economics of internet access, and "appropriateness"

[Laura Quilter]

On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, Burt, David wrote:

> This argument contains three errors.  First, the argument assumes that
> use of the Internet is an unlimited resource. Use of the Internet in a
> public library is a finite resource.  Just as a library only has so many
> books, a library only has so many blocks of Internet time to allocate to
> its patrons.

This argument conflates "purchasing access to the Internet" "purchasing
filterware" and "providing Internet use," and lists them as if they were
all "providing Internet use."  I believe that it was already pointed out
(much earlier) that one rations what is in short supply.  Thus, if money
is in short supply, one rations what one purchases: title by title,
software title by software title.  Purchase of Internet access and
purchase of filterware would fall under this category.  If access-time is
in short supply, then one rations the access time: let people sign up to
use machines; put bestsellers on a short-loan list, etc.

  Second, the argument assumes that there is no opportunity
> cost to including each additional resource.  The opportunity cost of one
> person looking at pornography is that someone else can't do their
> homework, or look up a sports statistic.  What librarians need to think
> about here is what's an appropriate use of scarce resources.  Third, the
> argument ignores the issue of appropriateness.  It is not simply for
> economic reasons that libraries do not collect everything.  Public
> libraries don't carry Hustler or Deep Throat.  This isn't because of
> economics, it's because it isn't considered appropriate.

Fundamentally, points two and three are both based on the concept of
"appropriateness."  Point two is actually combining "appropriateness" with
"rationing resources," to which I responded above.  Regarding
"appropriateness," a clear point can be made by examining Mr. Burt's
choice of examples.  "Looking up a sports statistic" -- yes, that comes up
a lot in public library situations.  How is looking up a sports statistic
"appropriate" and exploration of sexuality not?

"Appropriateness" is one that is very difficult to define, which is why in
selection we use more clearly-defined concepts such as "currency" 
"authenticity" and "cost." "Appropriate"  might be used as short-hand to
describe many of these other concepts.  But if we change some portions of
the equation (such as how cost is figured) then we can't use the same
lump-term ("appropriateness") to signify both the old equation and the new
one.  Furthermore, we use that equation to evaluate our library's
collections, not our patron's information requests.

It is very, very clear, that spending money -- buying internet access or
internet restriction software -- is a collection development decision and
is content-oriented.  Putting barriers between information tools we have
purchased and our patrons is an access issue, and is based on other
factors (such as copyright law).  Now, pro-filterware librarians would
like to place content-oriented evaluations NOT at point of (library) 
purchase, but at point of (patron) access.  That is a significant change
in the standards of public librarianship.  It can certainly be argued that
we should go back to the days of 1885 when the public librarian would not
allow youth or women to access sexually explicit materials or the
COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, but it's a serious change in overall policy and
direction.  (And it is quite possibly not Constitutionally acceptable.)

> Public libraries don't carry Hustler or Deep Throat.  This isn't because
> of economics, it's because it isn't considered appropriate. 

Two points:
	1)  We've already heard from one public librarian (some weeks ago)
who said their library would carry everything if they had the money to buy
it.  I don't think it's "appropriate" to generalize about the collection
development decisions of a vast number of libraries.
	2) On "appropriateness" in general: By "appropriate" I take it you
mean "morally fit for the youth of the United states,"  since the only
example given by pro-filterware advocates is the perniciousness of youth
access to pornography.  If we're using "appropriate" as a signifier for
the collection development policy of a library, then I would argue that,
indeed, public libraries don't carry HUSTLER or DEEP THROAT (very often,
anyway) but that the argument is entirely irrelevant to the issue of
filterware.  (Since filterware is not developed in accordance with a
library's collection development policy but entirely by other standards
and for other reasons.)

> 
>   ***********************************************************
>           David Burt, Information Technology Librarian 
>           The Lake Oswego Public Library 
>           706 Fourth Street, Lake Oswego, OR 97034
>           URL:          http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/library/library.htm
>           Phone:     (503) 675-2537 
>           Fax:           (503) 635-4171 
>           E-mail:      dburt at ci.oswego.or.us
> 

Laura Quilter / lauramd at uic.edu
Electronic Services Librarian
University of Illinois at Chicago