But just as automated techniques are today an integral part of the textile industry, so too are digital technologies already an integral part of most repositories of human knowledge. Mention these figures to Luddite librarians, and they typically reply by expressing their own profound sentimental attachment to the physical form of the book. The Neo-Luddites seem oblivious to the staggering cost and utter futility of such an effort, and the absolute uselessness and immediate obsolescence of the resulting tool. Perhaps most deeply disturbing of all, they seem wholly unaware of four decades of experimental research that indicates that traditional controlled vocabularies are no better at retrieving documents than simple keyword searches. Now, of course, not every librarian is a Luddite.
Some librarians actively embrace digital technologies, and the result is profoundly gratifying.
Google and Clever exploit techniques originally developed by librarians, and one of the best extant books on Website architecture was written by a technophile librarian. Nonetheless the Luddism is pervasive. Yet a simple algorithm for reducing the impact of homonymic variation dates back to at least the early 20th century, long before the advent of digital computers. Such algorithms are admittedly imperfect, but then, so too are the techniques used by human indexers. By rights, such pervasive, institutional ignorance ought to sound a clarion call among information professionals and educators alike.