THE UNIVERSE OF INFORMATION.pdf - ideals

all subjects should be inventoried. For all that is written, there
should be prepared a general, synthetic contents table. No
matter how separate bibliographers might be in terms of distance,
or how remote from each other in terms of subject, they
could all contribute to the essential bibliographical unity, of
whose existence Otlet was so firmly convinced, if they would
only agree to the relatively simple requirement of publication
of standardised bibliographical information on cards.
The RBU was not to be construed as prejudicing the autonomy
of what existed. It was not meant to be destructive in
any way. For its coverage of the past it had to utilise everything
presently available; for the present and the future, if
it had the co-operation of bibliographers in the ways projected,
it could slowly, naturally, evolve towards its goals. The knowledge
that the universal repertory could be completed only
upon immense labour was no argument, Otlet reasoned, for
not undertaking the labour, nor was the awareness that it
would, inevitably, contain mistakes. After all, error existed no
less in the bibliographical work of others. Otlet was now, however,
rather more cautious in giving a figure for the percentage
error, suggesting it might be from 15 to 20 per cent.
But one should, he observed in effect, emphasise the positive
aspect of this error: at least 80 per cent of the repertory
would contain invaluable information. It would be better to
have access to this much than to none at all, to be even
slightly misled by an error of fact, than to rest in complete
ignorance of the fact. The repertory, he stressed, was not a
work of art, but a tool. It should be compared with the factories
and machines which had revolutionised contemporary
industry. It was a form of organising scientific work better
than it had been organised in the past — no more, no less.
Some of the repertory's critics had feared that it would
contain gaps; others had feared that in its eschewal of selectivity,
it would contain too much. This touched again on the
problem of specialisation and Otlet was quite clear about it —
a bibliographer could not choose without appearing to be
arbitrary. He had to list everything for he could not know
how or why different persons at different times would approach
the literature of a subject.
Other critics Otlet characterised as bibliographical genealogists.
They had devoted themselves to tracing the origins
of the newly born work. This was commendable and potentially
constructive «for nothing comes of nothing . . But it would
be truly unjust to turn this historical preoccupation against
the institution one is examining.» 39 Otlet mentioned the various
proposals and schemes put forward in the past for a
universal catalog or a great union catalog of public libraries,
but argued that because such ventures had existed only
66