Weekly Readings 3/20

Public Access Technologies in Public Libraries by J. Bertot

This article discusses a study about how public libraries have handled being on the forefront of offering free online services and its impact on services.

This is definitely a fundamental issue that needs to have more attention paid to it before librarians continue spiraling down this road of having new tasks dumped into their laps without training/funding, like we discussed with e-government. Proper training is becoming increasingly important as more and more services rely solely on internet access. Even Encyclopedia Britannica just announced that they are no longer offering printed editions after 244 years (Pepitone). Yet we are not IT professionals, and certainly don't get anywhere near their pay even when we act as such. Thankfully at MCPL we have an IT department that I can submit a ticket to whenever a computer acts up, and usually within an hour someone will descend from upstairs to fix the problem. Most libraries aren't this fortunate. Even with software issues, when I cover a shift at MCPL, the others on the desk often defer computer questions to me because they know I am more comfortable with them. Even then, I certainly don't know about every program/website patrons ask about. What should the library's time and monetary burden be to train staff on these kinds of sites? I make an effort to familiarize myself with as many free services as possible (Facebook, Pintrest, etc.), but since I don't use services such as iTunes or SecondLife or e-readers, there are times I am flying as blind as the patrons. I loved the quote from the librarian about the computers being pretty stable, but that the patrons using them are often the issue. There are a lot of times I feel that the patrons do not appear to appreciate that they have free access with free help from librarians who often try their hardest but aren't technology wizes . They expect perfect equipment, no problems, and everything set up to their personal preferences and all the programs they want to use. But is there really a way to solve that? Ultimately, I especially liked the idea of partnering with the county or state library for IT needs, namely for rural libraries. This would help open a dialogue to discuss why public access is currently resting solely on the shoulders of the library and enlighten local government about the struggles being faced.

Pepitone, Julianne. "Encyclopedia Britannica to stop printing books." CNNMoney 13 Mar. 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2012. .


Sex in the City by Wendy Adamson & Please Disable the Entire Filter by T. Anten

Adamson describes the experience of one library's early struggle with patrons viewing pornography and how to deal with it lawfully. Anten gives a very detailed look at why the Phoenix library's internet policy to have non-removable filters is unconstitutional.

I'll say up front that I'm one of those "prudes" who thinks pornography (as the dictionary defines it) has no business in a public library, partially because of the issues raised by the Adamson article. The circumstances described in this first reading where rather shocking to me, with patrons purposely dragging others into their activities by leaving pictures lying around, websites open, and "forcing" staff to look at them to increase their arousal. How did this not constitute sexual harassment? My unrealistic wish is that this issue would police itself because it is certainly unfair and illegal to block text and images that are not obscene. For the most part, though, I do think this self-regulating happens more than I think (I've never dealt with it at MCPL, though I know others have when I haven't been scheduled). The way I understand MCPL's policy is that you are allowed to do anything within the library that isn't prohibited in the rules unless it is bothering someone else in the building. Thus, if anyone (patrons or staff) has a problem with someone viewing porn, they can be asked to stop. But I read an article last month about a library in Malibu, California, with the librarians saying they couldn't legally stop a patron viewing sexual materials even though another patron was complaining (Kashtan). While they were somewhat correct in using the court rulings in their defense, and I know the ALA is fully behind completely unfettered computer access, why should the patron making the complaint not have an equal say in the library they are paying for? After reading the Anten article, I feel like the court rulings have not come down on the side of defending the viewing of "obscene materials," but rather how to stop the viewing from happening. I recognize that filtering software is certainly far from perfect, especially in blocking images and (to a lesser extent) videos, but some things being blocked would be better than nothing. To me a combination of the image filtering like Anten mentioned being used in Des Plaines and a list of specifically blocked sites appears to be the best option, based of course on what the community wants. Even MCPL is beginning to look at filtering options. This is especially important in smaller buildings where the adult computers can be seen from virtually anywhere in the building. However, fewer computers also allows for greater staff sight lines which can reduce the need for software filtering. When possible, it would be good to provide unfiltered/disabled-filter access on machines in a more private area where staff can still be sure rules are being followed. This would also allow those who are performing sensitive research to do so without prying eyes. On a lighter note, I would agree with the way a commenter on The Society for Librarians Who Say "Mofo" put it, "if it's a place where you can't run around naked and have sex, then it's not a place where you can watch porn" (http://library-mofo.livejournal.com/1621952.html).

Kashtan, Paula. "Librarians stand aside as patron watches porn." Malibu Times 1 Feb. 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2012.


Studying Indiana Public Libraries' Usage of Internet Filters by A. Comer

Comer details the responses she received to a survey of Indiana libraries about their filtering policies and other computer-related questions.

This was an interesting article for its simple reporting of raw data on just one state, though I wish more than 33% had responded. It really backed up on a local level the issues raised in the Anten article, in that approximately 1/5 of patrons were blocked from needed information while the same percentage were still able to get around the filters. Some expanded explanation about the blocked information could have been helpful. Were they able to gain access by having the filter disabled? I liked the one librarian's comment about their policy reflecting the community wants and needs, and that someone responded that they have no filtering but there haven't been any complaints. I guess this shows there is more self-policing than I was giving patrons credit for. I was surprised and confused by the 5% who restrict e-mail usage for adults, as well as the library that insists all computer time be for information and nothing else. How can the staff seriously put such a policy into practice. It would certainly reduce the number of people who come up to me saying their work on the computer is more important than Facebook, so they should be allowed to get on first. Ultimately, this definitely shows that there isn't one answer appropriate for every library (like just about every other library issue).


One Law with Two Outcomes by Paul Jaeger and Zheng Yan

The authors examine the implementation of CIPA in both public and school libraries and the affects of having the same law for two very different institutions.

This article made some interesting points about whether public libraries and school libraries should be seen in the same light. There are obvious differences, just in regard to children, with the biggest being that parents are very rarely with their children at school libraries. However, parts of this writing didn't sit quite right. As I understood the article about the Phoenix library, it is illegal for a librarian to refuse to turn off a filter, yet this article listed one problem being librarian refusal (and even listed it first as if it is a significant problem). Also, the filters blocking the Constitution seem like an extreme example of a filter that probably doesn't deserve to be used anyway. This article also mentioned the number of low-income people who depend on the library for internet. This is only speaking from my experience, which I admit is limited, but I find that a majority of people who appear to be lower income are more likely to come to the desk for help than research on their own because they just don't have the information literacy skills. I agree that even one person needing a filter to be disabled is reason enough to have a system in place that allows this to be done as quickly as possible, but in some ways it feels like the number of people from any socioeconomic status proported to be doing research via the internet in libraries is slightly exaggerated (not just in this article, either). I did really like their suggestion of starting classes on computer and internet basics earlier, and I think this would be especially beneficial when parents/caregivers are also able to attend with the child.