In times gone by, before the advent of online data and search engines, libraries had more cut and dried access policies. A patron had access to literally every document within the libraries collection or reach, via ILL. Today, much of a library’s holdings are in the form of online databases or available on the wider internet. However, these increased holdings haven’t come without their own unique problems of implementation.
For many reasons, libraries today have limited access to both online resources. In his article entitled “Cluck, Cluck” Joseph Janes points out a profound effect technology has had on librarians, “The truly icky things it that filters have become the de facto collection managers in this scenario.”[1] Janes is speaking about a particular case in Rochester and Monroe County, New York where the County Executive threatened to pull a library’s funding if the library would not install filtering software. As requested by County Executive Brooks, the library caved and installed filters to prevent access to “all pornographic sites.”[2] It remains to be seen what the computer software will construe to be pornographic. Janes furthers his argument, criticizing the fact that “In effect [County Executive] Brooks is saying she trusts that software- designed by people she neither pays nor represents- more than the library staff or clientele.”[3] Janes specifically dislikes that the internet was considered to be a technology issue rather than a collections development issue. This situation displays the perversion of normal library functioning when filtering devices are put in place.
Michael Gorman, in his article “Technostress and Library Values” makes another good point about the effects of such a voluminous addition to a library’s collection. He argues that databases and the vast resources of the internet are wonderful gifts but that they alter the traditional roles of librarians and patrons. His concern is that the possibilities posed by monitoring or steering patrons by staff or policy can be maligned if not carefully measured. He wrote, “We lack the invaluable control mechanisms of publishers in the world of the net and the web. This means that many of the decisions are shifted to librarians and the end user. Though not necessarily a bad thing, that transfer of responsibility means that librarians must confront intellectual freedom issues far more often than before.”[4] It seems, to paraphrase Gorman, that the same gift of valuable information has come with an increase in the number of influences applied before the patron receives their requested information. Influence from unvetted internet resources, library access policy, and the individual skill and intent of assisting librarians have all increased in a professional interaction.
Contemporary technology has, no doubt, been the single biggest benefit to the mission of library science since the adoption of the public library system in this country. However it poses its own unique problems of implementation. In some cases, technological resources such as databases are held as being separate from collections development issues, as in the case of the Rochester and Monroe County, New York Incident Described by J. Janes. This separation led to real curtailment of use for the patrons. The sheer quantity of information that has recently become available has also affected the roles of librarian and patron as described by M. Gorman. These two authors show that recently technology has made a profound impact on the mission of library science to the point of affecting intellectual freedom of the patron.
Sources:
Gorman, M. (2001). Technostress and Library values, Library Journal, 126, no. 7, 48-
50.
Janes, J. (2007). Cluck, Cluck. American Librarian, 38, no. 9, 49.
[1] Janes, J. (2007). Cluck, Cluck. American Librarian, 38, no. 9, 49.
[2] Ibidem
[3] Ibidem
[4] Gorman, M. (2001). Technostress and Library values, Library Journal, 126, no. 7, 50.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
There seems to be a large gap between what is ideal and what is practical. Julian Aiken's article "Outdated and Irrelevant?" states that just over half of libraries surveyed reported they fail to upkeep the ALA's Library Bill of Rights due to the use of internet filters. Many librarians surveyed seemed ashamed of their use of filters, knowing the restrictions they place on access to information violate the code. But some libraries are forced by the patron base, city, and other powers that be, to enforce the restrictions for the "greater good". The article suggests the ALA should be taking more of a stance in the matter. The association, after all, is implying rules but never truly has to deal with consequences. Librarians are the ones caught in the middle, stuck dealing with the gap between what is morally right as a librarian, and what is practical and "necessary" in the eyes of busy parents and a conservative public.
works cited: Aiken, Julian. "Outdated and Irrelevant?." American Libraries 38 no8 (September 2007): 54-6.
Very interesting post. Looking at it one way, Joseph Janes is right that the widespread adoption of the Internet in libraries 12-15 years ago wasn't just a "technology issue". It was indeed instead more of a collection development issue; when the library opens a portal to the Internet, the library potentially expands its "collection" by a virtually unlimited amount.
But I’m a little wary of analyses that suggest that the Internet should be treated just like books or even other electronic resources. The Internet is not the same. The librarian can select which books her library houses. (Yes, the librarian must select which books her library will house because of financial and space limitations. Still, she can do so and she does.) She can even select which electronic databases her library will purchase access to.
But one can’t select (outside of filtering) which Internet one’s library will make publicly available. So (court decisions about First Amendment free speech aside—the courts have gotten things wrong before, after all) is it automatically illegitimate to filter out the sites that do not meet the criteria of the library’s (hopefully existing and publicly available) collection-development policy--merely because the library doesn't have to pay anything to obtain it or to house it?
Work cited:
Janes, Joseph. (2007, October). Cluck, cluck. American Libraries, 38(9). Retrieved April 6, 2008, from Library Literature & Information Full Text database (H.W. Wilson Company).
By using software that filters out anything with the word sex or abortion, or any other “dangerous” idea, we are cutting of parts of our learning process in spite of the development of personal inquiry. I have always wondered why concerned parents or government officials spend so much time on restricting information rather than developing powerful and thoughtful dialogue about selecting and looking critically at the information encountered in the virtual world. It’s as if by ignoring “dangerous” ideas they will just magically disappear and not have to be dealt with. I do not understand this way of engaging in the world.
After reading this article titled, Writing the Information Superhighway, which the author, "New York University Professor Irving Kristol argues that a liberal today 'ought to favor a liberal form of censorship. " Basing his arguments on the moral relevance of art, Kristol says bluntly: "If you care for the quality of life in our American democracy, then you have to be for censorship," I am still concerned that even a “liberal form of censorship” is still dangerous to educational process and intellectual freedom.
Michael Gorman has some interesting points about what happens to information before it even gets to the patron. All of those concepts have to be taken into account as we wrestle with the challenges of technology effects on intellectual freedom and access of information.
Source cited:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wbutler/kristol.html
Right after I posted the previous response, I happened on this from Jessamyn West
http://www.librarian.net/
Librarians notice “abortion” stop word, take action
April 8th, 2008
“The world’s largest database on reproductive health, POPLINE, has been blocking searches using the term “abortion” since late February. The block was removed Friday afternoon…. The search block was discovered by medical librarians doing routine searches.” More on this story from Wired.
I have included the article from Wired below.
Overreaction to Bush Administration Complaint Prompted Block on 'Abortion' Searches
University administrators of the world's largest scientific database on reproductive health blocked the word "abortion" as a search term after receiving a complaint from the Bush administration over two abortion-related articles listed in the database.
"The items in question had to do with abortion advocacy -- the two items dealing with abortion were removed following this inquiry, and the administrators made a decision to restrict abortion as a search term," said Tim Parsons, a spokesman for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Maryland.
The blocking of the keyword "is a decision that the dean does not support in any way," he added, and the administrators are unblocking the search for the term right now.
"I could not disagree more strongly with this decision, and I have directed that the Popline administrators restore 'abortion' as a search term immediately," said Michael J. Klag, the school's dean in a statement issued on Friday. "I will also launch an inquiry to determine why this change occurred. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of knowledge and not its restriction."
The Popline search site is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, the federal office in charge of providing foreign aid, including health care funding, to developing nations.
Under a Reagan-era policy revived by President Bush in 2001, USAID denies funding to non-governmental organizations that perform abortions, or that "actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."
Sandra Jordan, director of communications in USAID's office of population and reproductive health, could not identify the documents that prompted her office's complaint, but said the publications were one-sided in favor of abortion rights.
"We are part of the Bush administration, so we have to make sure that all parts of the story are told," says Jordan. "The administration's policy is definitely anti-abortion, and the administration does not see abortion as a part of family planning policy."
Jordan says that the Johns Hopkins database administrators blocked the word "abortion" on their own, and had misunderstood USAID's request.
"We're glad they're restoring the search function to the site -- the studies and statistical information are certainly important information to family planning," she adds.
The massive Popline database indexes a broad range of reproductive health literature, including titles like "Previous abortion and the risk of low birth weight and preterm births," and "Abortion in the United States: Incidence and access to services, 2005."
As previously reported, a search on "abortion" used to produce nearly 25,000 hits on the site. But on Thursday, the same search resulted only with the message "No records found by latest query."
The American Library Association's president Loriene Roy applauded dean Klag's swift move to restore the search functionality, but said in a statement that she is still concerned about the overall policy.
"Any federal policy or rule that requires or encourages information providers to block access to scientific information because of partisan or religious bias is censorship," she said. "Such policies promote idealogy over science and only serve to deny researchers, students and individuals on all sides of the issue access to accurate scientific information."
work cited:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/administrators.html
http://www.librarian.net/
I think Michael Gorman has it right when he reminds readers that “[w]e must always keep in mind that the principle of library users being entitled to access the texts, images, and sounds they need or want is not altered because those texts, images, and sounds are in digital form.” (Gorman, 2001). After all, according to the Library Bill of Rights, “[m]aterials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.” (ALA, 1996).
Collection development is a venerable art, but it’s grounded in necessity, not intellectual freedom. According to Shanks and Stenger (2002) many librarians claim that they “select materials only because they have limited money, shelf space, time, and other resources. If these resources were unlimited [as may be possible one day on the internet], librarians would not select at all and would see themselves primarily as “facilitators,” in effect as people who would help the user to search for the information he or she needed.” (Shanks and Stenger, 2002).
Although this assumes that efficient facilitation is possible in a world of unlimited access—public libraries might be willing to accept everything, but libraries with specific missions might hesitate before burying information of primary importance in a sea of blogs, op-eds, and everything else.
Still, unlimited electronic access may become a reality during our lives (although government filtering and ISP self-censorship are working against the free flow of information, see e.g., Kreimer, 2006), and librarians will need to manage effectively the flood of data, and the new problems, and challenges to intellectual freedom, that will come with it.
Gorman (2001) raises some interesting points related to this issue for librarians to consider. For example does the ethic of intellectual freedom require librarians to protect the access of technologically unsophisticated or phobic persons to non-electronic information?
He also asserts that librarians “are responsible for the human transcript today and tomorrow.” (Gorman, 2001). While it is true that electronic records can last for generations, they can also be erased, modified, or corrupted. Is it true then that “[w]hen considering technology, [librarians] must also consider [a] duty to ensure that future generations know what we know and, therefore, ensure preservation and onward transmission of the records of humankind”? (Gorman, 2001).
Does upholding the value of intellectual freedom require librarians to ensure access to information for generations to come?
*****
And, as always, how can librarians promote intellectual freedom in the age of free access to the Disney Web site, along with a side order of porn.com, without alienating segments of their communities and loosing necessary funding and support, and without triggering a censorship backlash from people with little understanding of intellectual freedom and its importance to their current liberty?
Blind acceptance of filters, even if restricted to children’s computers isn’t a viable solution, at least to me. “For example, CyberPatrol [a commonly used filter] blocks access to the Ontario Religious Tolerance Site [simply] because it includes Wicca among its 62 religious and ethical systems.” Vandergrift (1997).
“In December 2000, Peacefire released Amnesty Intercepted, a report on human rights pages including Amnesty International that were blocked by blocking software.” Peacefire.
And major filtering services such as Cyber Patrol have run amok blocking the web sites of politicians. Sites blocked include the following.
Democratic candidates' sites:
1. Pat Casey, 10th District, Pennsylvania;
2. Linda Chapin, 8th District, Florida;
3. Llord Doggett, Texas;
4. Mark Greene, 12th District, Texas;
5. Joan Johnson, Colorado;
Republican candidates' sites:
1. Grant Garrett, 9th District, Michigan;
2. Jeffery Pollock, 3rd District, Oregon;
“(After hearing about this report, Mr. Pollock removed a sentence from his position page on Internet issues which stated, ‘We should demand that all public schools and libraries install and configure Internet Filters.’)”
3. Jim Ryun, 2nd District, Kansas;
4. Chris Vance, 9th District, Washington;
Libertarian site blocked:
1. Joe Whelan, West Virginia. Haselton and McCarthy (2000).
Although I am sure not everyone would agree with me, I think many people want their children to be exploring issues like ethics and religious tolerance at the library. At least members of Families Against Internet Censorship do.
I think human rights is a good thing for all people to be able to learn about at the library.
And I think children should learn about politics and participating in our democracy—and, although I have not personally visited the web sites of the politicians listed above, I’m sure they’re not all too raw for children to view.
But technology may be on intellectual freedom’s side after all. Check out Peacefire; it’s tag reads you’ll understand when your younger. It’s a web site for teaching children how to get around filters and other blocks on access.
...After all the fuss, we adults may just not be smart enough to keep children from viewing what they want.
Work Cited:
ALA (Adopted June 18, 1948, amended February 2, 1961, June 28, 1967, and January 23, 1980; inclusion of “age” reaffirmed January 24, 1996.). Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved on April 10, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.htm.
Families Against Internet Censorship. Retrived on April 10, 2008, from http://www.netfamilies.org/.
Gorman, M. (2001). Technostress and Library Values. Library Journal, 126(7), 48.
Haselton, B. and McCarthy, J. (2000). Blind ballots: Web sites of U.S. political candidates censored by censorware.
Peacefire.org. Retrieved on April 10, 2008, from http://www.peacefire.org/blind-ballots/.
Kreimer, S.F. (2006). Censorship by proxy: The first amendment, internet intermediaries, and the problem of the weakest link. University of Pennsylvania Law Review., 155(11), 12-101.
Peacefire. Retrieved on April 10, 2008, from http://www.peacefire.org/.
Shanks, T. and Stenger, B. ( 2002). Access, internet, and public libraries: A report to the Santa Clara County Public Libraries. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Retrieved on April 10, 2008, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/technology/libraryaccess/homepage.html.
Vandergrift, K. (1997). Censorship, the Internet, intellectual freedom, and youth. SCILS, Rutgers. Retrieved on April 10, 2008, from http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~kvander/censorship.html.
Technology - specifically the advent of online databases/periodicals - has affected libraries in a fundamental way. Traditionally, libraries offered patrons access to information (in the form of books and journals) that were more or less permanent. With the advent of online subscriptions, such information is much more vulnerable to change. This is so because online databases only license content - that is to say, when a database subscription expires, so too does the patrons' access to the content. Given that library budgets are relatively stable, and database costs are continually rising, libraries are faced with the reality that they may need to cancel subscriptions. As opposed to traditional journal subscriptions, where the library was able to keep the past issues when a subscription was canceled, the digital equivalent does not allow the library to access issues that came out before the subscription was canceled - access is cut off completely. This raises the question of whether or not it is ultimately worth it for libraries to purchase subscriptions to databases as opposed to subscribe to the physical journal. Of course factors such as space impact this decision.
References:
Hawbaker, A. and Wagner, C. (1996). Periodical Ownership Versus Fulltext Online Access: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22, 105-9.
I think K. Gordon makes a good case for the virtues of an unhampered internet. She also points out another truth- children are unstoppably creative when something interests them. They will obtain information in creative ways- around, above, or below filters.
Josh R. makes an excellent point that I had not considered. Once a library has terminated a subscription to an online journal it cannot retain any of the "old issues". I would assume libraries do a cost vs. benefit analysis of both methods of subscription; it would be interesting to know how that all shakes out...
License agreements are a problem, but Librarians are fighting back. If anyone has recently tried to find an article here at WSU and found that we don't have it you might have noticed a link that reads like this:
Request Digital Delivery of article if NOT available from INSTANT ACCESS area above. (requires 24-48 hours)
This represents a new service at the library that is not yet being advertised. It's called Article Reach. Link brings you to a web site where you can freely request articles not in WSU's collection from other universities in the program.
How it works:
The University that has access to the article scans it (it must be in hard copy), sends it to the recipient, and deletes the original scan. The recipient has only a matter of days to download the file before it disappears. I have it on good authority that this process does not violate license agreements, in case your wondering (I sure did).
This new service seems to represent a positive step for the libraries. Unfortunately, I can't help but think that the journals and databases that profit from the current set-up are going to find a way to stop this service. The money's just too good.
Technology has a big effect on intellectual freedom. In 2008 we have better, and faster access to information that is more involved and (hopefully) more accurate. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
I would think this would be a great thing for librarians and their patrons. AFterall libraries are dedicated to providing as much information as needed to thier patrons. However, people don't know how to always find this most accurate of the information. Or they take advantage of the easy avaiable of internet at libraries.This is in turns results in the filters being on the computer.
Jen, I saw a couple of news stories about the abortion database issue, too. (Ack! References!) I loved that librarians are being depicted as heroes and defenders of freedom.
It really does seem that libraries have to bear the brunt of the responsibility for "protecting" the public, mostly children, from exposure to the big, bad world. It's probably in part because of their unique position as gatekeepers of information, but also I fear because so many other parts of society aren't stepping up to take responsibility. Many parents want to count on schools, libraries, and television networks to shield their children from objectionable content rather than take the responsibility themselves or have honest conversations about controversial topics.
Post a Comment