NextGen Librarian and The Digital Divide - In Brief

NextGen Librarian by Robin Lang

A new breed of librarians are graduating from school and looking to make their place in the world of libraries and information technology. These former students are now being called Next Generation Librarians. So what is a Next Generation Librarian and how is he or she changing the perception of libraries? According to Stephen Abram and Judy Luther, in "Born with the Chip", NextGens are born between 1982 and 2002. They have grown up surrounded by technology, using computers on a daily basis, so much so that has become part of our DNA. It is about 81 million strong (34). However, another author, Rachel Singer Gordon, disagrees. In her article, "Generational Journeys", she makes the point that all NEW librarians are not necessarily YOUNG librarians. Many current LIS graduates are older adults beginning a second or third career. She says, "NextGens do, though tend to share age-related commonalities in outlook and experience that are not necessarily common to all new librarians but do affect their reactions to these issues and connection to the profession" (Singer-Gordon, 2005). While we are not all of the same generation and have the same experiences, we are able to share a common interest, which is in our case, librarianship. Stephen Abrams and Judy Luther have acknowledged nine commonalities of the NextGen Librarian that sets them apart from other generations: format agnostic, nomadic, multitasking, experimental, collaborative, integrated, principled, adaptive and finally direct (34-37). It is essential for current librarians to adopt as least some of these aspects into the workplace, not just for new librarians but also for younger patrons.

It is important for libraries to change in order to survive this technology driven world. Libraries need to fit into the Next Generations need for on the spot information, access, and sharing and also mesh that with their workflow (Bannwart, 2007). For instance, libraries lacking wireless capabilities will become irrelevant in our society, unable to compete with corporations like Starbucks and Panera Bread. "The new library 2.0 environment is one that librarians are, by their very nature, well equipped to learn. If librarians do not learn this environment, the Googles of the World surely will and library users will be served, though perhaps not well, by them" (Bannwart, 2007). Susan Bannwart, points out those young adult patrons encompass about 25% of libraries users and growing and yet they are falling by the wayside in libraries. Preteens and teens are in libraries looking for homework/research help, personal information, career/college guidance, reading and entertainment. This is a huge portion of our client base that we are virtually ignoring. Librarians need to pull young adults back into the libraries using technologies that are commonplace for them, such as with through websites, youth organizations, and schools (47).

Works Cited
Abrams, S. J. (2004). Born with the Chip. Library Journal , 34-37.
Bannwart, S. (2007). Reference and Information Services for the Next Generation. Indiana Libraries , 46-48.
Singer-Gordon, R. (2005). Generational Journeys. Library Journal , 42.


And, special bonus post!


In Brief - The Digital Divide

For all this talk about what libraries can do with technology and how they must evolve to serve their increasingly web-savvy patrons, there are still many people who need their libraries, but who don’t have computers at home, email accounts, or even perhaps have never been on the internet. This so called "digital divide" is evident along the lines of economic class, race, and age. A recent editorial lays bare the specifics of this division. "As the statistics show, the digital divide is alive and well in America. Access to a computer at home is affected by race and income: The higher the family income, the greater chance that the student has a computer at home. White non-Hispanics have a higher percentage of home computer ownership than blacks or Hispanics." (Metcalf, 2007). In contrast to the most avid users of new technologies who tend to be young people who have regular and frequent access to computers whether at home or at school, many people simply have not had the time or the opportunities in their lives to learn computer skills and gain familiarity with basic technology, (Carvin, 2006). These people won't necessarily benefit from their libraries' forays into technology and social networking without assistance. Many libraries do more than simply offer one-time assistance with specific tasks by putting on regular classes and workshops that start at the most basic level of computer skills so that members of their communities can gain familiarity with technology. More than simply using technology to enhance how their patrons access information, libraries are also helping their patrons to understand and use the tools of the information age. This is essential because as libraries look to the future and plan on integrating social network tools into their information practices, they must also take care to not leave behind library users who haven't yet made the leap over the digital divide.

Questions to Consider:
Many of us as future librarians have been thrust into a new world of technology as we learn about the goals and practices of libraries in the information age. How do you think our experiences as we learn about the somewhat bewildering digital world can help us to better understand our patrons who are intimidated by technology?
How do you think libraries should respond to patrons who haven't embraced computers and new technology such as social networking? Should they be encouraged to take advantage of any available programs to learn more about things like email and blogs? Or is it okay for libraries keep one foot on either side of the digital divide and serve patrons who aren't into the technological side of things in the more traditional ways? Do libraries have to make themselves over completely?

Sources/Further Reading
Carvin, A. (March 2006). "The Gap." School Library Journal. 52(3), 70-72.
Metcalf, D. (February 2007)."Reducing the Digital Divide." American Libraries, 38(2) 29.
Peterson, E. (Winter, 2006). "Do People Want to Jump the Digital Divide? Exploring Digital Strategies. PNLA Quarterly. 70(2) 4, 17-18.
Yu, L. (2006). "Understanding information inequality: Making sense of the literature of the information and digital divides." Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 38; 229.

Social Networking Sites & Libraries: More Particularly MySpace and Facebook

“Just like putting a library branch in a strip mall, creating presence in social networking software makes the library more visible.” ~Meredith Farkas

The above concept rings more true than any other information about social networking sites. The goal of most, if not all libraries is the goal to reach more patrons because it is they who are liable for the continuing existence of libraries. Some libraries may be skeptical about using MySpace and Facebook because they either do not know how to use it or they find it frivolous and something that only young adults would use. The unknown is taking the time to learn how these sites can best benefit your library. While researching this topic, I realized that each library have their own way of utilizing these social networking sites to the best advantage of the library itself and its patrons. We will analyze how academic libraries, special libraries and school libraries can use these sites to promote themselves within their respective communities.

Academic libraries will probably benefit the most from these sites along with school libraries, which will be discussed later. Now some may say that an academic library has no need to be on a social networking site because it is really not very “academia”. As recited above, the unknown is what scares most librarians when it comes to using these sites. It is because they are unaware that the library offers more things that are beneficial to them than just a physical building where there are books and you can study in peace. The sites offer a great way to promote the library’s services such as any events that may be coming up or links to your catalog and/or databases. A college in New York has a MySpace page that they have set up for their library. On their MySpace page, they list the current events; have pictures and links to their official library website www.MySpace.com/brooklyncollegelibrary. They even have blogs about their events, which I believe is the best way to inform your students about the library happenings (Farkas 27). This is a great way to integrate our students’ habits with our library services. Students eventually learn to appreciate how the library operates and the many benefits they offer. Sites such as Facebook and MySpace are trends that any and maybe all students use and you cannot ignore this because it does not conform to your mission. Just imagine these sites as another way to advertise your services to your patron base.

Some questions pertain as to how does social networking sites impact special libraries when their patron base is so limited to whatever specialty they are in? If you look at a special library it is just like a social network site. Special libraries exist in a large organization, i.e. the company. Social networking sites are the same whereas you as a “person” exist in the larger organization, i.e. the host. Special library provide services and support to their organization. Special libraries can learn from these social networking sites. How do they get so large in such a short amount of time? They can learn to emulate the concept of these sites into their own special services, i.e. website, special services, intranet, etc. These sites would give special libraries an insight as to how the current generation is using these sites so that they themselves can be prepared when this generation enters the working world (Abrams 34).

Like academic libraries and special libraries, school libraries can and should incorporate the concept of social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook to promote the further education of their students. Most if not all young children these days are always on the Internet. If a school library were to use these social networking sites, they should promote the further education of the students by showing them how to search the libraries catalog and get them involved in events that the library sponsors. School media specialist can learn the hows and whys of these sites so that they can use the concept of it in their own libraries to further promote student’s use of the libraries as more than a place to go only when you have homework. A student who is aware of how the library works and how to distinguish good information from bad information will do great in post-secondary education when they have to prepare research papers.

When talking about social networking sites being used in school libraries, we also have to talk about the Deleting Online Predator Act (DOPA). It was introduced and passed by the House in 2006 but was not considered by the Senate before the 2006 session ended. The DOPA, if it was made into law would have made accessing social networking sites at any libraries and/or schools that receive federal funds impossible. The DOPA would have required that these places block all access to the social networking sites (Engdahl 74). How would you as a librarian possibly follow this law when your whole ethics is based on access of information for all? The DOPA was mostly geared towards secondary education. Of course the American Libraries Association (ALA) opposed these bill passionately. Beth Yoke, who is the executive director of the Young Adult Library Services Association, testified on behalf of the ALA stating that they had three primary concerns about this bill. The first being that the bill as written is too broad; the second being that it would widen the digital divide for students who uses school and libraries computers as their primary access to the Web; and the third being that parental involvement with their children are the best tools for making sure that their children are kept safe online (Engdahl 100). The best way to protect your students is for parents to get involved and also let librarians and teacher teach them the correct way to use these social networking sites and how to analyze the profile that is requesting friendship.

Now, therefore, how can we as librarians simply ignore these social networking sites? We obviously cannot do that. These sites and other interactive sites are the trends of the future and we cannot put it into a “fad” category that may disappear as times go by. These sites are great tools, even though it takes time to make connection. If a librarian takes the time to make these connections with their patron base that are always on the Internet, they will be able to promote the library’s services and outreach to students more effective than ever (Breeding 32). Also, these social networking sites provide a great way for your students and/or patrons to provide feedbacks (Greenwell and Kraemer 15). As was discussed in class, librarians and libraries have to learn to adapt to these constantly changing trends with respect to these social networking sites. As librarians and libraries, we must figure out a way to incorporate these things into the everyday library life that will make the library more visible and more vibrant than ever.

Questions:

How would you as a librarians use these social networking sites in your library?

What can you as future librarians do to protect your students from predators using MySpace and Facebook as a “feeding” ground?

How would you use these sites as a learning experience?

Will sites like MySpace and Facebook be the learning of our future?

How will these sites impact the future librarian?

Works Cited:

Abram, Stephen. “What can MySpace teach us in school libraries? Just as I get nice and comfortable with Web sites and learning mobile applications, blogging, and downloading streaming media, the Web world goes and mutates yet again!” Multimedia & Internet@Schools. 13.4 (July-August 2006): 22.

Abram, Stephen. “What can MySpace teach us in special libraries?” Information Outlook. 10.5 (May 2006): 34.

Albanese, Adnrew Richard. “Google Is Not The Net.” Library Journal (1976). 131.15 (September 15 2006): 32-4.

Breeding, Marshall. “Librarians Face Online Social Networks.” Computers in Libraries. 27.8 (September 2007): 30-2.

Engdahl, Sylvia, ed. Online Social Networking. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007.

Farkas, Meredith. “Going where patrons are: outreach in MySpace and Facebook. (Technology in Practice).” American Libraries. 38.4 (April 2007): 27.

Greenwell, Stacey and Beth Kraemer. “Internet Reviews: Social Networking Software: Facebook and MySpace.” Kentucky Libraries. 70.4 (Fall 2006): 12-6.

Miller, Sarah Elizabeth and Lauren A. Jensen. “Connecting and Communicating with Students on Facebook.” Computers in Libraries. 27.8 (September 2007): 18-22.

Web 2.0 and Library 2.0

“Essentially, the Web is shifting from an international library of interlinked pages to an information ecosystem, where data circulates like nutrients in rainforest.” (Johnson)

Web 2.0 was first coined by Tim O’Reilly at a conference in 2004. He described it by say, "Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform" (Web 2.0, 2008). This is just one of the many definitions for web 2.0. After much research, it became clear that everyone has a different definition on what web 2.0 is. Another definition states that web 2.0 is”…where digital tools allow users to create, change, and publish dynamic content of all kinds” (Stephens, 2006). For instance internet users have become more adept at creating their own web pages, trading pictures and music, and contributing information to forums. Kimberly Bolon, one of the authors of the article, Web, Library, and Teen Services 2.0 states that, “Web 2.0 is the next generation of the Internet. It is not so much defined by speed or infrastructure, but how content is created, distributed, and disseminated, and how people interact with that content and each other…” (40). While all of these definitions differ in their explanations, they do agree on one thing and that is that the internet has changed. It has changed from a one dimensional platform to a multi-dimensional landscape. Internet users do not have to sit and stare at a boring website created by nameless faceless people. To name just a few of the most famous web 2.0 sites are Myspace, Facebook, Friendster (social networking sites), Wikipedia(collaborative knowledge sharing), Flickr(photo-sharing), del.icio.us(file sharing), YouTube (video-sharing) and Blogger(Web logs). Other sites that are just as useful but not as widely known are BitTorrent (file-sharing), Furl (online filing cabinet), Hikkup (questions and answers), Ning (social networking), Pandora (play your own music), and Vcarious (travel stories). (Kennedy, Web 2.0 Alphabet: Part I, 2007) & (Kennedy, Web 2.0 Alphabet: Part II, 2007). Web 2.0 has also been called the “Two-Way Web”, the “Read/Write Web” and the “Participatory Web”, all referring back to how the web has interconnected people in ways before unseen (Bolon, 2007).

After witnessing this occurrence, librarians have begun to look at how it can or has changed libraries. This shift has become known as Library 2.0. Coined by Michael Casey in his blog, Library Crunch, he went on to write, “…those who manage and work in libraries must be willing to make significant changes in the way they think and conduct business. This shift will result in taking the traditional library of sterile spaces, static collections, and vanilla catalogs to the next level in a variety of areas” (Bolon, 2007). Michael Stephens highlighted nine Library 2.0 concepts in his article Exploring Web 2.0 and Libraries, and how we are striving to integrate these changes into the library. First openness or transparency meaning libraries are actively encouraging their patrons to participate in libraries. We want our patrons to be involved in the planning of the library. This can be done through tools such as blogs or wikis. Another is ease of use, of which libraries are actively working to make certain platforms, such as their website easier to use and navigate. For example we are introducing patrons to online renewals or holds through the libraries website. Innovation is the third concept. Libraries are trying to think outside of the box by using wikis, blogs, RSS feeds and other tools to help patrons with their wants and needs. Social Interaction and participation to create content are three concepts that libraries use that take advantage of Web 2.0. For instance, we can create blogs for our patrons to discuss programs, books, or games. Sharing is very important for librarians. Patrons can now share their favorite books through RSS feeds, or link up to author’s websites or up-to-date information on new releases. Decentralization has become quite popular. And finally trust. We trust our patrons even more to work with us and each other to make the library an amazing place to be (11-12). As Jenny West wrote, “Libraries have historically been places to receive information but with some rare exceptions, less places to contribute information. Blogs and wikis and tag clouds, all the stuff we prattle on about are good for reading or reading about but really shine through use” (Stephens, 2006). And we often do see some of these tools being used in our local libraries. Library 2.0 is breaking down barriers between librarians and patrons by creating more user friendly services and by doing this through collaboration. Never before have had patrons had so much saying in how libraries are stocked and run (Bolon, 2007).

While we have all these Web 2.0 tools lined up, how exactly can they be used in libraries? Many of these tools, while popular with younger crowds, are viewed with suspicion and annoyance by older generations. For instance instant messaging or IMing is very popular but can be treated with disdain by libraries and schools. However, Meg Atwater-Singer and Kate Sherrill, have highlighted a number of ways these internet features can be transplanted into a library setting. IMing is an exchange of text messages between two or more users. This form of communication is quick, informal, and “much more conversational and conducive to collaboration than email” (48). We can use instant messaging in Patron-to-Librarian, Librarian-to-Librarian, and Librarian to Staff communications. We can use blogs to post information on new material, library news, event announcements, policy changes, and anything else that patrons would find helpful. Patrons can respond back to these posts. Online book discussions are also another very helpful tool used for blogs. RSS, which is short for Really Simply Syndication, is a quick way to deliver news. Patrons can keep abreast of library news by subscribing to an RSS. Wikis are great for collaborating with patrons and staff on anything from “policy creation, customer service, and research.” (49-50) Podcasts can be used to broadcast lectures, instructions, and tours and of course audio books. Flickr can be used to post pictures of programs, book covers, or a photo tour of the library (Atwater-Singer, 2007).

However, not everyone is excited about Web 2.0 and all of the changes that is it bringing. Carol Tenopir wrote an article called, Web 2.0: Our Culture Downfall?, that expresses the skepticism some people have for Web and Library 2.0. For instance, she quotes Andrew Keen a former internet entrepreneur and Web 2.0 disbeliever. He says, “When advertising and public relations are disguised as news, the line between fact and fiction becomes blurred. Instead of more community knowledge, or culture, all that Web 2.0 really delivers is more dubious content from anonymous sources” (Tenopir, 2007). He believes that when anyone can contribute “unfiltered, unvetted, and unattributed information” to websites that people take as truth, that “a dangerous, dumbingdown of culture” is created (Tenopir, 2007). While this can be true in some circumstances, it is our job as librarians to teach our patrons how to distinguish between what is news and what is false.

Questions:
Do you agree or disagree with Andrew Keen? Is Web 2.0 and Library 2.0 beneficial to our libraries?
What are some other Web 2.0 technologies that can be used in libraries? What are your experiences with them? Helpful or not?
What do you think Web 3.0 will be?

Works Cited

Atwater-Singer, M. &. (2007). Social Software, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, & You: A Practical Guide For Using Technology @ Your Library. Indiana Libraries , 48-52.

Bolon, K. &. (2007). Web, Library, and Teen Services 2.0. Young Adult Library Services , 40-43.
Johnson, S. (n.d.). Web 2.0 Arrives. Retrieved from Discover: www.discover.com/issues/oct-05/departments/emerging-technology

Kennedy, S. D. (2007). Web 2.0 Alphabet: Part I. Information Today , 17 & 19.

Kennedy, S. D. (2007). Web 2.0 Alphabet: Part II. Information Today , 15 & 17.

Stephens, M. (2006). Exploring Web 2.0 and Libraries. Library Technology Reports , 8-14.

Tenopir, C. (2007). Web 2.0:Out Culural Downfall. Library Journal , 36.

Web 2.0. (2008, March 2). Retrieved February 27, 2008, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2

Welcome to Social Networking!

Overview of Social Networking and Web 2.0

These days, librarians have to know much more than how to alphabetize by author and tell patrons to take their conversations elsewhere. Information seeking has gone from a rather passive activity involving physical repositories of musty tomes to an interactive and user-directed collaboration between the seeker and the source. This is all very exciting, but where do librarians fit into this brave new world? We know that we’ve left behind the old models for information seeking, but what’s next? What are the new tools and technologies that are now available to libraries?

As our culture has embraced technology and the advent of the internet, libraries have stepped up to be on the front lines of this revolution in how people learn, think, and interact with the wealth of information that is now readily accessible. The term “Library 2.0” has come into use to describe the model for how libraries want to fit into this collaborative environment. This is modeled after the term “Web 2.0” that is used to describe how the internet and the World Wide Web evolved from its passive first incarnation, “Web 1.0” where users would only visit sites to view the information and leave again, to the user-driven and collaborative version that we find today. In Web 2.0, users can modify the content of websites, carry on discussions with people on the other side of the world, upload and share photos and documents, work together on projects without ever touching a piece of paper or meeting face-to-face, and so much more. By extension, “Library 1.0” refers to the model whereby the flow of information between patron and library was one-way. A person would go to their library, most likely having to physically enter the establishment, and search for information using physical tools. This could be done either by the patron locating the desired book, periodical, or other physical item by him or herself, or by the patron seeking the assistance of a librarian who would locate the material on behalf of the patron. In contrast, in “Library 2.0” the flow of information goes in both directions as the patron is contributing to the process of information seeking through the various portals that a library makes available to better serve their patrons’ needs and expectations. By no means are libraries trying to discourage their patrons from using their physical location as they once did, but libraries are now making it easier to serve their communities through virtual means such as through their websites and through various social networking tools.

The key to keeping libraries relevant and connected to their communities and to the needs and wants of their patrons can be found in the new social networking technologies that have come into widespread usage as Web 2.0 has become the accepted and even assumed way of doing things. Social networking basically describes the ways that users of the internet can connect with other users and share ideas, discussions, photos and music, and build both professional and personal relationships. Social networking tools are essential to relationships between people who will never or very seldom meet face-to-face, but are also important to friends and colleagues who spend every day together in the same workspace or school.

We will cover social networking sites in more detail in a further post, but here are a few of the most well-known and frequently used.

Facebook, Myspace

Blogging: Blogger, Typepad

Librarything, Goodreads

Twitter

Livejournal

Wikis: Pbwiki, Wikispaces, Wetpaint

Second Life

del.icio.us

Flickr

Recent Sources/Further Reading:

Farkas, M. (December 2007). “ Your Stuff, Their Space: Promoting Library Content Beyond Your Website.” American Libraries, 38(11), 36.

Farkas, M. (January/February 2008) . “What Are Friends For? Capitalizing On Your Online Rolodex.” American Libraries, 39(1/2), 36.

Huwe, T.K. (November/December 2007). “In 2007, Community-Building Tools Rule.” Computers in Libraries, 27(10), 31-33.

Rapacki, Sean. (Winter 2007). “Social Networking Sites: Why Teens Need Places Like Myspace.” Young Adult Library Services, 5(2), 28-30.

Scott, D.M. (December 2007). “Social Media Debate.” Econtent, 30(10), 64.

Tenopir, C. (December 2007). “Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall?” Library Journal, 132(20), 36.

White, M. (December 2007). “Donne and Lennon Said It So Well.” Econtent, 30(10), 20.

Some questions to consider:

Do you think that libraries have diluted their essential purpose by embracing social networking? Why or why not?

Is social networking just a fad or is it here to stay? How will we know? When will we know?

Does Library 2.0’s emphasis on emerging technologies run the risk of leaving behind members of the community who have not yet made the leap to using the internet?

Librarians As Censors

On our sixth day, Group Two is addressing the Librarian as Censor from the perspective of each of our topics. There are many complicated twists and turns that we will take as professional librarians when we face censorship and intellectual freedom issues head on. Perhaps that is why the ALA's Bill of Rights and Statement on Professional Ethics fights so strongly for complete and unrestricted access to information for every person. It seems a hard, sterile stance at times but one that takes into consideration the humanness of librarians and ultimate vulnerability of our position - will each of us truly avoid bias both personally and commercially, and therefore censorship, in our future decision making?

Librarian as Censor and the ALA's Bill of Rights

The concern that librarians themselves may be acting as censors is not new. In 1985, the authors of a collections development text wrote that "[a]s a rule of thumb librarians ought to be sure that at least twenty-five percent of the materials they buy for the library are personally offensive to them." After all, these authors say, if the librarian is going to expect patrons of the library to accept the presence of materials they find offensive, the librarian should be willing to do so as well. (Curley, 1985) pp. 150-1. This seems like common-sense advice. But one wonders how exactly the librarian should do this. DOes she deliberately request catalogs from publishing companies that she thinks "pollutes" the market with its fare? Or does she seek out books that pertain to a subject matter she's interested in, but that have the opposite viewpoint she has?

"Evaluating Library Collections," one of the interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights, recognizes that collections must be continually reevaluated to ensure fulfillment of the goals of the library and the needs of library patrons. But it also cautions against using this evaluation as an excuse for removing books that may be considered too controversial or disapproved by members of the community. ("Evaluating Library Collections: and interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights," 1973, amended 1981)

But at least one observer notes that the Library Bill of Rights ignores the market forces that create the resources in collections. After all, publishers' and authors' own actions are base on some degree of subjectivity if not self-censorship. (Baldwin, Summer 1996) p. 1 of 17. This may be an argument for the need of the librarian to not just not be a censor - but to also encourage the expansion of the literary universe. 

Works Cited

Baldwin, G.B. (Summer 1996). The Library Bill of Rights - a critique - The Library Bill of Rights [Electronic Version]. Library Trends, 45. Retrieved January 20, 2008 from http://findarticles.com/articles/mi_m1387/is_n1_v45/ai_18616657

Curley, A., & Dorothy Broderick. (1985). Building Library Collections (6th ed.). Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 

Evaluating Library Collections: an interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights. (1973, amended 1981). Retrieved February 16, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=interpretations&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=103211

Librarian as Censor and the Patriot Act

A Librarian seems an unlikely person to find themselves placed in the front line of the War on Terror. Yet with the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, librarians have found themselves a part of the net in which the government hopes to catch terrorists. Certain stipulations within the Patriot Act require librarians to make patron records and internet usage available to the FBI should it be requested. Although the information is still made available, requests for certain "suspicious" information can set off red flags. By complying with these rules the librarian becomes a possible informant. The patron is forced to self-censor in order to keep themselves from suspicion. 

Librarian as Censor in the Schools

Kay Vandergrift (www.scils.rutgers.edu) states that as a society, "we feel the need to prectect children... what is dangerous or disturbing to one person may be exciting and innovative to others and perhaps 'the truth' to still others". Technology is not stagnant and as it changes everyday, so does the technical savvy of our young people increase. It is difficult for school media specialists to stay a step ahead of this and CIPA does provide restrictions to deal with it. CIPA states that children must be protected from pictures that are obscene, including child pornography, and are harmful to minors. But what is obscene? Can photographs that some consider to be child pornography also be fine art? And what exactly is harmful to minors? Vandergrift states that "conflicts surrounding intellectual freedom are conflicts of values... that professionals should consider very carefully about accepting positions in communities which obviously hold values in conflict with their own". As with all librarians, subtle decisions take place every day that are probably affecting censorship in the school library to some degree - is the librarian a parent, strongly religious in one direction, conservative or liberal, easily offended, self righteous, easy come easy go? Can the school media specialist be overprotective to other people's children, thus asserting her own values by choices in collection development or internet access? There is no way to control all of this except by being aware starting at the community level as to what is going on in your schools and public libraries. 

Librarian as Censor and the Internet

Fighting against censorship is a core ethic of American librarians. See, ALA LIbrary Bill of Rights. But not acting as a censor becomes tricky when the Internet is involved. First, a librarian must decide whether to even offer patrons Internet access, although in today's world that would be most unusual, except in the most rural, inaccessible areas. Second, the librarian must consider how offering Internet access meshes with his or her professional ethics. The following two statements reflect this concern: 

• Because libraries must maintain a collection untainted by censorship, librarians may not delegate collection selection to others. See, e.g., Intellectual Freedom Committee (1999)
• According to at least one court, public librarians may not filter Internet access once they have decided to provide Internet access. See, Mainstream Louduon v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Public Library, 24 F. Supp.2d 522 (E.D. Va 1998) The Loudoun decision now carries more weight since another court dismissed a complaint against a public library for refusing to filter Internet content. See, Kathleen R. v. City of LIvermore, Case No. V-015266-4 (Super. Ct.,Alameda Co.). T
  

According to the above statements, a public librarian may not delegate selection functions. At the same time, the librarian also must not pick and choose material from the Internet. Instead, he or she must accept the Internet in its entirety. But if the Internet Service Provider (ISP) decides what information should be available, isn't this delegating the collection selection process to another? While some filtering might be appropriate in order to protect children, companies offering filtering services have not successfully limited filtering to obscene material. (Corne-Revere, R., n.d.) and not on the librarian's own personal judgement. How then can a librarian filter Internet content without both acting as a censor and abdicating professional librarian control over collections development?

When a librarian decides to provide unlimited Internet access, as supported by the ALA, he or she believes that he or she has avoided censorship and that professional ethics remain intact. Little does she know that corporate ISP's are conforming the information they are offering the U.S. to rules promulgated in foreign countries. Even worse, a patron's privacy may be violated since people using the Internet to communicate with others by blog or email may have their identity released to foreign governments, or to our own - after all, the ALA has interpreted the Library Bill of Rights to mean that: "In a library, (physical or virtual), the right to privacy is the right to open inquiry without having the subject of one's interest examined or scrutinized by others. Confidentiality exists when a library is in possession of a personally identifiable information about users and keeps that information private on their behalf." (ALA 2002, June 19)

In the age of the Internet, the library can neither assure its patrons that the library will keep their interests or Internet communications private nor that the library will provide uncensored materials to its patrons. Is it incumbent upon the librarian to do something about this... or is it enough that the librarian tried not to engage personally in censorship?

Works Cited:

ALA (2002, June 19). Privacy: An interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=interpretations&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=34182

ALA (2003, December 9). Libraries, the Internet and filtering. Libraries and the Internet Tool Kit. Retrieved on February 11, 2008 from http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=litoolkit&Template=/Contentmanagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID-50667.

Corne-Revere, R. (n.d.) The First Amendment and the Media. Online Issues. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.mediainstitute.org/ONLINE/FAM99/online_D.html.

In direct reference to the ALA's Statement on Professional Ethics (Adopted by the ALA Council, June 28, 1995) some questions to consider:

In regard to Article II, how and can we uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources? (http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ethics/html.)

In reference to Article VII, how and can we distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources? (http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ethics.html.)

Has the Global Information Highway been derailed?

Many have predicted that the Internet would spread the ideals of democracy and intellectual freedom around the globe. After all, the Internet affords unprecedented access to information and provides ample opportunity for exchanging ideas via blogs and other communication mediums. But this has not yet happened. Instead, as tech visionaries work towards global on-line libraries, intellectual freedom has become an ever more challenging issue. Different countries define and value intellectual freedom differently—although some library associations overseas do share the ALA’s respect for intellectual freedom. See, IFLA for statements on intellectual freedom by libraries around the globe. And in many countries, including the U.S., privacy concerns may chill truly free exchanges of ideas over the Internet. As a result, the future health of intellectual freedom, and its existence in the age of the Internet, remains uncertain.

China is a prime example of a country that values intellectual freedom differently from the U.S., and certainly the ALA. While China has embraced the Internet as an information tool, it has also effectively quashed its people’s access to and use of politically unpopular material. (MacKinnon, 2007). p. 31. In fact, ‘“China operates the most extensive, technologically sophisticated, and broad-reaching system of Internet filtering in the world.”’ (MacKinnon, 2007) quoting (OpenNet Initiative 2005). p. 32. And when filters fail, China chills intellectual freedom through direct oppression and threats of reprisal. One example is Wang Xiaoning, a man who distributed information over the Internet in China. (Anonymous 2007, July). The distribution was supposedly anonymous, but, allegedly, Yahoo! HK gave Wang’s name to the police when asked about the postings—according to Wang, he was arrested, subjected to torture, and sentenced to ten years in prison. (Anonymous, 2007, July).

And China is not alone.

• Syria, Iran, Burma, and Vietnam are also considered “pervasive” filterers. (Fowler , 2008).
• In France, a new law could be applied so as to prevent people from posting violent images on the Internet. (Anonymous, 2007, May).
• Google has voluntarily mimicked Chinese censorship in its Chinese search engine. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 18.
• France has also sought to impose liability on Yahoo! for making Nazi paraphernalia available. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 19.
• Germany has imposed strict liability on Internet service providers (“ISPs”) that unwittingly host copyright infringement. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 20.
• ISPs must now filter whatever may be perceived as hate speech from French, German, and Swiss Internet users. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 20.
• Australia uses censors and regulators in tandem to find objectionable material and order the Internet provider to remove the content from the site. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 21.

“Internet censorship is growing, both in scale and sophistication.” (Haggerty, 2007, November). See also, OpenNet Initiative Maps. In reality, the Internet has become a tool by which governments can promote their own values and traditions, and not a method by which so-called free societies can open closed social systems to free discourse—assuming it is even proper for a country like the U.S. to impose its ideals on another country, like China. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 21. See also, (MacKinnon, 2007).

Still, why does it matter to us, and to intellectual freedom here at home, that China censors information on the web? It matters because, in our interconnected global world, many companies, including blog-hosts, are choosing to adjust their policies to accommodate the world’s most restrictive information systems. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 28. And by doing so, companies have restricted access to content in this country as well. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 28. It is costly to monitor and distinguish protected versus unprotected sanctionable speech, particularly when the ground rules change at each border. (Kreimer, 2006). Many intermediaries, when faced with the costs involved in keeping all nations happy, are likely to “abandon the effort to avoid errors and adopt a conscious policy of prophylactic self-censorship that blocks any content that could precipitate the threat of sanctions.” (Kreimer, 2006). P. 28. In effect, by corporate proxy, China or France or Germany, and so on, can curtail our intellectual freedom here in the United States.

This is not just speculation. In 2005, Microsoft’s Chinese edition of MSN Spaces blocked a variety of politically sensitive terms (sensitive in China that is) by first issuing a warning to the user, and then by blocking any suspect posting from user access in both China and the United States. It did so by removing each offending post directly from Microsoft’s U.S. servers. (MacKinnon, 2007). p. 41. After the public learned of Microsoft’s complicity with Chinese censors Microsoft changed its policy, somewhat—it now requires a written order from the censoring country and only blocks information from recipients in the censoring country. (MacKinnon, 2007). p. 41. But it appears likely that, absent public outrage, private for-profit companies in the information trade (particularly companies without Microsoft’s resources or public profile) will take the most economically viable path, and not the freest. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 28.

Although a U.S. user may ultimately be able to locate information equivalent to that which was censored elsewhere, how information is presented, by whom, and with what frequency all impact how users evaluate information and overall intellectual freedom in this country. Interfering with speech intermediaries is as detrimental to free speech as is silencing the speaker directly—and sometimes more so. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 17. A speaker faced with censorship might choose to self edit, or to initiate court action, but an intermediary will most likely choose to remove the offending material in its entirety. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 17.

Even worse, we cannot count on our own government to address foreign risks to intellectual freedom at home. Our government has also chosen to inhibit the free flow of electronic speech by pressuring information or speech intermediaries.

• As discussed by Anne, Internet service providers are expected to censor child pornography and filter content directed towards schools for obscenity and information harmful to minors.
• “In 1999, antiterrorism units of the FBI adopted a ‘good corporate citizenship program,’ which empowered them to seek to induce [Internet providers] to censor websites that were constitutionally protected but were not viewed by the FBI as consonant with the public interest.” (Kreimer, 2006). p. 24.
• As mentioned by Holly in our blog segment on the Patriot Act, federal authorities may unilaterally demand that intermediaries turn over communication records without informing the speaker. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 25.
• Our government has also sought to impose criminal liability on persons who assisted with designing Islamic websites. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 26.

Moreover, when intermediaries act as censor, instead of the government, there are no processes currently in place to ensure, for example, that the content removed from a website was really child pornography, and not an artist’s photo album. (Kreimer, 2006). p. 27-28. Because we all now rely on information intermediaries to learn and communicate with others, the intermediaries’ vulnerabilities have become everyone’s problem, including libraries.

Public Internet access in libraries has increased dramatically; a “1998 survey by the American Library Association[(“ALA”)] found that 73 percent of the nation's public libraries, including branches, now offer basic Internet access to their patrons.” (Corne-Revere, n.d.). For librarians, the prevalence of censorship in a medium on which libraries increasing rely raises a variety of ethical issues — issues that, if anyone’s interested, also happen to dovetail nicely with the ALA’s concerns on outsourcing. See, e.g., the ALA 1999 report, Outsourcing & Privatization in American Libraries. As a result, librarians today must question what their moral obligations or duties are in the context of both foreign and domestic Internet censorship.

The ALA has already defined what an ethical member of the professional should do in general terms. Article III and IV of the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights (which was discussed in detail in Yashmyn’s blog) read respectively that “[l]ibraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment”; and “[l]ibraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.” And if one believes that Internet search tools and content are a form of outsourcing, or are analogous to it, ALA outsourcing reports make it clear that librarians cannot delegate content decisions to vendors and that contractual arrangements for outsourced services must ensure that patrons’ First Amendment rights are preserved. Intellectual Freedom Committee (1999).

The plain language of the first Library Bill of Rights assertion referred to above, and possibly the second, demands pro-activity. As do the ALA reports on outsourcing. Refraining from censorship personally is not enough; librarians must take steps to prevent censorship and privacy violations from occurring, at least within the library.

Therefore, in an age when censorship is occurring by proxy, beyond or outside the prohibitions of the First Amendment, on a service offered by U.S. libraries, but controlled by ISPs and other information intermediaries, the question becomes, must a librarian challenge corporate Internet censorship? As libraries go global and collaborate with other libraries around the world, must a librarian challenge censorship abroad? Under the terms of the Library Bill of Rights, is it ethical to participate in global Internet libraries and not challenge limitations placed on intellectual freedom by other governments? Is it enough to issue a statement through the ALA, or is more required to meet the librarian’s duty to challenge censorship? And, further, do librarians have an obligation to cooperate with political activists agitating for intellectual freedom in China? In Syria? And what does cooperation entail exactly?

Questions like these have been faced in the national arena, but acquire layers of complexity when looked at globally—not to mention the practical question of how effectively librarians in the U.S. can impact information policy in France, for example. Or whether it is realistic to expect librarians to cooperate in a meaningful manner with political dissidents fighting oppressive regimes overseas?

But in the end the stakes remain the same, whether the ethic of intellectual freedom can be meaningfully preserved in our country, as it participates more fully in the modern world.

Additional Questions:

• Do you feel that maintaining intellectual freedom on the Internet is essential for maintaining the vitality of intellectual freedom as an ideal?
• Do you feel it is possible to promote intellectual freedom on the Internet without first addressing conflicting cultural norms around the globe?
• If only some companies censor material in the U.S., does the fact that others are not censoring make the Internet free enough?
• Do librarians have an ethical obligation to research and use only those ISPs that avoid censorship?

Works cited:

ALA (Adopted June 18, 1948, amended February 2, 1961, June 28, 1967, and January 23, 1980). Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.htm.

Anonymous. (2007, July). Is it legal? Internet. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 56(4), 168.

Anonymous. (2007, May). Paris, France. Dateline: foreign. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 56(3), 125.

Corne-Revere, R. (n.d.). The First Amendment and the Media. Online Issues. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.mediainstitute.org/ONLINE/FAM99/online_D.html.

Fowler, G.A. (2008, January 4). China tightens web-video rules; private operators brace for new censorship moves, but scope of effort unclear. Wallstreet Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.

Haggerty, K. (2007, November). As states encroach on Internet governance around the world, IDRC is supporting a major new initiative that will investigate the impacts of Internet censorship in Asia. The International Research Development Centre. Retrieved on February 18, 2008, from http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-116735-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.

Intellectual Freedom Committee (1999). Response to the resolution in counsel document #24: Outsourcing and privatization in American libraries. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/iftoolkits/outsourcing/Default2446.htm.

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.

MacKinnon, R. (2008). Flatter world and thicker walls? Blogs, censorship and civic discourse in China. Public Choice, 134, 31-46.

Censorship in the Schools

According to the ALA, intellectual freedom is:

The right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas thriugh which any and all sides of a question, cause, or movement may be explored. Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive, and disseminate ideas. (ALA Intellectual Freedom Q & A, 1/17/2008)

But the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), a federal law enacted by Congress in December 2000 to address concerns about access to offensive content over the internet on school and library computers, imposes certain types of requirements on any school or library that receives funding support for internet access or internet connections from the "E-Rate" program - a program that makes certain technology more affordable for eligible schools and libraries. In early 2001, the Federal Communications Commission issued rules implementing CIPA.

While the ALA openly disdains the restriction of access to information, for children as well as adults, school media specialists are subject to CIPA . Conflicting opinions exist as to how to make the law and the ALA standards of intellectual freedom best work together and vary according to one's position and role in society. If CIPA guidelines are not followed, then funding discounts for certain technologies in school libraries are prohibited. What school library can afford this situation if its inherent intent  is to teach college level information researching skills to the student? A situation in the Grosse Pointe school system arose in November of 2007, a case of intellectual freedom versus censorship in the school library, and is interesting for its grassroots level.

According to Steve Wolosyn, District Technical Director of the Grosse Pointe school system, (1/17/2008), a principal reported from one of the district schools that a teacher had found a student on a graphic (sexually objectionable) site on Wikipedia. Because such material cannot be selectively filtered , the whole of Wikipeda was made inaccessible in the school libraries. The decision was made by the Technology Steering Committee, which serves under the school board, in accordance with CIPA. The site remains inaccessible at this point.

A Detroit Free Press article dated 1/13/2008 "Does Wikipedia good outweigh the bad", addressed the Grosse Pointe incident from a students point of view, which was that of protest against the censorship. Veronica Menaldi, author of the article, wonders "that only at school is access to both offensive and useful material blocked". She consulted Dr. Elliot Soloway, a professor with the Center of Highly Interactive Computing in Education at U of M. Dr. Soloway states "Outside of school, Wikipedia and blogs are used all the time. People have learned how to evaluate the information they find there. Children inside of school need to be taught how to critically evaluate informatio so they, too, can take advantage of the value of the Wikipedia and the blogs.".

I consulted Karen Villegas, full time school media specialist for Grosse Pointe North High School. She has been in this position with GP North for 9 years. According to Karen, in summing up our interview:

• The internet is very tough to manage - as a professional she agrees with the freedom to read, but she also sees some benefit to filtering. It is a dilemma for her because protecting kids from something they are going to be using outside of school does not help them - it is more important to steer them to other sources. If a teacher accepts Wikipedia as a reference, then that is his/her prerogative. On the other hand, filters can be positive because they can prevent "unintended material" from reaching the student. Before filtering became more sophisticated, a student unintentionally received email from a porn site. In another situation, education web sites were being "porn-napped" by advertisers who provided disguised links to their pornographic sites on these seemingly safe web sites at school. 
• "Good stuff is not free on the internet." If students want to use Wikipedia and Google, then, according to Karen, we must teach them to evaluate the sites they go to. If unreliable information is used then the student suffers. Since Wikipedia has been banned, Karen has seen some positive changes in the students research habits - they are not using Google as much nor wasting so much time as people do when they get distracted by the myriad of unrelated information on Wikipedia. The students are recognizing that their time is valuable and appreciating qualified references that the school provides and pays for. 
  
• On a positive note for Wikipedia, it can provide a jumping off point for research about a subject that there is not much information about with keywords and related subjects.

As far as censorship in the school library, Karen prefers to choose books and periodicals that support the curriculum. She always considers whether dollars could be spent elsewhere when considering whether to add something to the collection. Some questionable resources can be found in the public library anyway(i.e.Nora Roberts). If she carries a certain periodical, every issue must be accessible. For instance, Rolling Stone magazine is available to students. One issue came out with a scantily clad Drew Barrymore on the cover which upset some staffers who wanted to pull the issue off the shelves. As a professional, Karen would not allow that.

Students who are 18 years of age (no longer minors - who can vote as well as go to war) are still restricted from banned sites at school because they are students. Wikipedia will remain banned at GP North until it can be determined whether pictures  that are obscene, pornographic, or harmful to minors can be selectively filtered.

 Questions to consider:

Should parents or government have jurisdiction over what their children view on the internet at school and in public libraries? Perhaps students could carry an access card which would contain sites approved by parents.

Wikipedia contains a great deal of thoughtful, useful information as well as unreliable information and sources. Disclaimers and warnings to the reader as to the possibility of objectionable content are loud and clear. Does banning this site in a school library violate intellectual freedom and the right of an individual to have access to information or is this a necessary protection of minors for the good of society?

Does censorship maintain a certain quality or moral fabric of life?

Who rules? The majority who is ready to learn responsible internet researching?

or the few who complain? or those who get caught on inappropriate sites?

Is censorship a way for schools to avoid litigation by those who may be offended?

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Freedom

http://www/scils.rutgers.edu/-kvander/censorship.html

http://www.greenlakelibrary.org/blog/archives/016470.htm

Detroit Free Press, "Does Wikipedia good outweigh the bad". Veronica Menaldi, Sunday, anuary 13, 2008.

Interview with Karen Villegas, GP North High School, School Media Specialist, January 31, 2008