As much as I love libraries, they are extremely inefficient considering their purpose.
A lot of kids (and adults) get a great deal out of their local library. I still vividly remember the very first book that I picked up by chance while browsing the Sci-Fi section and couldn't put down until I fell asleep with it in my hands at 5am.
>A lot of kids
Yes, I was one of those kids, but most of the kids I went to school with weren't readers and never went to the library for fun.
In a densely populated area if 1% of kids regularly vist the library, it will be packed. Still--most kids don't.
I also wasn't implying that libraries are without merit. The OP implied that the internet wasn't beneficial as an educational tool because most kids don't take advantage of it's potential. I merely pointed out that the same was true for libraries.
Anyway, wikipedia relies on sourced research, which requires people that know how to do research. And this was taught...at the library (You'll have a hard time finding Basic Research Methods 101 in any university catalog).
When someone says that wikipedia can replace libraries I immediately want to shake somebody violently. Please understand that wikipedia isn't a primary source. Jimmy never intended it to replace them. They'll give you a topical understanding and a list of ISBN numbers at the bottom of the page. Now you can go to the library and using your freshly acquired ISBN numbers check out the books you actually need.
Right now I'm reading a book by Bain about the transcontinental railroads that I picked up at my local library (after reserving it online, picking it up at the front counter without even having to look for it, and walking out the door in <60 seconds using the automated checkout machine) and a book on startups I got off of Amazon.
I've read the wikipedia entry on the transcontinental railroad, it's good. But it's not as detailed as book. And there are about 50,000 blog posts on startups, but none are as detailed as the book I'm reading.
Wikipedia and blog posts are all shallow overviews of the subject. If you want nuance, if you want depth, then you need a book. And the internet doesn't even come close.
Add to that interlibrary loan, and you have a wealth of information available.
For example, libraries provide services like access to computers and the Internet, for modern kids and adults without access to the Internet.
Many libraries also now provide ebooks available for the Kindle and Nook devices.
And then there's the fact that they're merely an indoor public space, usually with rooms freely or nominally available for the public to simply meet and share ideas.
Many US libraries have audio (CDs, cassetes). Most of them are just as senseless.
I once checked out le Carré's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. It was something of an action novel, and it was entertaining. Was that one OK?
Given that the private sector does seem fully capable of providing libraries to those who want them, why do we subsidize them?
The question is rarely as simple as "could the private sector do it?"
Healthcare provision is rivalrous and excludible, ask any poor American, doesn't mean it shouldn't be universally provided by the government.
Education is rivalrous and excludible, look at private schools - doesn't mean it's wrong for there to be state schools and laws making children attend them.
The only thing that matters is whether the public benefit outweighs the burden on taxpayers.
(I'd be fine with no government funding for libraries in general; it seems like something which should be privately or charity funded to keep them safe from censorship and political control.)
You're being facetious, but this is precisely the question libraries have always faced, through thin times and fat, regardless of the social and political winds. They have only so much shelf space and face the simple fact nobody will come to a location that doesn't offer them anything they want.
There's a very old political debate at bottom: Should a government institution give the taxpayers what they want, or should it focus more on giving them what the better-educated types decide they need? Go the first way and you're competing with Wal-Mart and Barnes & Noble; go the second and you have a wonderful temple to Sanctioned Knowledge that, to a first approximation, nobody really cares about.
So, yes, what are 'sensible' holdings? Do you have any answers?
My hackles rise whenever I hear someone tell me what's worthwhile and what's not. But I do recognize practical necessity. I don't believe there's anything magical about the book/text format over electronic/other formats, other than "that's how it's been" up until recently.
I would be pleased to see "Fart Proudly" in any library's holdings, regardless of format.
Don't forget that libraries host community events, children's books, story time, literacy programs, and give poor people access to computers, printers, and the internet.
They rent out conference rooms and have a large auditorium with a theater-sized movie screen. The last time I was there they were showing Kung-Fu Panda which attracted a decent crowd. It's one library that has changed with the times.