E-mail/Chat on library Internet terminals

[Robert J Tiess]

Tom Perrin wrote:
>
> Email via rocketmail or hotmail doesn't take up any hard drive space. 
> It doesn't cost the library anything.  I receive a significant amount
of
> information via some 2 or 3 hundred emails a day. From time to time,
> they turn into chat.  Were my hard drive to crash, and put me out of
> commission for a few weeks, I would want my library to provide me
> with access to both.  If I was too financially challenged to buy my own
> computer and access, I would very much want my library to provide me
> with the same kinds of access to electronic information as it has
> traditionally provided with print media.

Tom, I have a hotmail account too (I just don't use it).  Hard drive
space
is never an issue.  Technically, any web page loaded takes up space in
Netscape Navigator or MS IExplorer's cache directory--but that's beside
the point.  I'm sure your library hasn't allowed you to use its phones
and fax machines, or mail letters free of charge to anyone anywhere.
So, for the sake of consideration, why should a library allow you to use
its machine to communicate?  As patrons each of us would wish every
library could meet our information demands; but, as library personnel,
we know not every demand can be served automatically.  The number
of "financially challenged" patrons inspire  us to expand our services;
but many libraries are also "financially challenged" and have to make
the most of their resources.  And if that means developing a policy
that frees an otherwise tied-up resource for other patrons to use, so
that everyone benefits, then that must be the case.  I recognize a need
to keep communication channels open for patrons, for the information
they seek may very well arrive via e-mail.  However, why should a
patron with a valid query wait for another patron who's at an Internet
terminal e-mailing a joke to a friend in college?  A library is not
obligated to permit or even tolerate this activity.


Tom Perrin wrote:
>
> For the life of me, I don't  understand why this situation bothers so
> many different library administrators.  Do they really care what kinds
> of information I get?   I never heard of an Interlibrary loan person
> restricting the kinds of information obtained by a patron.  Why should
> electronic media be any different?

I think it's not necessarily the information your getting or
sending--it's
the simple act in and of itself.  ILL doesn't even have a place in this
conversation.  What we're discussing here is certain patrons using the
Internet terminal as a communication device.  But since you indirectly
do make a point, asking why electronic media should be any different,
I reapproach this issue from the perspective of established library
policy:  If the personnel policy states, "A patron may not use internal
telephones," then it's clear the Internet cannot be used in a comparable
capacity of communication.  There are pay-phones for that, and
cybercafes one can go to as well.  In this case, applying preestablished
policy to Internet access makes sense and demonstrates consistency,
which always strengthens general policy and favors the administrator.

However, other problems arise:  I wonder how many non-Internet or
pre-Internet-implementation policies drawn up by library boards
actually anticipate Internet/WWW-related patron problems?  And then,
in the case of the Acceptable Use Policy, how many board members
and administrators are informed or experienced enough to render
a pre-emptive, anticipatory policy?  Probably a few, or quite a few.
In coming weeks I hope to review other library AUPs and see if any
library has explicitly addressed the e-mail/chat issue in its policy.
If anyone has or knows of such a specific policy, I would appreciate
being notified, as this issue continues to interest me.

					Robert
					rjtiess at juno.com
					www.thrall.org