2542 Will librarians ever think "children first?"
This is so tiresome, it makes me glad my children are 37 and 38, but I sometimes wonder if we're graduating LIS students who are 12."There have been multiple stories in the news in the last few months about schools, libraries, and colleges banning MySpace for reasons of bandwidth-hoggery (which in a select few cases could be well-argued) or what's being sold as "safety concerns," "behavior issues," or "user protection." That last one makes me sick when I hear library staff touting it. Physically sick. Why? Because it's censorship. Plain and simple." Librarian in Black
Because it is censorship. You betcha. Bad for bandwidth and she can support that, but not the protection of children. Someone doing cancer research won't get to look up body parts, maybe. No library is required by its mission statement to distribute entertainment free circ newspapers (like my P.L. which has made this a censorship issue) or to promote chat rooms or even e-mail. It defeats their information mission in many cases, if the CRTs near me are any example. Librarians will eventually kill the public library system, I predict, with their leftist gibberish. Not a peep when a librarian is sued for suggesting a conservative book, however.
Have these librarians never strolled through a room full of geezers and geeky kids side by side at computers? Parental control? Who are they kidding? They don't notice the parents who use the library as a free latch key program? Do they go online and check the addresses of the sex offenders? In MySpace they might as well reside IN the library. Do they have such great eyesight they can spot an 11 year old in MySpace pretending to be 20? Or that sweet 75 year old rubbing his privates while pretending to be a teen?
Really. My profession is such an embarrassment.
Posts
8 comments:
Our library has a separate Children's section with only two internet connected computers. These computers are filtered and it says so on the computer. So if you want to look at other stuff you have to use the adult computers.
The adult computers are all on the same table and frankly a little too close to each other for me. I personally don't like checking my email with someone so close to me and maybe that is for the best as it helps to police those computers. Hopefully a perv wouldn't want everyone knowing what they were up to.
The library is constantly making sure that every child in the children's section has a parent there too...they do not allow drop offs at all. They are not there to provide child care. And I appreciate that...I'm also friends with most of the librarians...a bunch go to my Church.
Most days the adult computers have a huge wait list. They have the computers set up on timers and a computerized reservation system so you get 20 min and if no one is waiting you can get 10 extra min. After school I think most kids are there trying to get their homework done...but then I don't spend a whole lot of time in there.
I have noticed that the children's computers are set up to play internet games and kids do use them for that, but they are on timers too.
Our county must allocate a lot of money to our libraries because they sure do seem to spend quite a lot. We are already on our third computerized self-check out system (although the previous ones could have all been on a trial basis.) The new one is really cool and fast. After you scan your card, you set up to 5 books on a pad and it reads a chip in the back of each book. The only snag is if a book wasn't checked back in...trying to figure out which one it is.
I don't really think your profession is an embarrassment. It is just a really thin line between our freedoms and protecting us from ourselves.
I agree and I do think our profession is becoming more and more embarrassing. I'm so glad I "went private/academic". We can ban anything we want to meet our mission.
Our library has unattended children and banks and banks of computers--usually without waiting, unless it's after 3 p.m. when the kids come in. Sounds like you've got a sensible system with the staff responsive to the community--as it should be.
Our library system has many computers. And many instances of children coming in to the library with or without parental guidance and surfing MySpace and the hundreds of other social networking sites just like it. But we as librarians don't feel it's our role to parent or police these children on the computers, just as we don't parent or police them when it comes to the books they choose to read. In choosing not to block MySpace, we're merely staying consistent with our existing policies of information access. Instead of blocking it, we have information we give to parents and kids about safety and privacy on the site and other sites like it. And we sit down and talk one-on-one with many children to educate them about the site. That being done, what they choose to do with it is their business--not ours.
Also, I must point out an error you made. Many libraries' missions (public and school) do address providing entertainment to their users. The phrase "culture, entertainment, and information," or some variation of it, is often found in library missions.
Two questions for you. Would your library ban online gambling? How about chat sites? What won't you block/ban?
I also think the Librarian in Black's point comparing ILL to web access is a salient one. She writes:
"A user asks for an item that your library doesn't have on its shelves. The librarian on site had 'carefully selected information resources' and didn't think this one was appropriate or important. However, the user has asked for the item. If the library can make the requested item available via ILL or other lending arrangement, then I believe it has an ethical duty to do so. No matter how much the librarian might disagree with the content, it would not be appropriate to say 'No, I'm sorry--we're choosing not to make that available for you.' In the same way, users are asking for MySpace and in an online world, it's much the same as the print world. To ban a site, to not make it available, is akin to saying that you won't ILL a user-requested item based on your own view of its content. To me, that screams censorship. 'Online' is just another format. Why should our intellectual freedom standards be different because it's a new medium?"
It disturbs me that you seem to be making the issue of "blocking websites as censorship" an ageist one (with your statement "I sometimes wonder if we're graduating LIS students who are 12." We all have the same degree. The Librarian in Black, for instance, per her resume on her blog, has been working in libraries for over 10 years. Additionally, many of my older colleagues (50s, 60s) also believe that blocking websites is censorship. I don't believe it's an age issue, but an ethical one. You simply believe something different than the Librarian in Black, I, and many others do. It's a fundamental disagreement, and we'll have to agree to disagree.
How about if we compare e-mail and social networking sites to providing paper, envelopes and stamps to patrons and private rooms for parties for under age kids? Those features are not "information providing." Parents can't even control their kids' computer activities at home (we have a web sting outfit at a suburban police dept), so I'm not surprised librarians make this argument rather than go to the effort to install and keep up with technology that will block these sites.
And I'm not surprised "US public librarian" is anonymous with no link.
To answer your questions, yes--I have seen all those things in libraries. And my reaction is to talk to the children, teens, and adults. To talk to and educate them, and the parents, about online safety. Blocking one out of thousands of websites that allow interpersonal communication, some of it very unsavory, is not the approach to take to have a positive effect on children's internet safety. You'll have to block literally 2/3 of the web if you want to get rid of any and every unsavory site out there. Not practical, and not in line with the professional ethics that librarians promise to uphold.
Thank you to whatever US public librarian stuck up here for freedom of information. I'm surprised, Norma, that you wonder why your last commenter wouldn't leave her information. You and your commenters have made it clear in this and previous posts that alternative points of view will be addressed with hostility, closed-minded sniping, and hatred on this site. If you created a more open atmosphere for communication, people won't be so afraid to leave their information. Me? Well, you've already targeted me with some very uneducated and sniping remarks (e.g. "I sometimes wonder if we're graduating LIS students who are 12."). If you feel that's the best way to communicate your point of view in an effective way, then by all means, continue. Intelligent readers will not take your sniping comments seriously.
"not in line with the professional ethics that librarians promise to uphold."
And this Librarian in Black is exactly my point. Your ethics need revision. If everyone who disagrees with your advice (given on your blog) is hostile, you need tougher skin.
Disagreement in and of itself is not hostility. People post disagreeing comments on my own blog expressing different points of view. And I appreciate that greatly because it opens up discourse. And that is important. But it's only helpful when people comment in a polite, intelligent, argumentative way--whether they agree with me or not. Hostility and attacks aren't okay. The way and the words with which you choose to do disagree can constitute hostility, and viewing your past posts and comments, hostility is definitely present. It appears to those of us who aren't regular readers that your blog is not a place to openly comment because of that...thus, I believe, the anonymous comment earlier. I'm just trying to get you to see the way that your blog cuts off debate--and on no issue is that a healthy thing.
Post a Comment