means to the international population.


Jeanneney begins his book with a feeling of optimism about Google’s project and what it potentially means for many ordinary people. He tells the reader that the intention of the project is a noble one, and that the digitization of books is inevitable. Moreover, he emphasizes the importance of librarians and booksellers in the future of books being digitized. However, this is where the reader firsts gets a taste of the bias in Jeanneney’s work. He makes the argument that, “librarians have always helped to organize chaos, to guide readers to the information they are seeking…” (p.23). In other words, librarians are essentially curators of information for others, especially once the digitization of print begins. What else would one expect from the president of the French national library, or in layman’s terms, the head librarian of France? This is not to say that librarians are non-essential, but Jeanneney tries to over-emphasize the role of librarians. Who is to say that the act of curating could not be done by scholars within their field of expertise or experienced editors. Moreover, Google could potentially make for an even better curator in the sense that a corporation such as theirs would gain more from making as many texts available as possible instead of being selective in what they make available to others.


Although Jeanneney appears to sound optimistic about the future of digitization in general, he is justifiably troubled by what Google’s influence might mean to the humanities and individuals outside of the Anglo-Western world. He is troubled by what Google will be digitizing and how it will be prioritizing the digitization. The initial partners of Google’s plan are Harvard University, New York Public Library, Stanford University, University of Michigan, and the University of Oxford. Inevitably, this means the first books to be digitized will be overwhelmingly American and entirely English. It is easy to see why a French librarian, from France, would be concerned about this. At first glance, it appears that Google is only focused on creating a digital library for English speaking Westerners. Once again, Jeanneney interprets this as a malicious act from Google. He goes so far as to say that France is essentially the only European country to digitize a large number of complete works at the time of his writing following the glorious French plan to create an entirely new kind of library back in 1988, although, evidence would suggest Google was the one to follow through with this revolutionary idea (p.18).. What Jeanneney fails to acknowledge is the plan for Google to digitize around 15 million books in six years is not necessarily the end of their plan to digitize printed text, it could be seen as a great starting point for other groups to add to, including the Bibliothèque nationale de France.


One of the most profound questions Jeanneney raises in his book is, just why Google us digitizing all those books? Jeanneney argues that since Google is a multi-national corporation, its priorities lie amongst its shareholders. However, this is a huge oversight on the part of Jeanneney. He assumes that because Google can make a profit of digitizing books that the corporation’s intentions are impure and only driven by money and profit. He goes into great detail about the downsides of free market and goes so far as to imply that America does not follow international trade laws. This is prime evidence that Jeanneney is using anti-American rhetoric to support his argument that Google’s digitizing of millions of books is American focused. Jeanneney proclaims that, “Google’s dominant philosophy is still that of short-term profit, intended to ensure revenue for its shareholders.” This is not necessarily a bad thing. As is often the case with private markets involving themselves in projects, sometime the goals of a private corporation and the goals of public institutions can overlap, and Google’s Library Project is an example where private funding can also do a great deal of good for the public sector. Paradoxically, public funding from governing institutions could more than likely damper the flexibility in the selection process of books to be made available to search. With public funding comes bureaucratic “red-tape”, which would sure limit what these public institutions are trying to do, make all information accessible to everyone.


In conclusion, Jeanneney in this book has intended for the reader to think critically about Google’s Library Project using a rhetoric that will undeniably frustrate many. There is no doubt that this work is already in need of an updated version, as is the case with the rate of technological advancements in society today. Google’s Library Project today includes many non-English institutions, which are providing non-English texts. Notwithstanding lack of evidence for many of his arguments, he accomplishes exactly what he intended to do, to bring to the table a healthy discourse and debate on the procedure of digitizing information. This book engages the reader to think critically about the future of how information is accessed, definitely worth reading at least once.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jean-Noel Jeanneney, President of the Bibliotheque nationale de France, has launched an international discussion on the control of information and universal knowledge in our ‘digital world’. On December 14, 2004, Google released their plan to digitize 15 million printed volumes in their new Google Book’s search engine. The compiling of universal knowledge has sparked an international debate on the validity, cultural integrity, and commercialization of Google’s new digital archiving system. Jeanneney challenges the assumption of a universal library, with his question of, what is universal? Jeanneney sees Google’s actions as a move towards the commercialization of knowledge, and the forced homogenization of cultures. Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge lays the groundwork for an international debate on the disorganized digitization of books from a Western, Anglo-Saxon perspective. Jeanneney believes that the unilateral Westernization of knowledge in the context of digital archiving, threatens the cultural heritage and integrity of Europe overall.

Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge, provides the reader with a passionate grand argument against the Westernization of digital archives and the commercialization of cultural heritages. The arguments in the text illustrate some of the grand themes and disputes in the realm of public history and digital archives. These themes are at the crux of the public vs. private debate on universal knowledge and culture. Jeanneney argues passionately for the public state-driven control of digital sources to maintain the academic integrity and cultural heterogeneity of knowledge. Throughout history, public institutions (universities, libraries, archives), have closely controlled the knowledge and dissemination of books. On the other hand, Google represents a private entity concerned with developing the best search engines and archives on the Internet. Private companies are heavily concerned with profits and maximizing shareholders’ equity, but this does not mean that Google has nefarious motives. The profit motive inherent in Google’s Book search engine is one of Jeanneney’s strongest points in the text. A search hierarchy based on ad revenue may influence the types of searches found from various subjects. If knowledge hierarchies exist, Google’s search engine will exhibit Western-Anglo-Saxon biases, which will weaken the system overall. Jeanneney’s paranoia and concern over the fate of cultural wealth and knowledge is well-warranted but his arguments overall seem heavily one-sided.

Jeanneney’s arguments are supported by his academic standings as a public official, historian, and President of the French national archive. Little evidence and academic support/sourcing is few and far between; however, this does not take away from the significant political discussions on the future of cultural wealth in America and Europe. Overall, the methodological approach to the text is devoid of traditional academic research and primary/secondary source evidence. However, I believe this was planned by Jeanneney because of the book's target audience. The text itself serves as a short leaflet on the various themes and obstacles pertaining to the pursuit of universal knowledge in a digital archive. The book itself is intended to spark a debate amongst the general population in Europe and North America. Jeanneney or other scholars could have written a pure scholarly text intended for academia, coupled with extensive research, and primary/secondary source evidence. However, an extensive academic text would not been seen by a wide audience, and thus, the objective of sparking an international debate would be lost.

Another grand argument inherent in the text is the polarity of political forces acting upon the commercial and public interests of America and France, respectively. Much of the discourse throughout the text underlies political themes and diverging approaches to the archiving of digital knowledge. One narrative that can be extrapolated from Jeanneney’s arguments is the role of government in the regulation of knowledge. Jeanneney argues heavily for the public state-sponsored control of knowledge to avoid corruption. In this sense, Jeanneney believes that capitalist/private intentions will correct the sanctity of previously public-owned knowledge. On the other hand, Google, represents a Western-capitalist American perspective, focused on corporate expansion and maximizing profits. After critically analyzing the text, the question of who should control the universal collection of knowledge via digital archives? Jeanneney presents a public, state-driven control, whereas, Google presents a private, corporate-driven control of knowledge. Should either perspective be inherently right or wrong? Both sides are simply acting to protect, preserve, and maintain their contrasting interests. The topic of public vs. private interests in digital media demands considerably more debate than the simple perspective of one side on the topic of the digitization of knowledge.

The concluding theme of the text is Jeanneney’s plan to combat Google’s Book search engine. Jeanneney visualizes a collaboration of European archives into one central European archive conglomerate to stand up to Google and its Western biases. The argument is presented from a European point of view, devoid of any North American insights. In my opinion, Jeanneney’s vision of a collaborative union of European archives is unfeasible and counterproductive overall. Jeanneney believes in the unity of cultural heritages, but creating a strictly European archive would disrupt this unity and create an even deeper political, social, and cultural divide. Jeanneney and the Bibliotheque nationale de France should work closely with Google to construct a search engine to ensure North American and European cultural heritages, rights, liberties, and interests are met equally.

[Sydney Murray · Rating 3 out of 5]

In his thought-provoking piece, Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge: A View from Europe, Jean-Noël Jeanneney, historian and former president of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, has called into question the future of the archive. Responding to Google's effort to digitize five prominent English-American libraries, Jeanneney presents a harsh criticism of the American-led initiative, Google Books, claiming that its attempt to construct a freely accessible digital library is inherently selective due to its partiality toward English literature. Rather than spreading universal knowledge, which Google maintains is the cornerstone of its project, Jeanneney asserts that Google is engaging in a form of English cultural imperialism. He fears that Google's decision to digitize the collections of select libraries like Oxford and Harvard - libraries that are Anglocentric - will have a detrimental effect on the preservation of the world's cultural and intellectual legacy, since the material being archived does not accurately reflect a truly global (i.e., European) culture. Moreover, Google's method of cataloguing is both flawed and inconsistent, contributing to a massive corpus of disorganized information that will only further increase what Jeanneney refers to as "inequalities of knowledge" (p. 71). As an alternative, Jeanneney argues for a European digital library in an effort to combat the Americanization of the Internet. While Jeanneney's work is concise and passionately argued, any persuasive capability is hindered by his nationalistic fervour and a tendency to oversimplify his claims.

Jeanneney's arguments are legitimate, but his methodology is unappealing and fails to be thoroughly convincing. Undoubtedly, a project of Google Books' magnitude requires a systematically organized search method that is currently subpar at best. Jeanneney's points are valid, but his piece reads more like a personal manifesto rather than a critical analysis of the digital humanities. In fact, his introduction "summons" us to respond to his call to continue "Europe's enduring influence" before it is too late, a bold statement that can either ignite a sense of patriotic duty or seem strangely inappropriate (p. 16). Jeanneney's intense devotion to his case is admirable, but his argument would seem more rational if he did not permit his ardent beliefs dictate his writing.

Jeanneney writes with zealous prose that is accompanied by a jingoistic disposition. For instance, his claim that the "planet will be better off" if Europe asserts its dominance on the digital stage, along with his insistence that Europe will bring "intellectual clarity" to society by bequeathing it's cultural superiority to the Internet, reflects his nationalism (p. 36, 87). Indeed, this form of European exceptionalism seems misplaced in a book that seeks to promote multiculturalism and inclusion. However, when analyzed, one finds that this "view from Europe" can actually be interpreted as a view from France, and Jeanneney's Francophone identity invariably manages to influence his argument. With France leading the charge against American cultural dominance, Jeanneney's plan leaves little room for other countries, especially those located outside the Western world, to engage as active participants in his universal library. Admittedly, Jeanneney does provide some examples of pan-European digitization proposals like the Franco-German Quaero project in an attempt to demonstrate a collective European initiative. However, his treatment of Indian, Chinese, Arab, and African digitization efforts is restricted to only one and a half pages of coverage (p. 37). Thus, the concept of universal knowledge for Jeanneney is narrow in its scope, reinforced by Western European cultural dominance.

Jeanneney claims that the capitalist nature of Google promotes a philosophy that favours short-term profit due to the fact that Google Books is a privately funded operation (p. 27). Since this philosophy does not adhere to European values, Jeanneney suggests that a publicly funded (by the European Union, nonetheless), bureaucratic system that will maintain his version of a universal library. With "scholarly councils" comprised of notable intellectuals and librarians - the upper echelons of society - deciding what works to digitize, Jeanneney's vision is wholly elitist (p. 81). Indisputably, experts are needed for a project like this, but a feeling of superiority is prevalent in Jeanneney's proposal.

As a scholarly source, Jeanneney's work falls short. While the title of the book suggests that the notion of "universal knowledge" will be of prime importance, Jeanneney does not directly address this issue until the sixth chapter, entitled "Organizing Knowledge." Moreover, Jeanneney makes assertions that are both oversimplified and not properly sourced. Curmudgeonly phrases such as "the practical value of Google is hard to judge" and "whatever [Google] does, we should do the opposite" hinder Jeanneney's credibility in that they read like opinion pieces instead of argumentative statements (p. 68, 80). Lastly, the lack of citation present in this work is alarming; only two footnotes are cited over a span of ninety-six pages (p. 48, 68). On several occasions, Jeanneney mentioned "numerous sociological studies" or historical events without proper reference; as a trained historian, surely he would be aware of the significance of the footnote (p. 17).

Jeanneney's book would be of prime interest to librarians and scholars of the digital humanities. Despite his unorthodox way of framing his arguments and his dependence on personal opinions as evidence, one must consider that Jeanneney's work raises serious questions about the future of the archive in the wake of the digital era. The architecture of the Internet is constantly evolving, and Jeanneney's piece is a perfect example of what could happen if the intellectual world cannot evolve with it.

[Robert Derose · Rating 4 out of 5]

In late 2004, when Google announced their plans to digitize 4.5 Billion pages of published works, French historian Jean-Noel Jeanneney was immediately filled with mixed emotions. He was overjoyed to see technology take a big step forward and offer these great treasures to the public at no cost. Yet, at the same time he was gravely concerned about how this project would be carried out. This anxiety would soon become the central focus of Jeanneney's mind. Like any uneasy situation, he began to examine all the consequences that would come from such an extensive plan. He would quickly discover that the project may lead to more harm than good. Here, in Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge: A View from Europe, Jeanneney forecasted the many issues that were to come about from Google's mass digitization movement. Translator Teresa Lavender Fagan, sums up these issues nicely as she states that Jeanneney worried that the world would become "commercially driven, uniform, monolingual, two-dimensional." (p. 92). Ultimately, Jeanneney concludes that the idea of having one commercial enterprise archive and digitize all published works should be rejected. Instead, he encourages thousands of participants, varying in many fields, to take up this grand challenge of uploading publications.

Jeanneney is very thorough in his examination of this subject. He is appreciative and impressed with all that Google has accomplished, but he foresees some major problems. More specifically, he foresees Google's actions as potential threats to his native France and Europe. Although this may seem narrow in scope, the threats he speaks of are aimed at any nation who does not hold English as their predominant language. In this way, his views are relatable and accessible to many spheres of influence. However, his writing is intended for a scholarly audience. An audience that is concerned with archiving and culture.

Throughout his work, Jeanneney takes a historical approach to his writing as he identifies and explains the significance of certain events that occurred between 2004 and 2005. Through these elaborations, he demonstrates how he was able to raise concerns in Europe regarding the not-yet controversial Google digitization movement. His speculations proved to be exceedingly popular in Europe as many politicians from around the continent joined him in his counter-movement. Here, Jeanneney offered a new and ground-breaking perspective to the new age of digitization. He literally offers a view from Europe as most of this era has been dominated by the United States. This book was intended to shift Europe's lackadaisical approach to the Web. Europe had to become active members in the field of online archiving to compete with the likes of the United States or else much of European culture would soon be lost. He best illustrates this point as he notes that many Google searches, performed in Europe, for European publications will first appear in English rather than the author's native language. This piece of evidence alone should be enough to raise concern amongst non-English speakers. It is clear that Jeanneney does an excellent job of conveying his ideas to his audience. The North American reader will even find themselves agreeing with some of these positions. This was certainly not intended by the author, but it demonstrates how far-reaching his claims truly are.

Jeanneney took a complex subject and furnished it into a quick and easy read. His ideas, points of view and concepts are expressed clearly. This is especially significant as his main messages were not lost in translation (an issue he takes up in his book as well). However, he does not spend much time focussing on the benefits of Google's digitization project. He does not consider the view-point of a commercial organization capitalizing on a new movement. Neither does he consider the positives of having a more unified, monolingual world. He rejects these ideas completely and rightfully focuses on the European position. It is likely that his position could get lost on the reader if he were to present counter-arguments. Also, any acceptance towards these counter-arguments would likely mean the destruction of European culture.

For these reasons, Jeanneney offers a biased view-point, but that should not slight his reputation by any means. After all, he started off as the lone protectorate of European culture in the Digital Age. This left him with little sources on this subject. His experiences as the president of the French National Library would serve as his main resource for the book. In a way, the book can be seen as an auto-biographical account of Jeanneney's struggle to influence change throughout Europe.

Overall, I found Jeanneney's work to be refreshing and well constructed. I would recommend this revolutionary work to any scholars who are interested in the Digital Age, cultural preservation or archiving. For these readers, it will be a nice change to sit-back and enjoy an easy read. Jeanneney's work flows smoothly from page to page. The short book is broken up into seven chapters and several sub-categories. This gives the book great precision, simplicity and conciseness. Although it is quite accessible to scholarly readers, I do suggest some minimal background research on the digitization process and online archives. This will further enhance many of the arguments put forth by Jeanneney.

[Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

En europeisk (fransk) syn på Google Books massdigitaliseringsprojekt som tar upp många viktiga problemområden med denna gigantiska quest. T ex hur speglas urvalet av böcker av det amerikanska företaget? Hur ser representation ut inom andra länder, andra språk? Vilka andra utmaningar står vi inför inför massdigitalisering i USA men även i andra länder? Kommer massdigitalisering att minska den digitala klyftan, eller öka den? Tänkvärda formuleringar boken igenom.

[Caitie Crawford · Rating 3 out of 5]

Google has become one of the most powerful companies to emerge in the last 20 years. Through his book Google and The Myth of Universal Knowledge, Jean-Noel Jeanneney, president of France’s Biblotheque Nationale, discusses Google’s impact on the world, focusing specifically on Europe. He argues that the digitization of literature brings more questions beyond copyright issues. His book is brief, concise and easy to read, providing a different opinion of Google and its influence. Jeanneney’s argument may come across as anti-American or anti-Google, rather his argument is against the impact and the amount of western influence on the cultural heritage of Europe. He argues that Google has the ability to be selective of what works to digitize. Operated by a private company, Google has the ability to claim English works as ‘universal knowledge.’ Through various examples, and suggestions for a primarily European search engine, Jeanneney articulates why Goggle’s claim of ‘universal knowledge’ is false. He fears Google’s effect on Europe and its potential to negatively affect the future.

Jeanneney states that there can be no “universal knowledge”(Pg.5) someone somewhere must make a choice, inevitably leading to bias. He claims Google has the ability to choose which digitized works make a better selling environment for its advertisers. Google’s bias is a running theme through his work, with Jenneney pointing out numerous ways Google is biased, including its ability to ban a website from its search results. Using a French example to articulate his points, Jeanneney discusses the impact reading English books on the French Revolution has on the next generation’s education. He believes that French students should read about the French revolution from French authors, just as American students should learn about the Cuban missile crisis and 9/11 from American authors. (Pg.42) He fears that, although Google will include French works, they will appear far down the list of results. (Pg. 42) Jeanneney fears a loss of culture, language, and heritage through western influence spread through Google. He argues that people should be concerned of being undermined by American works, written in English, selected by Google and considered ‘universal knowledge,’ suggesting that Google needs to be held to a higher standard.

Jeanneney dismisses Google’s claim of universal knowledge; arguing there can only be “specific ways of looking at what is universal.” (Pg. 5) He hones in on the idea that users are impacted by not only those who operate Google but also those who advertise with and own Google. Jeanneney stresses the importance of a strictly European search engine in an effort to maintain the world cultural heritage free of western bias. Goggle’s advertising troubles him, leading him to question the legitimacy of its claim of universal knowledge. He fears the negative impact the globalization of Google and western influence. Jeanneney’s book concisely argues why he personally believes Google is negatively impacting French culture and heritage. Although valid, his arguments relay a French nationalist theme, directing the reader to focus on France rather than the greater issue. In order to accurately vilify his arguments Jenneney should have provided the reader more accurate examples and numbers or evidence from Google.

Jeanneney is concerned over the amount Google focuses on profits and how this affects the rest of the world. He calls for a more reliable European source of accessing digital archives and literature, by doing so he lays out how he feels documents should be digitized. Stylistically his work is concise and consistent, his arguments are easy to follow and understand. Jeanneney makes large claims against Google without providing any concrete facts or significant evidence to support his thesis. However compelling his arguments, this book should not be taken as the ultimate truth. The entire book comes off as a nationalistic work solely comprised of one man’s ideas with no substantial evidence against Google. He makes broad claims against Google with no proof or data from Google to support his thesis. The facts Jeanneney uses to support his arguments seem to have little to do with Google. He does use some numbers and quotes to supports his claims; however, he fails to provide sources. He neglects to inform the reader critical information about the facts and the people he is quoting. Without providing sources, the reader is unaware of the context in which the quotes or numbers were taken. Without context his arguments loose creditability.

This book presents a different perspective of a massive company that has become ingrained into our society. Although clearly outdated, this book raises questions about how technology has and will affect historic documents and literature. At first I enjoyed his work as he offers different ideas and perspectives on Google that I had not previously considered. He raises questions that force historians to think about history’s digitalized future. However, after reading and analysing more into his work I feel it lacks substance. Although his arguments are strong, Jeanneney fails to provide accurate reliable facts to support his ideas, lacking substantial evidence, leaving large gaps in his thesis.

[Samantha · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book by Jean-Noël Jeanneney was a clear and concise argument on the limitations of
Google’s stated desire and implementation of digitizing the world’s literary works. Jeannneney
gives voices to the problems that come with allowing one major corporation to digitize the
information and what exactly they put into their programs. The idea of allowing a cultural
domination by Americans and the fear of it creating a homogenized culture in other areas that
Google is offered. He further presents the idea that there needs to be a greater focus on producing
a European effort to digitize European literary works to combat the Americanized system.
Jeanneney raises pertinent points in his argument and expands on them to increase the validity of
his argument. The book reads more like a call to arms than an informative work and is very well
written for its purpose. The European bias is not exactly a bad thing as his target audience is
clearly the European market and more specifically the French, although, he does argue that the
digitization of literary works presents a problem for many nations.
Jeanneney raises the issue of allowing a corporation the power of deciding the cultural
value of literary works. Corporations and any sort of company always have the issue of raising
capital and making a profit. He uses this as an example of corporations being able to be
bought and how innovative businesses can lose out because they are not willing or able to pay
for such advertising. He asserts that the profit will always be on the forefront of a corporations
mind. His views are rather strict on that this sort of advertising and fears that it could bleed over
into Google books and push forward that homogenized culture or even a skewed view of certain
topics. While this could be a valid concern he uses much of his arguments without clarifying any
of his sources of the context in which he obtained them. The selling of adspace on Google is one
of the few easily checked sources in his book but many of his arguments and quotes have little
else but his word to back it up.
The domination of culture by outside forces has been a concern of many different people
and is one of the main arguments Jeanneney uses and expands on. He uses the fear that an
American corporation will promote American works above those of different cultures and stay in
the realm of the English written word, even if they do so unintentionally. The use of the
argument that using primarily English works and translations without the historical context or
original language allows for something to be lost and does not have the elements of a universal
library is a valid concern. Another argument could be made though, that no matter what
something will get lost in the transition from the physical to the digitized. As for other books
translated into English, while it is good to have the original work, English is a world
language that many people speak and has many translations of other texts for the everyday
reading of the public sphere, digitized or not. On this case I would feel that it is simply looking at
the aspect of time and money and it takes time to digitize books, his arguments therefore seem
rather harsh when levelled against an American company who really does not have any
obligation to digitize any books in any language. That Google does and has done at least some in
other languages is rather looked down upon by the author who seems to want a lot more.
There are seemingly many points that Jeanneney wants to make and one of them is just
that a universal library is just not feasible to do in its entirety. There are many millions of literary
works that would need to be digitized to form a true universal library, and his concern with who
decides what is digitized and in what layout they are presented does provide interesting
problems. The sheer number of books that would need to be digitized and the time involved
would limit individual attempts to digitize vast quantities of books, and would require either
corporate sponsorship or governmental support to successfully fund the effort to digitize the
different literary works of the world. Jeanneney favors government intervention as the solution to
the problem the problem he perceives in Europe. His solution though does appear to present
some of the same issues in that the persons who decide what exactly get digitized could very
well be working on their own bias’. The use of government funded councils of academics could
go along the vein of academic elitism but any solution could be presented with the same problem
of bias no matter what option a person favors.
Overall, the book was an insightful read that raised pertinent concerns over a cultural
hegemony and people’s reliance on a corporation for information. The author did provide his
view on how he wanted to solve the problem and while I think that his solution allowed for just
as much bias as the corporate bias he feared, it was explained well. Jeanneney produced a well
written book that had its flaws but was well reasoned. The lack of sourcing his material did not
lend to his argument but for the purpose of galvanizing people into doing what he wants it gets
the job done and presents itself as an opinion piece quite well.

[Ryan Conti · Rating 5 out of 5]

As the president of the Bibliothèque nationale de France and the author of this book, Jean-Noël Jeanneney’s takes a significant Eurocentric approach towards a critique about the dissemination of internet based information; specifically the American influenced Google Corporation. Taking a stance against what he describes as an American dominance on the internet, Jeanneney focuses on the western influence of Google Books, and the need for more European control. It is also hard to overlook the “View from Europe” imprinted on the cover and the bias that is prevalent in the book should be expressed. This is the first book critiquing Google that I have read, and enjoyed the different perspective involving an international perspective on internet based information. I found his points were very well developed and provided insight on the subject, while I found many other points were lost in pro-European based tangents. It is interesting that Jeanneney chose not to take an unbiased approach to this subject and instead decides not to “hide” his French heritage, but embrace it, in which his passion for Europe can be found laced throughout his book.
Jeanneney’s books main argument is against the Google initiative that began in 2004 to digitize the possessions of many large and prominent libraries. Google’s Library Project or the Google Book Search project is digitizing millions and making them easily accessible to the public for free; as long as you use the Google search engine. Backed by established institutions such as Oxford and Harvard, and with the increased access to information in the form of Smartphone’s, tablets and computing devices it seemed that Google had a pure hearted plan to increase the dissemination of information in the form of digital books; however Jeanneney finds room for criticism and controversy. Jeanneney breaks his argument down much further in his book and initially targets the question of selection. Which books satisfy Google’s criteria and are entered into the database? Are some books omitted? Which books are featured in the search results? How will these books be copyrighted and used as intellectual property? It is useful to use critical analysis of situations like Google in order to see a different perspective on the subject. Jeanneney uses this perspective to create a fear that western and primarily American ideology will dominate this project; Jeanneney highlights this criticism as an obvious bias that is unacceptable to the European community. He attributes this subjectivity simply to American culture by saying “It would be extremely hard to view every entry into the ever growing Google digital text archive, making Jeanneney’s task of isolating an apparent bias that may well not exist an interesting argument. His solution to the alleged subjective U.S digitization is not to contact Google about this issue, but to unite the nations of Europe and form their own digital library. In order to free the project from the grips of commercial agendas, he proposes that governments of European countries individually select the works they feel represented and contributed the most to their respective nations and the international community. It is interesting that the author chooses to argue this point as the solution to the problem, as it oddly resembles his criticism for America’s dominance above, with a European twist. Initially he criticizes Google and America for having a bias when digitizing their libraries by not including the literature of smaller, less influential countries and cultures in the Google database, apparently assuming that his European model will not suffer the same biases as the U.S version. Jeanneney then attacks the very way in which the Google search engine operates and how it is programmed for bias during search results, as the top search results are based on linkage, this would provide a bias to dominant ideologies. He also criticizes Google for leaving the bookstores and publishing world in shambles as many of the books they sell could eventually be found online for free. His solution to this problem is to include the publishers in his European digital library. The problem of including publishers, bookstores and the commercial aspect of literature in mass digitization is that there will always be money and therefore profit involved, and when profit is involved personal interests are also involved. One of his more interesting points is the “trust” that the world has in Google for obtaining and protecting the world’s information. Putting all of our virtual eggs in one basket might not be the best option for the future of information dissemination.
In conclusion this book provides a valuable perspective that does highlight many flaws with the current system that Google currently has. Jean-Noël Jeanneney’s arguments were quite aggressive, even for a critique, and might even benefit if he removed some of his nationalistic passion from the argument. Unfortunately many of his valid criticisms are lost in European focus. The author also unfortunately does not mention the amazing benefits that digital libraries have had for Europe. Jeanneney needs to accept that the digitization of literature is humanity and international project for a global public access to knowledge and information.


Word Count: 855

[Ray Schwartz · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is 10 years old. But still is relevant today.

[Rebecca Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the midst of the ‘digital revolution’, president of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Jean-Noël Jeanneney begs the question, how should knowledge be processed and distributed on the online world? On December 14th 2004, Google planned to digitize 15 million printed volumes. However, Jean-Noël Jeanneney wanted no part of a western company that had a clear monopoly on the digitizing of literary works. In Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge, Jeanneney lays out a blue print as to how he instead feels digitization should be done. He states, “There can be no universal library, only specific ways of looking at what is universal.” (p.5) It is in this statement that he lays out his argument for a European digital library free from western perspective that would focus on disseminating knowledge in a way that would be advantageous to Europeans.

I thought that Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge was a very valuable and thought provoking source. Jeanneney raised many legitimate concerns that historians should be increasingly aware of. Perhaps Jeanneney’s greatest argument in regards to digital preservation is the content that is lost when the feel of the pages is abandoned in favour of a digitized copy. Jeanneney’s fear of western bias and dominance is also an interesting point. As historians we are encouraged to seek both sides of the story and be keenly aware of bias. Though Jeanneney’s methods might be a bit more extreme, the idea remains the same. Gathering data from more than one archive system does have merit and this is a valid argument.

Though the book was published a mere nine years ago there were instances that exposed the senescence of his rhetoric. He mentioned that Google was planning on introducing a new translation feature. In 2014 this has been an established feature for a few years. (p.43) Jeanneney also referenced Ask-Jeeves as a possible alternative to Google. (p.61) This is a company that no longer exists. However, these are minor timeline issues that Jeanneney could not have foreseen upon its publication in 2005. Overall, although the book is a few years old, the arguments remain legitimate. Though perhaps not entirely misplaced, Jeanneney’s fear of western dominated distribution and digitization of knowledge is one that has been and will likely continue to be relevant for decades to come.

It should be noted that there are no other sources consulted for this work and a bibliography and footnotes are conspicuously missing. Even though this book is a notably smaller work, this fact could prove dangerous to the legitimacy of his argument. While he makes a strong argument against Google’s funding, their careless digitization practices, and their tainted selection of documents to digitize, there are no sources that prove this. It is a very one-sided argument. He makes broad statements that paint Google in a very negative light without substantial proof to back up his claims. For example, without a single footnote, statistic or quote in the entire paragraph, he mentions how upon arrival in Baghdad (with no specific timeframe mentioned, either) Americans chose to protect oil rather than cultural establishments. He claims that the Americans looted the buildings and burned many precious works of art and literature. (p.38) This leaves the reader with a sense of western entitlement and lack of cultural respect or awareness. While this might not be true or untrue, some supportive facts could have helped with the legitimacy of this claim. Lack of exact sources is an obvious weak spot of any book and Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge is no exception.

Jeanneney believes that an alternative European digital library should be created to mitigate Google’s seemingly flawed approach to digitization. Google’s “apparent indifference” towards the goals of long-term preservation and conservation, which he blames on their “commercial nature”, raises a new element to the debate of digitizing literature and other primary documents. (p.64) It is important to note that without substantial facts or proof of this, this exists as a statement, not a fact. Although he makes this claim with very little proof, his point is extremely valid. This literature is irreplaceable and should be handled with the utmost care and the debate over proper handling of digitized works remains an ongoing debate.

As previously mentioned, Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge by Jean-Noël Jeanneney acts as somewhat of a blueprint as to how he feels the digitization of sources could, and more importantly should, be improved. As a passionate European and fierce defender of the French language, he believes that there is a legitimate risk for European literature by trusting a predominant American company to digitize such irreplaceable documents. However, Jeanneney’s broad accusatory statements that stem from a mistrust of western institutions taint the legitimacy of his argument. His unmistakable lack of sources to back up his claims cannot be dismissed.

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge

Jeanneney argues in his book for a European counterpart to Google Books search engine and the underlying database. He takes a stand against the online book publishing that he sees being ultimately influenced and dominated by America. As the president of the Bibliotheque nationale de France he has a vast amount of knowledge and interest pertaining to this matter. He explains why he feels it is important to have his message heard not just in European countries, but globally. His motives and actions are addressed throughout this slim book.
The argument by Jeanneney is inspired by the announcement in 2004 that Google will try to enter the realm of digitized literary content. The Google Book Search project, strives toward digitizing millions of books. Their goal is to accomplish this in a short period of time, which will allow the public to freely access these with the Google search engine. Google’s project has been endorsed by prestigious institutions, such as Harvard and Oxford universities. These institutions share a common goal, to make available all library books formerly only available by their physical form into digital. This digitalization will give access to those that may have experienced restrictions in the past. However, there cannot be progress without some controversy. In this case, the initiator is Europe, through the inspiration of Jean-Noel Jeanneney.
Throughout the book Jeanneney points out personal criticisms that he felt needed to be addressed. The categories of these criticisms include: selection, search criteria bias, author and publisher’s copyrights, and the long term preservation of digitized information.
When it comes to the selection process of the books made publicly available by Google, Jeanneney argues, how is it determined which books should make it to the database and under what criteria? He fears an inevitable American self-centeredness. He explains this self-centeredness by the “spontaneous prioritizing of things that fit into the American vision of the world.”(18) To avoid this, his solution is European countries joining together and creating their own digitized library. This will allow each country to select the works that they feel have contributed most to national and international society. This will break free from commercial interest and put the control into government supervision.
According to Jeanneney, if every book was put into this ever growing data base, Google’s search engine would not be efficient enough to properly provide relevant information. This brings Jeanneney to demonstrate the relevance of pre-digital professional knowledge, exemplified librarians. Their experience with the public presentation of literature would prove to be invaluable for the creation of more contextualized search engine architecture.
Jeanneney not only questions the technological foundations of the Google project. He foresees critical changes in the domains of distribution and intellectual property as well. What will happen to bookstores when goods are made fully available online? How are authors and publishers protected from their property ending up in the Google database unauthorized? Unfortunately, Jeanneney does not give concrete answers to these questions. He simply concludes that publishers should play an important role in the conception of a European digital library.
One of the author’s more convincing arguments is his call for a digitizing effort based on long term thinking. According to Jeanneney, a profit based company as Google cannot provide any of those securities when it comes to the durable conservation of data. As long as we do not rely on a single organization for gathering and guarding the world’s data, we should be fine. But to allot Google as the sole keeper of this heritage might turn out to be a dangerous bet.
Jeanneney contradicts himself, by this I mean his motives appear to be fuelled by “European vision of the world”, which tends to resemble the American vision quite a bit. On the one hand he fears for the marginalisation of less dominant cultures in the library database, but at the same time assumes a European effort will be free from this bias. This book does present valuable insights to its readers. Jeanneney brings up some good points of critique, but they tend to be influenced by a European expression. Opening up the debate concerning digital book publishing, Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge does a good job, but it seems to be lacking in-depth material on the subject. I agree with Jeanneney that institutions involved need to be pro-active with a non-regulatory fashion. I believe commercial organizations and government institutions create initiative as Jeanneney points out in his book. These initiatives are a good thing because they take away boundaries from entrepreneurs looking to achieve a great deal of success. With this in mind, I do not agree with the author that the European culture is being oppressed by Anglo Saxon dominance.

[Justin Appler · Rating 3 out of 5]

In 2004 Google announced that they would be digitizing the holdings of several major libraries to create a universal library. Jean-Noel Jeanneney, president of France's Bibliotheque, wrote his book Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge: a View From Europe, in response to Google’s “Universal ” Library. Jeanneney fears that Google will create a misguided perception on the literary works of the world based off selection of books that Google is choosing from. Jeanneney explains that Google has only sought to digitize works from Western Libraries and one Library from Britain. Jeanneney worries that Google's reputation as a popular search engine will lead to the dominance of American culture abroad. Jeanneney offers a solution to the potential threat of an American cultural invasion of Europe, which is to work on creating what Jeanneney, deems to be a truly comprehensive library. According to Jeanneney this library of his creation would be build on the founding principles of inclusion and multiculturalism, therefore representing the world’s literary works as accurately as possible.

Jeanneney writing is aimed at librarians and archivists. He wants to state his case on why something must be done to counter infiltration of American culture. Essentially, Jeanneney is writing a manifesto to all nations who are under attack by the threat of Google’s universal library. He speaks in general terms of uniting the European union, but also braches to Asia, Africa and the role that they will play in the creation of Jeanneney’s universal library. Jeanneney aims to unite the world to create a digital library that will counter Google’s and provide a well rounded carefully devised accurate universal library.

Writing from a place of great confidence, conveying the message that he is a professional and should be treated as a trusted source. He makes his position as a academic clear and he assure his readers of his understanding of the subject. Jeanneney’s makes a mandate to the academic world at large, a message to all those who are concerned with how literary sources are being made available to the world. Jeanneney speaks of ethics and codes on conduct concerning how academic knowledge should be handled.

Published in 2005 the information presented in this book is already outdated. This can be seen in the way Jeanneney explains certain workings of the Internet and his use of terms like “The World Wide Web” instead of just saying the Internet. The specific details that Jeanneney lay out are now out dated and are of little value to the reader. Despite the outdate jargon, Jeanneney’s criticisms are well founded and their value transcends expiring. Jeanneney’s criticisms of Google’s structure and the fear of the world’s information being controlled by one company are not at all unfounded. In many ways Jeanneney’s book starts the conversation on how should we go about digitizing and organization all of the information that we have available to us. The questions and criticism that Jeanneney presents in his book are something anyone who is interested in the digital humanities should consider.

The information presented in this book is intended for an academic audience however it is written in layman’s terms so anyone can grasps the concept the author is laying out. Throughout the book Jeanneney addresses his concerns to librarians and scholars of the academic world and provides them with a valuable insight into the discourse that surrounds the debate over the digitization of the world’s literary sources. Jeanneney presents his opinion on the subject in a straightforward manner. However, he gives no proof that is facts are accurate because there is no bibliography affixed to the book. The reader has to trust that the logistics that Jeanneney presents are accurate.

The first few pages of Jeanneney's work demonstrate a nationalistic tone that Jeanneney that is evident throughout the rest of the book. He writes from a place of the importance of the unique culture of France and the importance of preserving it. He extends his mandate to protect culture of all nations within the European union. This mandate to protect culture is even further extended to the rest of the world.

Jeanneney’s take on the inherent problematic nature of Google’s role in the spread of information is not just limited to looking at the negative. He also look at lessons that can be learned from looking at what Google has done and what it can teach the modern scholar about the internet as a tool for research. Jeanneney explains in detail the new opportunities that the modern scholar is presented with because of the Internet. He explains how the world must adapt to the new condition that the Internet has made for the librarian and the bookseller.

[Adamo Dattilo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jean- Noel Jeanneney’s title, “Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge: A View from Europe,” suggests that the author believes that Google is a biased and subjective service which presents information which primarily digitizes books in the English language and more commonly skips over books found in most other languages. Jeanneney expresses the necessity of European nations acting in response to this bias as a method of protecting both the cultures and languages of each respective country. He explains that “What is at stake is language, of course, and we can see how the use of English (in its American form) threatens to become ever more prevalent at the expense of other European languages—all of them.” Jeanneney analyses the situation in a very clear and concise manner and enables the reader to quickly understand its significance. However, in reading this piece, the feeling of an enlightening source was rapidly replaced with the feeling that he was ready to wage a war on the system of knowledge distribution which Google offers. “Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge: A View from Europe” is a fantastic source of European perspective on a daily part of many North American’s lives which often goes unanalyzed.
Jeanneney’s argument is neatly laid out in an easily accessible manner. The book can be broken down into essentially: The first section was an expression of the quarrel which Jeanneney has with Google. His argument is sound and the perspective he offers is particularly intriguing to North Americans who would typically never give this topic any thought in their own time as it is not a prevalent issue for them. His most influential claim surrounds the Google’s claim to offer a system which organizes the world’s information and “make it universally accessible and useful.” However, as Jeanneney continues, “The quantity promised by Google, so impressive in absolute terms, corresponds to only a small percentage of this huge total.”
The second section defined the importance, context and scale of the issue. While Google’s aims may have the best intentions, their practice and results leave much to be desired. The system which Google has in place does offer a large supply of usable information and books; however, it is mostly relevant and useful only to English speakers. Jeanneney’s argues that a resource such as Google, which has an influence on the lives of millions of people each day, having a bias towards a particular language could be detrimental to other languages, and by proxy, other cultures. Thirdly, Jeanneney discussed possible solutions to the situation and the problems associated with them. Her concept of other nations working to digitize their own works is an interesting and valid one which would truly assist in the preservation of European books and culture. The issue being that this would be a herculean task which would require a database, as well as a system for producing and organizing all of the digitized books of each language. Jeanneney understands, and recognizes this and even makes it a point to express this. The fact that the author is aware of the staggering task, and not only challenges it, but calls on others to do face the challenge with him, is truly inspiring.
Finally, he outlines the efforts of individuals in Europe and calls into action all others who would stand with him in this “universal challenge.” By detailing the works of others who shared his views and beliefs the author successfully and effectively supported both the validity and practicality in his suggested course of actions. This was a fitting place to end his argumentas it truly made his beliefs seem less utopian and more plausible. It is often times the case that works which call for a course of action or a change are brought up with strong words and very little supporting evidence, but Jeanneney effectively produces a work which is difficult to dispute the importance of.
Overall, this piece by Jean- Noel Jeanneney offers a valuable insight into the European perspective of a central part of the American lifestyle. The threat to language and culture which is outlined by Jeanneney is of the utmost importance and is an issue which must be dealt with. The argument presented is well written, thought out, clear and concise. He supports his claims with facts and as such his argument is strong and I recommend reading this to anyone, regardless of their field as it is an interesting piece which requires little background on the subject.

[Emile · Rating 3 out of 5]

In his book, Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge: A View from Europe Initially, I initially found that the book itself showed Jean-Noel Jeanneney personal bias towards the USA and there respect to the world, or lack there of in his opinion. Initially his arguments are presented in a more academic form, and he uses the dissection of language as the base of his arguments. However I also found a slight sense of anger and jealousy towards the lack of attention that the American corporation showed towards the other side of the “Atlantic Ocean”. He points out in the introduction that the lack of knowledge and being kept in the dark of Google’s initial decision to digitize these books; journals and other historic documents had left out the rest of the “world”. His obsession with the idea of Google, continuing in their efforts surrounding this project creates the idea of him being paranoid to a degree. The reality of it is digitization is apart of the evolution that technology has brought to the subject of History, the American cooperation, and society itself. The North American society today relies on what they are able to find and read on the web using search engines such as Google to begin research, find quick tips and also provide use with information overloads at the blink of an eye lid (google glasses).

The book itself highlights a few key factors for those historians out there, his arguments made on language change, and the world being perceived in an American view are big factors when understanding the project that “Google” plans to undertake. The announcement itself sent shockwaves around the world, specifically for educational institutions who pride themselves on archives and other forms of storage for these types of documents. Jeanneney brings to light the questions we all should ask about this project. How financial implications can affect google book searches? Will third party Company’s be able to fund the institution to ensure they have prime real-estate much like google and will other search engines attempt to join this project because of Google’s influence. What roles will the government play in this new project and what access will everyone have to the rich cultural societies around the world?

I found that his arguments were very European based, in that the USA was referred to as the “other side” and “across the ocean”. But it brings to light the idea of competition between Europe and America and the fact that he dislikes the idea of a corporation being able to hold the world’s data rather than Europe. It almost makes it seem as if he dislikes the idea of capitalism and the freedom it allows businesses like Google. However through his personal bias, and his arguments surrounding the concept of digitization, he has brought to the surface a few key clerical errors that would create doubt and be questioned by both librarians and historians around the world. The order and the balance in which each documents is weighted is crucial, one cannot assume that the English version would be most viewed or needed. Thus the question of who will be the digital custodians, and how will they impact the sorting and levels of importance that are assigned to these documents that Google would acquire.

In the mist of this, his writing is clear, and his arguments are presented well, they do raise questions and allow us as readers to truly question the actual project and relate it to all of the above points. For those abroad I feel it would definitely raise questions on the levels of importance that books and journals in other languages would receive, for people in the USA I wonder how the US government will impact both search results and content that is displayed. Will this project potentially jeopardize the image of US History? In essence the concept of a 3rd party-holding information at this level is questioned majorly, due to possible impacts of capitalistic ideas and the current speculations around the important of private information. The abundance of cultural information that will be available to the world, and his paranoia to this type of assimilation almost allows is to think that there is more to his arguments than what he states in this book.

[Greg · Rating 2 out of 5]

With all the hoo-ha lately about the death of the American public intellectual, it is somewhat refreshing to read a screed by a bona-fide French intellectual. Jeanneney, the director of the French national library is very concerned about Google's book digitization project (Google books). No Luddite, his concerns boil down to: 1) Anglo-American centrism, as google is an English speaking company, and 2) The fact that google is a commercial company, with commercial interests.

His solution is to propose a European competitor to Google books, sponsored by the EU, and implemented by large European IT companies, an Airbus for IT. This project now exists, named Quaero. Good luck with that.

His complaints about Google's hegemony fall flat, at least to this American. He complains that Google's search results form a hierarchy, as it only displays 10 results per page, and the first 10 are much more frequently viewed than the rest. To me, this seems more a failure of human cognition than anything else -- if it displayed 10,000 results, I certainly couldn't process them all. Moreover, search engines in general were a response to Yahoo, whose H stands for hierarchical.

He also states that AdWords' auction model results in only large, wealthy companies being able to afford ads, which is clearly not the case.

Though not aware of the larger argument, Jeanneney clearly falls into the "cathedral" camp of development, and dismisses the bazaar model of development, despite citing the successes of Wikipedia and Project Gutenburg. Instead, he claims that a large, centralized, government funded project will work better for Europe than Google books.

Ultimately, there is a difference in views on Elitism, another topic that has been much in discussion. The author follows the traditional, continental model of Elitism. This means early personal vetting by an exclusive college followed by a career in government ministries. The Internet form of elitism self-describes as a meritocracy, where who you are, or what you have done in the past counts for little. The only things that counts is what you've done lately.

[Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very short, very French, very clear book.

Jeanneneny is not one for hyperbole. He argues in his slightly stuffy, institutionally-groomed manner for fiercely competing forces of difference in world culture, with a special focus on the written word.

J-N J argues that the many minority and disappearing languages need the anti-Google - the engines that will store and organize their linguistic and cultural histories according to their own logic.

Rather than a monolith of American English bias, the many peoples of Earth ought to seek refuge in collaborations and user-generated digital libraries to compete with and compliment Google Book Search.

The innovations of Google can be emulated and improved and scaled appropriate. J-N J simply reminds us, and indeed scolds us, to imagine a fairer world where the worlds knowledge lies in public trust and accessible freely to all, with meaningful, "jealously guarded" differences between Bhutan and Berkley.

[Jesse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though some of his spiels about Google are overly curmudgeonly, Jeanneney's short book seems absolutely essential to anybody who cares about the dissemination and preservation of knowledge in the 21st century. His analysis of the economic powers behind Google and how they manifest themselves in search results is the heart of his argument. Elsewhere, it seems like he's arguing because hhe's being snubbed by Google (he was the president of France's national library from 2002-2007). Google needs to better regulate their book intake, he argues, to pick and curate what is important, which is what librarians are for, ignoring that all of Google's intake -- the contents of several college libraries -- have already been vetted by librarians. Feels important at the moment.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

A Francophone librarian's hesitations about Google's book scanning project.

1) If unanswered by a European counterpart, Google's project will make Anglo-Saxon language/culture an even more hegemonic force than it already is.

2) Google is putting a lot of faith in its search engine to find relevant, contextual works. Just scanning in thousands of books without any sort of cataloging order is pure insanity, especially since often they aren't scanning to a text-recognition level of quality...

3) From DemocracyNow with Amy Goodman, an excellent summation of the problems with the Google book scanning deal:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/30...

[Vera · Rating 3 out of 5]

A quick and insightful read on the problems of book digitization.
Key themes addressed by Jeanneney:

- commercial vs public interests in media as reflected in American and French policies respectively
- a potential danger of knowledge hierarchies that result from Google Book Search practices driven only by market logics
- the decisive role of governments in preserving cultural wealth and resisting cultural homogeneity

[Joytill]

indicação do Robson. Mesmo autor de o Google desafia a Europa, que li em 2006. Nele, conclamava a Europa a se posicionar em relação ao domínio anglo saxão na rede.Jean-Noel Jeanneney

[Christopher Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Excellent international look at Google and the Google Book endevour. For those who enjoy nonfiction works, this book stands as an excellent read about libraries, the internet and digital content.

[James Mastromarino]

I have to say that I find Jeanneney a little paranoid, but he's probably right about America increasing its domination of "universal culture" through Google. Hail the Americanizing Algorithm!

[Brad · Rating 2 out of 5]

Done with the book. It had a very interesting point of view.