In the midst of the technological
era, digital libraries have emerged, drastically changing the traditional
dynamics (“dynamics” is a way too… I don’t know. “Methods
of exchange” will suffice.) in knowledge and culture. While the writer
is an ardent proponent of digital libraries, the speaker presents a
contradictory opinion based on three reasons.
First of all, the author emphasizes
the accessibility of digital libraries. Available in
online, digital libraries reach towards the
wider audience, transcending mobility issues, such as disability and proximity.
On the other hand, the lecturer criticizes the myopic meaning of the accessibility
in the writer’s assertion. While the digital libraries certainly blur the
geographical boundaries, they still consolidate the socioeconomic hierarchy,
since majority of people do not have the internet access at (on) the
first place. (Good!)
Second, according to the reading
passage, digital libraries save time. By simply entering keywords, the digital
library users can avoid unnecessary time, roaming around the library to find
the right book. However, the instructor casts doubt on such argument, since
selecting the right information in digital libraries also takes time. In the digital library, anyone can post (their works) without proper editorial process, which
makes the time-consuming double checking of the sources’ reliability more
crucial than ever.
Lastly, the writer believes that
digital libraries prompt intellectual flowerings by encouraging authors to
freely exchange their literary works and information with others. On the contrary,
the professor claims that the digital libraries ultimately discourage authors
to write, since their precious intellectual properties are freely downloaded
without any justifiable (justified / guaranteed) profits.
(It is similarly well
written, without mistakes worth pointing out. The changed words concern my
personal insight as an editor rather than fundamental mistakes. Good job!)