Last comments from me

[Karen G. Schneider]

My last response.  It's a doozy, and then I WILL shut up.  I'll go to the
On and On Anon clinic to dry out for a while, and set mail to postpone (I
can always follow the archive).  I feel, on the one hand, that this post is
far too personal and off-topic for the list, and on the other, that since
these discussions continue to be personal, I have exactly one (1) chip to
use up as a response.  

1) Two years ago, as in, September 1995, I did have many more reservations
about filtering software than I do now. Hello!  Two years is a LONG time on
this issue.  Two years ago, I thought differently about a lot of things.
Some of my attitudes have changed quite a bit.  Then again, so have the
tools. I still think if you don't have to filter, don't.  People using
filters say the same to me!  And the tools that caught my attention
then--e.g. Surfwatch and Cybersitter--still are unsafe at any speed.  And
we've shown that.  But I do empathise with libraries who feel they MUST use
filters, as well as libraries that feel they SHOULD use filters.  Not all
filters are created equally, no filter is perfect, and through sheer elbow
grease we've discovered things that simply defending the use of filters
never would. Additionally, there are many problems with
filters--intellectual freedom issues, as well as performance issues--that
have yet to be resolved.  As I wrote Mr. Meeks, "think Pinto."  If we had
"thought Pinto" when the first OPACs were designed, maybe it would not have
taken two decades to design catalogs that mere mortals could use.  As an
information specialist, it's my job to apply my intellectual skills to
assessing new information-service tools.  I don't have any business
embracing new technology uncritically.   I do have a commitment to my
colleagues in librarianship to give back to the profession, and I think
that pretty well summarizes the ethos of the TIFAP participants.  

2) The comment about who "deserves ink" is telling.  I get decent press
coverage; no complaints there.  I do think all sides of an issue should be
discussed, and Meeks' article about the "radical librarian" perpetuated the
myth about the poor, beleaguered librarian picked on unfairly by his
colleagues.  It was surprisingly one-sided, given the topic, and suggested
that there were only two attitudes in librarianship--the Disciples of the
First Amendment and the Burtian Filterers.  My response was not about me
vs. him, however much he wants to see it that way (as I remember from an
early post, "David and Karen in the press"), but about the issue, and about
the librarians who hold a different set of views than was illustrated in
Meeks' article.

3) Folks have tossed rocks at David Burt, and done underhanded things, and
so forth.  However, he's simply proved that two wrongs do not make a right,
by belittling people, taking comments out of context, slinging insults and
in general pouring gas on a fire.  He hasn't made his organization
appealing for anyone interested in filters.  Also, dismissing TIFAP to
reporters (which they have told me he has done, because reporters always
check up on what people say) hasn't been terribly cricket.  When they ask
me about filteringfacts.org, up to now I have said everyone has a right to
promulgate his/her opinion, and dropped it at that.  He should learn to be
equally courteous.  Until he does, he shouldn't be surprised when what goes
around, comes around.




_____________________________________________________________
Karen G. Schneider | kgs at bluehighways.com | schneider.karen at epamail.epa.gov
Director, US EPA Region 2 Library  |   Contractor, GCI   |   Opinions
home-grown
The Internet Filter Assessment Project:
http://www.bluehighways.com/tifap/
Author, Forthcoming:    A Practical Guide to Internet Filters (Neal
Schuman, 1997)
-----------------------------  Information is hard work
------------------------------------