[drafted in response to K.G. Schneider's post on Wikipedia]
Yes, we have been gatekeepers in our libraries, and for the time being, we can continue to act in that manner, although I say that this would be a mistake.
Because although we may still be gatekeepers in our libraries, in the wider world, there are far more instances of people finding information without our help or involvement. That doesn’t make us very good gatekeepers, does it? And if that’s our primary purpose, we’re failing.
After all there’s no point in being a gatekeeper if the world finds it easier and preferable to go around the gate and access information without a gatekeeper. We just need to let go of the gatekeeper role, because we are no longer the only game in town. People no longer have to go to a library (and I speak physically or virtually) to access information, so it’s up to us to provide a reason why they would want to come.
Face it, librarians are no longer in control of their collections. Yes, there are certain things that we still control, but those are often becoming less and less important. Whether a library has access to a particular electronic journal or publication has more to do with a vendors bundling & pricing policy rather than the library’s collection development policy. And then there’s the rest of the internet, which may be accessed from within the library but isn’t really controlled by anyone.
That’s where the garden analogy breaks down. The whole world is the garden, but we can only control and tend for a small space in our immediate vicinity. What are we to say or do about the parts of the garden outside of our control? Warn people away from it? [risky, if we ask people to make a choice, we may drive them away and they mightn't return]