Bertot, J. (2009). Public Access Technologies in Public Libraries: Effects
and Implications.
This article looks at the challenges and practices of PAT (Public Access Technology), meaning the provision of Internet in public libraries. It points out that the use of PAT in libraries shot up from the mid 1990s to the late 2000s, and demand is still increasing. Databases, technology training, e government, ebooks, and reference are some of the important technological services that resulted. Cost has increased because of the resulting need for staff, maintenance, costly equipment, and unsuitable spaces.
The article mentions the increased demand for electricity/power created by the PAT provided in libraries and some technologies that are brought in by the patrons, unconnected with libraries. This subject continues to interest me. How far are we willing to go to provide PAT? Will we support facebook, itunes, secondlife, iphones, and youtube? Is that really the information we need to spend our funds providing or is there a line? I suspect one will need to be drawn to preserve funds for more worthy pursuits (that’s right...I said it), especially as egovernment continues to flood the libraries. But then again, don’t we have to keep the “customers” happy? Can't the above mentioned resources be used in ways that are informationally valuable? The comparison of technology to a hamster wheel seemed fairly accurate to me.
The article mentions varying kinds of IT support offered at libraries. From my experience, if you can’t fix it yourself within a few minutes, the patrons become very frustrated very fast. I anticipate that everyone will need to have a working knowledge of the basics of the technology offered for it to work efficiently. Waiting between an hour and a few days for IT staff to fix something is not a realistic method. Training for both the staff and the patrons will need to be constantly provided. I liked the idea of spreading the responsibility for providing PAT throughout the community, though just where it would go, I do not know.
Sex in the City. (2002).
This article on unrestricted Internet access leading to sexual harrassment was exceptionally interesting and very important. I think it’s easy to have a blanket attitude of never restricting access to information in libraries (for good reason). I actually debated this (hotly) in my collection development class, though I was for limitations. We do need to draw the line somewhere, or risk doing more harm than good. To provide free, unlimited anything is generally not a great idea. There are always repercussions. This article looked at those repercussions in relation to unfettered Internet access in public libraries. It seems unforgivably naive, in hindsight, that libraries didn’t see pornography coming. I’m left with the conclusion that the library should try to cater to the masses somewhat in their policy, though this could lead to issues of bias and exclusion if we aren’t careful. It is up to the director and board members to make policy that is fair to as many people as possible. After that, issues of restriction should be taken on a case by case basis.
Comer, A. (2005). Studying Indiana Public Libraries' Usage of Internet
Filters.
Despite an abundance of typos in this article, it examines some interesting data. Overblocking and underblocking, as well as accidental blocking are common issues libraries with filters are dealing with. Hopefully we will come up with a way to lessen the extent of these problems, though even if we don’t, I believe they are better than the sexual harassment issues that could ensue in their place. It seemed to me that most of those chosing not to filter lived in smaller, rural communities. It stands to reason that the anonymity of a big city might make filtering more necessary, which to me supports the “library by library” approach to filters.
The library that made their computers “strictly for information” seemed odd to me. After all, books are not strictly for information. I also found it somewhat appalling that a “young teenager” would be banned for life, simply for viewing inappropriate materials. My Youth Services professor told us that banning patrons for life should be limited to more serious offenses, since teens grow up and also often have children who we will want to use the libraries.
At my former library, I do remember one instance where I was sent to “spy” on the computer of a patron who was behaving suspiciously (blocking computer screen or closing things quickly when we walked by). He did turn out to be viewing pornographic materials, which I discovered by watching through the stacks (sneaky, I know). We then shut his computer down and blocked his Internet access with an accompanying note about our policy. I’d say that the later half was a good method of dealing with this problem, though we should not be reduced to spying on patrons.
Jaeger, P. I., & Zheng, Y. (2009). One Law with Two Outcomes:
Comparing the Implementation of CIPA in Public Libraries and Schools.
This article examines CIPA (children’s internet protection act), which regulates the access children have to internet information in public schools and libraries. One thing I wanted to know more about was why regulation of internet content is so easily abandoned as an option. Both this article and the above state that efforts to control posters failed, which is why the focus shifted to those accessing the information. My guess is that it violates some sort of freedom of expression, but I’ll have to look into it further.
While I am for filters on children’s computers as preventative to accidental information access, I’m not sure that it is effective or fair in cases where children are seeking information that is blocked, because I’m not sure what level the block is set at. Shouldn’t a child researching news related issues be able to access them, even if they aren’t “appropriate”?
Anten, T. (2005). "Please Disable The Entire Filter": Why Non-Removable
Filters On Public Library Computers Violate The First Amendment.
This article discussing the use of filters on library computers is interesting because it points out that libraries are not just one environment. They are simultaneously a community center, family friendly space, research provider, entertainment provider and much more. This is part of why limits on internet access are so controversial. I wondered why women’s health topics were overblocked often, but men’s were not mentioned. It stands to reason that if one is being blocked, the other should be as well, even accidentally.
and Implications.
This article looks at the challenges and practices of PAT (Public Access Technology), meaning the provision of Internet in public libraries. It points out that the use of PAT in libraries shot up from the mid 1990s to the late 2000s, and demand is still increasing. Databases, technology training, e government, ebooks, and reference are some of the important technological services that resulted. Cost has increased because of the resulting need for staff, maintenance, costly equipment, and unsuitable spaces.
The article mentions the increased demand for electricity/power created by the PAT provided in libraries and some technologies that are brought in by the patrons, unconnected with libraries. This subject continues to interest me. How far are we willing to go to provide PAT? Will we support facebook, itunes, secondlife, iphones, and youtube? Is that really the information we need to spend our funds providing or is there a line? I suspect one will need to be drawn to preserve funds for more worthy pursuits (that’s right...I said it), especially as egovernment continues to flood the libraries. But then again, don’t we have to keep the “customers” happy? Can't the above mentioned resources be used in ways that are informationally valuable? The comparison of technology to a hamster wheel seemed fairly accurate to me.
The article mentions varying kinds of IT support offered at libraries. From my experience, if you can’t fix it yourself within a few minutes, the patrons become very frustrated very fast. I anticipate that everyone will need to have a working knowledge of the basics of the technology offered for it to work efficiently. Waiting between an hour and a few days for IT staff to fix something is not a realistic method. Training for both the staff and the patrons will need to be constantly provided. I liked the idea of spreading the responsibility for providing PAT throughout the community, though just where it would go, I do not know.
Sex in the City. (2002).
This article on unrestricted Internet access leading to sexual harrassment was exceptionally interesting and very important. I think it’s easy to have a blanket attitude of never restricting access to information in libraries (for good reason). I actually debated this (hotly) in my collection development class, though I was for limitations. We do need to draw the line somewhere, or risk doing more harm than good. To provide free, unlimited anything is generally not a great idea. There are always repercussions. This article looked at those repercussions in relation to unfettered Internet access in public libraries. It seems unforgivably naive, in hindsight, that libraries didn’t see pornography coming. I’m left with the conclusion that the library should try to cater to the masses somewhat in their policy, though this could lead to issues of bias and exclusion if we aren’t careful. It is up to the director and board members to make policy that is fair to as many people as possible. After that, issues of restriction should be taken on a case by case basis.
Comer, A. (2005). Studying Indiana Public Libraries' Usage of Internet
Filters.
Despite an abundance of typos in this article, it examines some interesting data. Overblocking and underblocking, as well as accidental blocking are common issues libraries with filters are dealing with. Hopefully we will come up with a way to lessen the extent of these problems, though even if we don’t, I believe they are better than the sexual harassment issues that could ensue in their place. It seemed to me that most of those chosing not to filter lived in smaller, rural communities. It stands to reason that the anonymity of a big city might make filtering more necessary, which to me supports the “library by library” approach to filters.
The library that made their computers “strictly for information” seemed odd to me. After all, books are not strictly for information. I also found it somewhat appalling that a “young teenager” would be banned for life, simply for viewing inappropriate materials. My Youth Services professor told us that banning patrons for life should be limited to more serious offenses, since teens grow up and also often have children who we will want to use the libraries.
At my former library, I do remember one instance where I was sent to “spy” on the computer of a patron who was behaving suspiciously (blocking computer screen or closing things quickly when we walked by). He did turn out to be viewing pornographic materials, which I discovered by watching through the stacks (sneaky, I know). We then shut his computer down and blocked his Internet access with an accompanying note about our policy. I’d say that the later half was a good method of dealing with this problem, though we should not be reduced to spying on patrons.
Jaeger, P. I., & Zheng, Y. (2009). One Law with Two Outcomes:
Comparing the Implementation of CIPA in Public Libraries and Schools.
This article examines CIPA (children’s internet protection act), which regulates the access children have to internet information in public schools and libraries. One thing I wanted to know more about was why regulation of internet content is so easily abandoned as an option. Both this article and the above state that efforts to control posters failed, which is why the focus shifted to those accessing the information. My guess is that it violates some sort of freedom of expression, but I’ll have to look into it further.
While I am for filters on children’s computers as preventative to accidental information access, I’m not sure that it is effective or fair in cases where children are seeking information that is blocked, because I’m not sure what level the block is set at. Shouldn’t a child researching news related issues be able to access them, even if they aren’t “appropriate”?
Anten, T. (2005). "Please Disable The Entire Filter": Why Non-Removable
Filters On Public Library Computers Violate The First Amendment.
This article discussing the use of filters on library computers is interesting because it points out that libraries are not just one environment. They are simultaneously a community center, family friendly space, research provider, entertainment provider and much more. This is part of why limits on internet access are so controversial. I wondered why women’s health topics were overblocked often, but men’s were not mentioned. It stands to reason that if one is being blocked, the other should be as well, even accidentally.
What I took from this article is that filters need to improve quickly if they are going to be used. Personally, I like the idea of an optional filter of several levels for all age ranges, which can be controlled by parents until a child is 16. Parents already have the ability to control their child's access to library materials, so this shouldn't violate any additional rights. Adults will have the option of using a filter so they aren't assaulted by images and information they deem inappropriate. Finally, a statement in the policy and conditional upon logging in to each session should be added, stating that pornographic materials are not allowed to be viewed or printed at the library, and will result in termination of the user's internet privileges. My former library had this as a pop up on the computer screen that patrons had to "sign" before using the computer.
About spending money on more worthy pursuits - kudos to you for saying that! It's absolutely true, and while some PAT (youtube for example) could be used for more informational purposes, the library cannot provide everything. Part of the problem is that libraries have started thinking of their patrons as customers, which they're really not.
ReplyDeleteYou have some great suggestions in the Anten response! I really like the idea of including it in the policy and perhaps posting it somewhere near the computer for the patron to see.
ReplyDelete