[Publib] My Space and U Tube

[Sue Kamm]

From: Cherry, Kevin 
To: publib at webjunction.org
Sent: 9/2/2007 8:41:34 PM 
Subject: [Publib] My Space and U Tube


All:

Just a few questions:

If someone complained about books that a library was making available or that their neighbors were reading (instead of social networking sites), what would we do? 

It is to be hoped that all public libraries have policies and procedures in place to deal with challenges to materials and resources.

If gangs were hiding messages (or little packages of white powder) between the pages of certain books, would we pull all books in the librar or just those that provide popular hiding places--or do something else? And if it is something else, what would that something else be?

This is something that I haven's had to deal with :)  

If certain people keep breaking library codes of conduct, what is the appropriate response according to your local policies? 

Most libraries have methods of dealing with behavior problems.  First, the person gets an oral warning to stop the unacceptable behavior (usually, in my library, loud talking or running up and down stairs.  If the behavior continues, the person is escorted out of the library and told not to return that day.  Since 99.9 percent of the time the behavior problems are caused by minors, if the behavior is repeated we will send a letter to the parent, describing little Igance's behavior and saying he may not return to the library for 30 days unless he is accompanied and supervised by a responsible adult.  

For adults, we follow similar procedures:  warning, escorted from the library.  If the unacceptable behavior continues (men harrassing women by following them around, adults in the children's room with no apparent business there [i.e., not with a child]) we will call the police.  In really extreme cases, we will seek a restraining order barring them from the library.


Why should we treat social networking sites differently than we do other information resources made available by the library? What compelling reasons have any of you heard that would explain the difference in this treatment?

I think I've heard this song before.  We sang it when AV media were first introduced to libraries.  We have sung it whenever a new technology has come along that might possibly be attacked by individuals or groups.  When I was on the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee in the late 70s/early 80s, we did not know that the Internet would come along.  We crafted the Library Bill of Rights with broad language to include access to information, no matter what the format.

Does anyone know how a social networking site is defined? Has anyone defined "social networking sites" for legal reasons? At what point does the inclusion of networked personal spaces, discussion boards, personal networks of "friends," linked chat (and whatever other mix of tools might be involved) become an online resource that we can call social networking? For example, I think that there are a number of online course management tools for distance instruction that come close to a social networking model in a number of ways, and all sorts of social and political groups are attempting to build online communities (social networking sites) to aid their cause, educate their members, build greater support for some issue, sports team, etc. It seems that current Web trends seem to point to more of a "social networking" of the entire Web. (Because once Friendster and Myspace are not available, I am sure it is only a matter of time before someone starts using a rare book collectors Web site to start sharing illicit messages--and then, we'll haveto block it, and after that it will be the wild flower fanciers site . . .) If libraries decide to drop access to social networking sites, do we run the risk of opting out of the information tool/media that everybody else is embracing? What might be the longterm result of this decision?

Excellent points, Kevin.  I don't know who coined the phrase "social networking."  People have always coined feel-good language.  I give you "downsizing" (firing several hundred people becuase you don't have the money to pay them, or because reducing personnel costs will show stakeholders that the comany/agency is really trying to maximize payments), "outsourcing" (contracting work out to places where workers are paid less and the employer doesn't have to worry about things like health insurance), or "terminally inconvenienced" for dead.  

Maybe people who coin and/or use these phrases believes that a bad result will somehow be sanitized if the language is different.

I am not trying to be some sort of smart aleck. Really, I am just asking the questions. I know that no matter what side we might take on this issue (or other issues), 99.9% of us here do care about our communities and our users, and we are all trying to do the best that we can for them, often with limited resources and in challenging situations. 


Your friendly neighborhood CyberGoddess and ALA Councilor at Large, 
Sue Kamm
Email: suekamm[at]mindspring.com
Inglewood/Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles Dodgers Truest of the Blue, 2000
Visit my blog: http://suekamm.blogspot.com
Baseball Is Life...the rest is details.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/publib/attachments/20070903/d588f44f/attachment.htm