e-mail in libraries

[Joe Schallan]

At 12:19 PM on 5/28/97, Leslie Kuizema wrote:

>Just a thought...
>Could one use email to contact an "expert" in a particular field?  Would 
>that fit your definition of research?  Also, how did you become the one 
>to judge what an appropriate use of the internet is?  Many of my patrons 
>use the internet to find recipes.  Is this a valid use???

Finding recipes or any other piece of information on the Web is a
valid use.

But to me the question remains as to how providing access to
free e-mail fits into our mission.  In our attempt to be all things
to all people, we could presumably provide all manner of
communication channels to enable patrons to contact an
"expert."  As I mentioned, we could provide a bank of no-pay,
public access telephones.  We could provide free teleconferencing.
We could underwrite free Federal Express letter-package service
and free faxing.

But we can't do all those things because we don't have the
time or the resources.  Such things may not be part of our mission,
and, more important, may divert our attention and resources from
what should be our mission.  How many resources, and -- by far
most important -- how much librarian time do we want to
devote to activities peripheral to books, periodicals, research,
and reading?

One day after a study stream of inquiries about the library
providing tax forms and tax assistance, passport photos, free fax
service, mammograms, paralegal service, tools for engraving
ID numbers on personal possessions, free word processing and
word processing assistance, video viewing booths, and
citizenship-exam prep courses, I wondered if anyone out there
wanted to read something.

And I felt sorry for the poor souls who *did* want my help with
books and who ended up at the end of that long line.

We can do many worthy things, but I also make a modest
proposal:  We cannot be all things to all people.

WHO DECIDES?

I am asked how I "became the one to judge what an appropriate
use of the internet is."

This is a central question, central not only to the issue of
what services we provide but also to the resolution of
the question about blocking and filtering.

As a profession, many of us (and most days it feels like
most of us) have abdicated all responsibility for
defining our mission.  We have become clerks.

Since we cannot do everything, however, *someone*
will have to judge what it is that we *will* do.  Some needs
may have to be judged to be more important than others.
So that people can use networked CD-ROMs, chat and
e-mail may have to be blocked.  So that librarians can be
free to help people find books and articles, 15-minute-long
handholding sessions on how to use chat may have to be
forbidden.  Making such decisions may be distasteful indeed,
but *someone* will make them.

If we can't be all things to all people, if our time and resources are
limited, than just who other than librarians should judge what
an appropriate use of the internet is?  If we feel unqualified to work
with our patrons, our library boards, our city council members, and
our city budget officers to make this judgment, then who
should do it?  Why, indeed, should there be librarians at all?

Thanks,
Joe Schallan



============================
Joe Schallan, MLS
Reference Librarian/Web Page Editor
Glendale (Arizona) Public Library
jschall at glenpub.lib.az.us
============================