[Publib] Re: MySpace and YouTube

[Joe Schallan]

Kevin Cherry asks:

"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? 
 
"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?"

I'm not sure that I'm ready to equate "social networking" and "information resource."  Information can certainly be transmitted within the context of electronically based social networking.  But information can be transmitted in a host of contexts -- indeed, in almost any human activity you may wish to think of. Is it, then, the role of the library to get involved in every situation in which information may be transferred?

As many regular readers know, I question inflation of the library's mission, especially in light of the fact that with limited budgets and staff we often do not carry out even our traditional mission particularly well.

I don't have an answer to this part of Kevin's question, except to say that if I were a library director I would proceed carefully with new roles, keeping an eye on what most of our patrons want from us and on what our funding authorities have directed us to provide.

It will be interesting to see if, ten years from now, we are even talking about social networking.  One hallmark of the digital age is that it is very difficult to ascertain what is a fad and what is significant. Online grocery-ordering, anyone?

That being said, I suspect interpersonal communication mediated by computers or computerlike objects will persist.  The library will need to think carefully about the extent to which it wants to involve itself in the phenomenon.  Clarity about mission will help.

Years ago, when I was a reference librarian at the Glendale (Ariz.) Public Library, a young man appeared at our reference desk wanting to know where in the library we took chest x-rays for the State Food Handler's Certification.  When we told him the library didn't do that (and directed him to the proper place), he was indignant.  At the time I laughed about whoever had so misguidedly sent him our way, but since then I've come to see this incident as illustrative of the problems we encounter when we allow bloating of our mission.  If the library seeks to provide for every social need and markets itself as such either intentionally or by implication, wanting a chest x-ray from the library isn't a farfetched request at all.

Kevin also asked about treating social networking sites differently from other sites.  The idealists who abound in our profession (and I do not mean this pejoratively) will assert that to begin differentiating among websites according to a subjective judgment of their potential for encouraging bad behavior is to stand atop the slippery slope that ends in censorship.

Other, more practical librarians may view the blocking of sites such as MySpace as a way to balance access with reasonable use of library resources. MySpace is not an information resource in the way a reference database is, they may say, and much bad behavior is associated with its use.  Blocking it will greatly reduce stress on staff, who will otherwise be ground down by constantly having to police the computer-users, and enhance both the library experience and resource availability for non-MySpace-dependent patrons.

Traditional Catholic teaching talked about "Occasions of Sin," and here is the definition from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Occasions of Sin are external circumstances--whether of things or persons--which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin."

We who were raised in the old tradition were urged to strenuously avoid occasions of sin. In a way, practical librarians are simply removing the occasions of sin, though they would probably not want to be lumped in with the old Roman Catholic Church, whose record on intellectual freedom was not encouraging.

And the idealists would counter that it is not the role of the librarian to define what sin is.

I feel strongly that the idealists are correct.  And yet I would be loathe to chastise a colleague who is using the tool of filtering to keep the peace, increase availability of computers, and prevent battle fatigue among her staff.

Here, too, clarity of purpose will help.

Some would say that you cannot be a faithful librarian without being a First-Amendment absolutist, but others would point out that librarians must function in the real world of citizens, staff, library boards, and city councils, and that there are few pat answers, and that battles must be carefully chosen.

Joe Schallan
Phoenix