Filtering and the Web

[CMUNSON]

Linda Woods Hyman <lhyman at mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:

>OK, I'm just going to stick my little naive neck way out there and ask a 
>few questions. Have we, the information experts and decision-makers of the 
>world, decided that access to the internet is now a god-given right? 

I don't think there is consensus on this yet and there will probably never 
be. As much as i like the Internet, too many libraries suffer from poor 
budgets, thin collections, underpaid staff, and short hours. But if you have 
Interent access, why not give access to the entire Internet? It doesn't cost 
anything extra.

>Have we determined that it is a "standard library service" now along with 
>books and magazines and newspapers?

Again, it looks like we do, however limited by budget constraints.

>Does anyone out there filter newspapers, magazines, books, etc? Is it "not 
>OK" to say that the internet is an unreliable, unpredictable source of 
>information and let the user beware? 

Why don't librarians do this with books, magazines, and traditional library 
materials? Are we trying to encourage the development of critical thought 
among library users? Just because a book comes from an "official source" or 
a big publisher doesn't make it a more reliable source of information than a 
web site.

>Is it "not OK" to just say NO and don't  provide the service if it's more 
>trouble than it's worth?
     
     Than why be a librarian? Why have public libraries? Librarians have 
     been taking risks for years in getting controversial materials into 
     libraries. Let's not sell or profession and our colleagues short.
     
>One thought my office colleague and I had at one point was to establish a 
>new internet extension, a  ".kid" extension. This would mean that the site 
>passed certain hurdles and was "safe" for kids and other users of the "PG" 
>or "G" ilk. (However, I don't want to be a hurdle cop.)
     
     This could be an OK idea, as long as it is a voluntary standard. The 
     problem with PICs and other ratings schemes is that legislators have 
     an itchy censorship finger and they could use laws to make such 
     standards mandatory. This would be an abridgement of free speech. 
     Nobody has the right to tell me that I have to "rate" my site.
     
>Also, I'm curious just how often does "offensive" material turn up on the 
>average when conducting a search?
     
     Well, it depends on the search, but alot turns up because people who 
     run adult web sites spam the indexes. This sucks, because it also 
     makes it hard to search for sex information or entertainment without 
     getting a bunch of irrelevant results. Many on this list have 
     complained about getting links to adult sites when doing searches for 
     non-sexual stuff. I've heard nobody complain about what it is like if 
     you ARE trying to search for adult material.
     
     Everybody is cheating the search engines, not just the adult site 
     operators. I haven't checked, but I wonder if searches on investement 
     or money-making information also turn up similar index spam problems.
     
     Chuck0