Pull the plug -- libraries aren't common carriers

[Christopher Jackson]

On Sun, 23 Mar 1997, Nick Arnett wrote:

> The library censorship discussion assumes that because a personal computer
> connected to the Internet can retrieve any resource without incremental
> cost, any restriction of that ability constitutes censorship.  This is
> contrary to the value proposition of the library.  Offering unlimited
> Internet access to the public is inappropriate for libraries and devalues
> their role to that of a common carrier, rather than an institution of
> intellectual value that has related technical skills.  

Let's back up a bit here.  What is the purpose of the library?  In our
case it's to meet the educational, informational, and recreational needs
of our patrons.  You can measure our value in many ways, one of which is
the quantity of resources that potentially meet the above needs.  You seem
to emphasize the quality of resources, and that too is a very valid
measure, but what happens when I haven't selected (or paid your company to
select for me) the resource that fits one of my patron's needs?  How will
that patron judge the intellectual value of my institution?   How about
when the patron realizes that document could be accessed at no additional
cost?  By all means, let's look at the "value proposition" of unlimited
Internet access.  When you look at our mission, the value goes up as you
provide more resources for the same cost.

And since you mention it, unrestricted Internet puts my intellectual and
technical skills at the forefront--when a patron needs information on the
circulatory system of the cone snail (as a junior high student did last
Friday), should they expect to find it in the small portion of the 'Net
that I've organized?  In the books or periodicals we own?  Not in my
library!  What they should do, and what they in fact do, is come to me
with their information need, and then I use my professional skills to find
the information.  I am able to introduce them to the web, gather together
a set of documents that might be of use, and then let them continue the
process while I'm off helping the next patron.  I'd hate to have to say,
"Sorry, I know your report is due on Tuesday, but I haven't gotten around
to organizing the marine fauna portion of the 'Net.  Try us again in a
couple years."

If I do my job well, they'll learn the basics of selecting materials
themselves. That's a public service that goes beyond organizing documents.
You might argue that a patron should only have unrestricted access when
accompanied by a librarian.  But I think we should give our patrons a
little more credit.

> I'm going to suggest
> that libraries pull the plug on the Internet until there is a technical
> solution that allows them to apply their intellectual skills, which is their
> primary value to the community.  Librarians who oppose censorship have
> chosen the wrong enemy; they should oppose the implicit view of the
> librarian as mere technician.

The technical/intellectual solution exists:  Librarians should create web
pages that collocate various sources that meet their patrons' needs,
highlighting the best and most useful among what's else there and
organizing it into usable hierarchies. At the same time, they must help
patrons use all library sources, including the vast, unorganized reaches
of cyberspace.  If public service is truly our goal, pulling the plug is
clearly a disservice. 

> If physical resources (books, videos, etc.) were free, would the patrons be
> allowed to choose which books were obtained?  

In my library (as in many public libraries), the patrons are allowed to
choose.  If they request a book, we nearly always buy it if it's available
and reasonably priced; otherwise we obtain it throught inter-library loan.
Remember: we're trying to meet their needs, and as any librarian can tell
you, their needs are often impossible to predict, try though we do.

> The question isn't whether or not libraries should provide unlimited access
> to the Internet, it is what should be included in the library's virtual
> collections, in which Internet resources are organized so that they can be
> used effectively by patrons.  Resources that aren't thus organized aren't
> part of the library and there is no justification for the library to provide
> access to them.  

Even if our staff increased by a factor of 10, we could not possibly
organize all the wonderful (or merely potentially useful) Internet
resources.  Up until now, documents we acquire were paid for individually,
and we only needed to organize what our book budget allowed us to
purchase.  Now, for one price, we get this wonderful Internet smorgasbord.
I say there is "no justification" in spending staff time or money denying
access to potentially useful resources.

> The patrons who ask why Hustler isn't available shouldn't
> be told, "It isn't appropriate," they should be told, "We haven't cataloged
> it yet, we're still working on environmental information (or whatever else
> is on the table)."  If the patrons are unhappy with that, let them lobby the
> library funders to change the priorities.

With this approach, you'll never keep up with the 'Net, and you'll
never keep up as well as you should with patrons' needs.  Libraries can
not afford to limit what's available to what they've had time to organize.
Our patrons need and deserve more than that, especially since we're paying
for the whole range.  If a patron comes wanting to see a particular site,
what does it matter whether or not I've organized it into some sort of
hierarchy?  


> The library's Internet collection is something that should start small and
> grow; not as a wide-open connection that needs to be pruned, either for
> reasons of organization or morals.

What about hypertext?  Web documents depend on each other.  It's clear I
think starting small is not in our patrons' interest, but it also runs
counter to the structure of the web.
 
> This implies that until technology supports virtual collections, the plug
> should be pulled on library Internet collections.  Although that might be
> frustrating to those in the community who have no other access, nothing
> would more clearly demonstrate to the public that libraries and librarians
> are more that just technicians.

Nothing would more clearly demonstrate that librarians are a bunch of
solipsistic eggheads!  Our mission is not to glorify our status, but
instead to meet people's needs.  Particularly in small communities, the
'Net means the wealth of available resources--educational, recreational,
and informational--has suddenly blossomed in a wonderful way.  Such rapid
growth does indeed bring problems.  But "pulling the plug" is not the
answer.  The solution is for us to organize what we can, and to help our
patrons navigate through the rest.  The 'Net can often meet their needs in
ways we could never predict. 

As long as librarians keep public service as their highest priority, and
as long as they work face to face with the public, helping them to find
what they seek, we will never be thought of as mere technicians.  Nor will
our service be analogous to a "common-carrier."

    Christopher Jackson                      cjackson at monroe.lib.in.us	
    Reference Librarian                      voice: (812) 876-1272
    Monroe County Public Library             fax: (812) 876-2515
    Ellettsville, IN  47429                  http://www.monroe.lib.in.us/