What are some reasons people might come to the library? To read books owned by the library? To peruse research materials supplied by the library? To study materials I bring in myself? Apparently, the last reason is not an acceptable reason to go to a public library in Singapore. As reported at aisaone, a 16 year old student was told to leave the library because he was studying and not utilizing materials supplied by the library.
I was floored when I saw this article. Before I got internet access in my apartment, I relied on walking the few blocks from my apartment to the nearest public library to use my laptop to check my email, correspond with my friends and family, and keep up on my other online activities.
The article states that the National Library Board says all libraries are to allow self-study at their tables, but that patrons are to acquiesce requests to give up tables to patrons who are utilizing library materials.
This got me thinking back to when I was in undergrad. My sophomore year was when the new library opened on campus and it instantly became THE place to study. (My sorority kind of took over the 2nd floor at any point in time during the day.) Having the background that I do, I probably utilized books or computers provided by the library every day or every other day. However, I know plenty of people who only utilized the library as an area to self-study. Particularly around mid-terms and finals, the library was packed. If people would have been kicked out for not using library materials, there may have only been about 10 people in the library at that time. Comparing an academic library and a public library is probably not fair, however, I find it hard to believe that every person who walks into a public library is coming in to peruse the library's materials.
What is Singapore's public libraries trying to teach young adults when they kick them out for quietly studying and minding their own business?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Facebook Privacy
As I am leading a discussion on privacy next week in class, I'm going to address Facebook now to avoid getting into the social networks discussion then. Facebook released new terms of service on February 4. (The Consumerist Blog that broke the story.) The change was not immediately noticed, but now an uproar from the facebook community has caused the terms to be recovered to the pre-February 4 status. Based on the news stories and the group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, I've thought a lot about how this affects privacy on the internet and the intellectual freedom that should (?) be afforded to social networks.
I think there are a lot of things that need to be learned by young and old about online privacy and the fact that it doesn't really exist. There are companies out there that are more intelligent about what can go on in their industries centered around the internet and let's face it, they are calling the shots. But people can still do things to protect themselves. It starts by teaching people (not just teens or children) that privacy on the internet is an ideal, but not a reality. Common sense and the fact that it is a smaller and unsafe world is crucial to individual safety.
I've also been thinking about the intellectual freedom rights that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg could argue he has. He created a site where people agreed to his terms and his ability to change them at will. Shouldn't he have a right to the information for which he has created a medium and given a way to upload information to his site? While the pictures and posts may theoretically belong to the person who posted them, doesn't the entire site belong to Facebook, Inc.? These, of course, are just questions that I'm still mulling over; I don't know if I'll ever really reach a conclusion. But I cannot argue for my rights while expecting someone else to potentially give up their rights. Whatever those rights may be.
I think there are a lot of things that need to be learned by young and old about online privacy and the fact that it doesn't really exist. There are companies out there that are more intelligent about what can go on in their industries centered around the internet and let's face it, they are calling the shots. But people can still do things to protect themselves. It starts by teaching people (not just teens or children) that privacy on the internet is an ideal, but not a reality. Common sense and the fact that it is a smaller and unsafe world is crucial to individual safety.
I've also been thinking about the intellectual freedom rights that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg could argue he has. He created a site where people agreed to his terms and his ability to change them at will. Shouldn't he have a right to the information for which he has created a medium and given a way to upload information to his site? While the pictures and posts may theoretically belong to the person who posted them, doesn't the entire site belong to Facebook, Inc.? These, of course, are just questions that I'm still mulling over; I don't know if I'll ever really reach a conclusion. But I cannot argue for my rights while expecting someone else to potentially give up their rights. Whatever those rights may be.
Friday, February 13, 2009
News Librarian Affected by Economy
An article in Editor & Publisher,a journal that focuses on the newspaper industry, detailed the closing of the library at the Wall Street Journal. As of March 23, 2009, the library and two librarian positions will cease to exist at the WSJ. Reporters will be doing their own research using digital databases that will be available to them. Leslie A. Norman, the librarian who has been running the library since 2007, predicts that it will cost more for the reporters to do their own research than it would for the library and two librarian positions to continue as they are now.
Norman also said that the reporters will probably be using a Lexis product to do their own research. Knowing what I know of LexisNexis for law schools, each click of the mouse can be very costly and not knowing what you are doing or knowing tricks that librarians pick up on can be very costly. While I don't know if the "Due Diligence Dashboard" works in the same way that a LexisNexis works for law, I do know that first year law students are purposely scared by librarians who tell them stories of law interns who can rack up a bill of $2500 in less than ten minutes.
This is an area where I think libraries and definitely librarians are underappreciated, undervalued, and horribly misunderstood. The asset that a librarian is to a company in the corporate sector is often overlooked and the way that a librarian in fact saves the company time and money is not fully realized. I predict that the WSJ will be rehiring the librarians, especially when they realize how much time they saved the reporters. Otherwise, the WSJ could be seeing a decline in the quality of their reporting.
Norman also said that the reporters will probably be using a Lexis product to do their own research. Knowing what I know of LexisNexis for law schools, each click of the mouse can be very costly and not knowing what you are doing or knowing tricks that librarians pick up on can be very costly. While I don't know if the "Due Diligence Dashboard" works in the same way that a LexisNexis works for law, I do know that first year law students are purposely scared by librarians who tell them stories of law interns who can rack up a bill of $2500 in less than ten minutes.
This is an area where I think libraries and definitely librarians are underappreciated, undervalued, and horribly misunderstood. The asset that a librarian is to a company in the corporate sector is often overlooked and the way that a librarian in fact saves the company time and money is not fully realized. I predict that the WSJ will be rehiring the librarians, especially when they realize how much time they saved the reporters. Otherwise, the WSJ could be seeing a decline in the quality of their reporting.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Censorship
I really enjoyed reading for class this week, and I'm pretty positive there will be great discussion coming out of them. This is a topic that I struggle with. From the perspective of the profession, I do not advocate for censorship and firmly believe that it is a parent's responsibility to know what their children are doing, reading, watching, etc., and it is not the library's responsibility to tell a child that they may not read or watch anything.
However, with my other job, I work with children from the ages 18 months through 18 years old. Being with the kids for any amount of time during an evening, a lot of topics and questions can come up. I've had a nine year old child ask me if I was drinking whiskey out of my water bottle. (The answer, of course, was NO.) But what am I supposed to say when an eight year old then looks up at me and asks, "What's whiskey?" I don't have kids, I'm not married, and I don't feel like it is my responsibility or my right to explain alcohol to an eight year old. For a more career related incident, I have had a nine year old say to a group of seven to ten year old kids that no one is allowed to see the movie The Golden Compass because the characters in the movie turn their backs on God and that it refers to demons. My job has nothing to do with librarianship, or even intellectual freedom for that matter, so I didn't respond to the comments, but instead I moved on with what I am paid to do. I think that there are times when a non-parent adult should censor themselves around children, not because the child cannot handle certain topics, but because any potential harm done to the child or questions the child may have are most likely only going to be dealt with by the parent. I would rather not have an angry parent stop bringing their child where I work because I overstepped my bounds; I'll no longer have a job if parents do not pay for their children to attend activities.
As this is a sticky and complicated situation, what I am saying in the above is from my experience and can only be applied directly to situations similar to those I face in my p/t job.
However, with my other job, I work with children from the ages 18 months through 18 years old. Being with the kids for any amount of time during an evening, a lot of topics and questions can come up. I've had a nine year old child ask me if I was drinking whiskey out of my water bottle. (The answer, of course, was NO.) But what am I supposed to say when an eight year old then looks up at me and asks, "What's whiskey?" I don't have kids, I'm not married, and I don't feel like it is my responsibility or my right to explain alcohol to an eight year old. For a more career related incident, I have had a nine year old say to a group of seven to ten year old kids that no one is allowed to see the movie The Golden Compass because the characters in the movie turn their backs on God and that it refers to demons. My job has nothing to do with librarianship, or even intellectual freedom for that matter, so I didn't respond to the comments, but instead I moved on with what I am paid to do. I think that there are times when a non-parent adult should censor themselves around children, not because the child cannot handle certain topics, but because any potential harm done to the child or questions the child may have are most likely only going to be dealt with by the parent. I would rather not have an angry parent stop bringing their child where I work because I overstepped my bounds; I'll no longer have a job if parents do not pay for their children to attend activities.
As this is a sticky and complicated situation, what I am saying in the above is from my experience and can only be applied directly to situations similar to those I face in my p/t job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
