Ok, so I can not believe how fast this semester has gone. I can't say I am sad to see the winter go because the sunshine and warmth outside is a much needed tonic. But being that the semester is coming to a close, I thought I would reflect a little.
I learned a lot in the class through the blogging exercises as well as learned a thing or two about myself. I never thought I would be one who would like to blog. Hell, I dislike the idea that when I was a teenager my mom "peeked" inside my journal! The mere idea of writing opinions and thoughts online seemed just as unlikely as me photocopying my journal pages and handing them out to my friends for some leisurely reading. But I think I understand the concept blogging now and how it can apply to my life. What I write does not have to be too personal or too in-depth into my life. Who, for instance other than me, cares what I thought about my dinner at the Olive Garden last night? (By the way, I enjoyed the minestrone!) I think overcoming my fear and hesitancy towards blogging is the one thing I am glad I will walk away with this semester. I've acquired another tool for my writing toolbox and that always makes me smile.
In a world where things are moving at a rapid speed in terms of technological advances, blogging is just one of the many skills I will/may need in the upcoming job market. Since I am locked into the Lafayette area for the next decade (owning your own tattoo shop will do that), I will need to market myself the best I can. Any new skill in terms of technology will only make me more valuable and who doesn't want to be worth a ton?
Hope to see some of you in the blogging world!
Cheers,
Dawn
Monday, April 21, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Alice is on her way...to the restricted section
At Icicle River Middle School, students will now have to get parental consent in order to check out the book "Alice on Her Way" by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor. The board decided unanimously to do what they considered to be a "compromise" by placing the book under parental consent. Dave Winters, who challenged the book's appropriateness is not satisfied with the outcome because "the book is still on the shelf to any child who wants to read a section in the library and put it back."
Well, duh. Isn't that the case with any book anywhere? If "Alice on Her Way" isn't available to the child in the school library, won't Barnes and Noble be a suitable substitute for light aisle reading while Dad is getting a cup of coffee? Is Dad so wildly unaware that middle schoolers already know about the topics covered in the book? Does he know that some middle schoolers 15 and younger have already had SEX? Or at least THINK about having SEX, A LOT?
I'm glad Dave wasn't my father. I would hate to grow up in a household where I was not allowed to read books that touched upon subjects that are relevant to my life and the environment which I live. I am glad that my father didn't try to cram old copies of "Ladies Home Journal" down my throat so I would have a false sense of reality in terms of what marriage would be like, or sex for the first time. Hell, even what it means to be a "normal teenager." Because ultimately, who knows better as to what it means to be a teenager than the parents??
I offer a suggestion to the teens and tweens who want to read the book. The article states that "parents typically give consent by phone." Be a good friend to someone and make a phone call on their behalf. Nothing says true friendship like a dose of intellectual freedom!!!!
Well, duh. Isn't that the case with any book anywhere? If "Alice on Her Way" isn't available to the child in the school library, won't Barnes and Noble be a suitable substitute for light aisle reading while Dad is getting a cup of coffee? Is Dad so wildly unaware that middle schoolers already know about the topics covered in the book? Does he know that some middle schoolers 15 and younger have already had SEX? Or at least THINK about having SEX, A LOT?
I'm glad Dave wasn't my father. I would hate to grow up in a household where I was not allowed to read books that touched upon subjects that are relevant to my life and the environment which I live. I am glad that my father didn't try to cram old copies of "Ladies Home Journal" down my throat so I would have a false sense of reality in terms of what marriage would be like, or sex for the first time. Hell, even what it means to be a "normal teenager." Because ultimately, who knows better as to what it means to be a teenager than the parents??
I offer a suggestion to the teens and tweens who want to read the book. The article states that "parents typically give consent by phone." Be a good friend to someone and make a phone call on their behalf. Nothing says true friendship like a dose of intellectual freedom!!!!
Monday, March 17, 2008
Is the NSA collecting your information?
In a Wall Street Journal article entitled, "NSA's Domestic Spying Grows As Agency Sweeps Up Data", a scary topic is discussed. The National Security Agency once confined to strictly foreign surveillance is now collecting data domestically. What kind of information? Well, they can look at your email, Internet sites you've been to, calls made and received on your cellphone, regular calls made and received on land-line phones, financial records (such as bank accounts, wire transfers, and credit card use) and airline information such as where you go and who you fly with. The NSA receives the "transactional" data from other agencies and private companies. The data is then analyzed to reveal suspicious patterns.
A number of NSA employees have voiced concerns that the agency maybe "overstepping its authority by veering into domestic surveillance." The article poses the serious question "Can the government examine such a large array of information without violating an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy?" This question has yet to be answered by Capital Hill. There is much political debate over the need to change the traditional definition of privacy rights. Donald Kerr, the deputy director of national intelligence said, "Since many people routinely post details of their lives on social-networking sites such as Myspace, their identity should not need the same protection as in the past. Instead only their "essential privacy" or "what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs" should be veiled."
This scares me. Because we, the citizens, are using networking sites on a daily basis, this opens up debate as to whether or not we "deserve" the same level of privacy? The article talks about how the data-sifting takes place. Say for example, a suspected terrorist lives in San Diego. The NSA would begin monitoring that community and collecting and analyzing all electronic communications into and out of the city. If I have a friend who lives in San Diego and I email or call her, my communications would be collected.
I definitely think this article should be read. At this very moment, Congress is debating domestic spying powers and whether or not telecommunications and other companies who hand over information to the FBI and NSA should be immune from liability for assisting government surveillance. It is important we keep abreast on this topic because it affects all of us, you and me, whether or not we realize it.
A number of NSA employees have voiced concerns that the agency maybe "overstepping its authority by veering into domestic surveillance." The article poses the serious question "Can the government examine such a large array of information without violating an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy?" This question has yet to be answered by Capital Hill. There is much political debate over the need to change the traditional definition of privacy rights. Donald Kerr, the deputy director of national intelligence said, "Since many people routinely post details of their lives on social-networking sites such as Myspace, their identity should not need the same protection as in the past. Instead only their "essential privacy" or "what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs" should be veiled."
This scares me. Because we, the citizens, are using networking sites on a daily basis, this opens up debate as to whether or not we "deserve" the same level of privacy? The article talks about how the data-sifting takes place. Say for example, a suspected terrorist lives in San Diego. The NSA would begin monitoring that community and collecting and analyzing all electronic communications into and out of the city. If I have a friend who lives in San Diego and I email or call her, my communications would be collected.
I definitely think this article should be read. At this very moment, Congress is debating domestic spying powers and whether or not telecommunications and other companies who hand over information to the FBI and NSA should be immune from liability for assisting government surveillance. It is important we keep abreast on this topic because it affects all of us, you and me, whether or not we realize it.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
ALA Censors Anthony Lewis
I just received a press release from the Indiana Library Federation entitled "ALA Censoring Guest Speaker, Critics Say." Critics are charging that ALA is censoring the comments made by Anthony Lewis at the January conference in Philadelphia. He was a distinguished guest speaker at the event. An important part of his speech was his call for the ALA to defend members of an independent library movement who are imprisoned in Cuba. According the the press release, "In a challenge to government control of information, since 1998 volunteers in Cuba have opened more than 200 libraries offering public access to uncensored books. Following secret police raids and one-day trials, several of the librarians are serving 20-year jail terms. Cuban courts have ordered the burning of book collections seized from the independent libraries."
Anthony Lewis spoke to the audience "I just urge you to not take that lightly. I think there can't be anything worse than putting librarians in prison because of their being librarians and giving people books to read."
Human rights organizations Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and International PEN are demanding the release of the librarians. However, ALA has refused to condemn the repression of librarians in Cuba or the book burning. Since the conference ended, no ALA publication has mentioned Anthony Lewis's speech on the issue even though two ALA journalist were present at the talk. Searching ALA Direct will only link you to articles that are over two years old on the subject.
Robert Kent, a spokesperson for the Friends of Cuban Libraries, states, "It is sadly ironic that zealots within the ALA, an organization which upholds opposition to censorship as its highest ideal, are suppressing comments made by Anthony Lewis at, of all places, an ALA conference. Sadder still, many rank-and file ALA members are completely oblivious to this travesty of justice and the need to restore the ALA's damaged honor and integrity.
I had not heard of this controversy at all until earlier this week when my email was bombarded with these press releases. I am appalled that ALA would not only censor Mr. Lewis's comments but ignore the situation in Cuba altogether. We have been learning in this class the importance of Intellectual Freedom and the good work that ALA does in promoting it. Then I read something like this! Jailed Librarians!!! ALA ignores it?? No record of Lewis's speech made public??? It seems to me that ALA is indeed censoring and this should indeed call in to question the ideals and ethics of the organization. If the public can question the motives and opinions of the ALA, can't librarians do the same??
Anthony Lewis spoke to the audience "I just urge you to not take that lightly. I think there can't be anything worse than putting librarians in prison because of their being librarians and giving people books to read."
Human rights organizations Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and International PEN are demanding the release of the librarians. However, ALA has refused to condemn the repression of librarians in Cuba or the book burning. Since the conference ended, no ALA publication has mentioned Anthony Lewis's speech on the issue even though two ALA journalist were present at the talk. Searching ALA Direct will only link you to articles that are over two years old on the subject.
Robert Kent, a spokesperson for the Friends of Cuban Libraries, states, "It is sadly ironic that zealots within the ALA, an organization which upholds opposition to censorship as its highest ideal, are suppressing comments made by Anthony Lewis at, of all places, an ALA conference. Sadder still, many rank-and file ALA members are completely oblivious to this travesty of justice and the need to restore the ALA's damaged honor and integrity.
I had not heard of this controversy at all until earlier this week when my email was bombarded with these press releases. I am appalled that ALA would not only censor Mr. Lewis's comments but ignore the situation in Cuba altogether. We have been learning in this class the importance of Intellectual Freedom and the good work that ALA does in promoting it. Then I read something like this! Jailed Librarians!!! ALA ignores it?? No record of Lewis's speech made public??? It seems to me that ALA is indeed censoring and this should indeed call in to question the ideals and ethics of the organization. If the public can question the motives and opinions of the ALA, can't librarians do the same??
Monday, March 10, 2008
Talking the Language
I saw this comic in the Journal and Courier and immediately thought of this class. It is something that Professor Ball mentioned on the first day of class; how do we process information best? For some people, they need to read it themselves. My husband is this way. He would much rather read it himself then have me read it aloud. He just can not process the information as quickly if he is not in control of it. I like to read information as well. I find that I pay more attention to commercials on television if there is text to be read. I also like pictures to accompany the text if it is something I must learn to do.
Anyway, this comic illustrates one parent's genius way of getting her child to do his homework. She is using his technology to get to him. Brilliant! More and more I see libraries across the United States using technology to draw the youth into the library. Whether it is for gaming purposes like "Guitar Hero" or online computer classes, the good news is, libraries are talking the language of the youth and getting them in the library. Once they are inside, we can see how many more modes of communication they can handle!
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Social networking sites--Can you be denied graduation?
I have been looking into social networking articles for our fourth wiki posting and read this article in the Chronicle for Higher Education. Unfortunately, the article can not be accessed online without a paid subscription so if you want to read the article I can send you a pdf file. Two years ago Stacy Synder's profile was found on Facebook by the Millersville University of Pennsylvania's administrators. The photograph showed Ms. Snyder "drinking from a yellow plastic cup." Without a judicial hearing, the administration deemed her unfit to become a schoolteacher and denied her an education degree. They did allow her a degree in English instead. Not surprisingly, Ms. Snyder is suing the school stating that her free-speech and due-process rights were violated. I would say I agree with her. (As a side note I have a problem with her being awarded an english degree as if they were saying, "You are not fit to be an educator but you can be a poet, writer, etc. As if drinking and english go hand-in-hand).
I am concerned by this story because I'm not sure that school administrators should be allowed to suspend you or strip away your degree just because they found a photograph of you drinking on a social networking site. While colleges claim they do not actively search these sites (who would have that kind of time or money) students are still at risk every time they update their Facebook or Myspace page.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is backing Ms. Snyder's case and believes that universities are too quick to punish students for what they read on students' blogs or webpages. I will state that students should be more careful about what they put out there for others to see and read. This, again, comes down to the difference people have in the definition of "privacy." While I understand that school administrators might not want to see photographs of underage drinking or partying; it is not something that is shocking by any means. I see no harm in the photograph found of Ms. Snyder (although I base this on what I have read) and feel that stripping her of her degree was unwarranted. Any thoughts?
I am concerned by this story because I'm not sure that school administrators should be allowed to suspend you or strip away your degree just because they found a photograph of you drinking on a social networking site. While colleges claim they do not actively search these sites (who would have that kind of time or money) students are still at risk every time they update their Facebook or Myspace page.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is backing Ms. Snyder's case and believes that universities are too quick to punish students for what they read on students' blogs or webpages. I will state that students should be more careful about what they put out there for others to see and read. This, again, comes down to the difference people have in the definition of "privacy." While I understand that school administrators might not want to see photographs of underage drinking or partying; it is not something that is shocking by any means. I see no harm in the photograph found of Ms. Snyder (although I base this on what I have read) and feel that stripping her of her degree was unwarranted. Any thoughts?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
New Filtering Study
I just saw this article and wanted to at least post it here so you could read it. Since we have been talking about filtering software the last few class periods, I thought you all might be interested to read what the San Jose Public Library found out about filtering software. They are being pressured by a city council member to install the software but the library opposes. After their study they concluded...filtering does not work.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Man Sues Library for $10 Million
Ross Tobia suffers from mental illness and is suing the Memorial Hall Library for $10 million dollars after he was banned from the library for allegedly swearing, yelling, and threatening staff.
He claims his civil rights were violated when the police informed him to stay away from the library or risk arrest. Tobia states, "The library is the bastion of free speech in the nation and as such must be available to all citizens." Tobia was banned on January 11 after he was caught shouting at surveillance cameras, shouting as he threw books in the book drop, and harassed and threatened several staff persons within the library.
Tobia's response to these allegations are that he suffers from epilepsy and bipolar disorder. He sometimes talks to himself and becomes agitated. He claims, however, that he is harmless and that his illnesses should be accommodated in the library. As far as the shouting is concerned, Tobia claims that he had his iPod on when he spoke to library staff and might not have realized he was yelling.
My opinions are torn. On one hand I think that if a patron is repeatedly being disruptive and then threatens library personnel, then that person should definitely be banned from the library. Disruptive behavior does not allow other patrons their right to enjoy the library and all it has to offer. On the other hand, I think too many times patrons with mental illnesses are banned just because it is easier than dealing with them. I also think a lot of library personnel do not know how to interact with the mentally ill and therefore see them automatically as a threat. I suppose this is hard to say which is the right side considering I have never seen this man in action.
It does scare me though when I hear about these types of lawsuits being brought against libraries. It seems it gets harder for the library staff to make decisions about banning when lawsuits like these arise. Remember the man who successfully sued the library for banning him over his smell? I suppose this should prompt libraries to reevaluate their policies and strengthen any wording that is not clearly defined.
He claims his civil rights were violated when the police informed him to stay away from the library or risk arrest. Tobia states, "The library is the bastion of free speech in the nation and as such must be available to all citizens." Tobia was banned on January 11 after he was caught shouting at surveillance cameras, shouting as he threw books in the book drop, and harassed and threatened several staff persons within the library.
Tobia's response to these allegations are that he suffers from epilepsy and bipolar disorder. He sometimes talks to himself and becomes agitated. He claims, however, that he is harmless and that his illnesses should be accommodated in the library. As far as the shouting is concerned, Tobia claims that he had his iPod on when he spoke to library staff and might not have realized he was yelling.
My opinions are torn. On one hand I think that if a patron is repeatedly being disruptive and then threatens library personnel, then that person should definitely be banned from the library. Disruptive behavior does not allow other patrons their right to enjoy the library and all it has to offer. On the other hand, I think too many times patrons with mental illnesses are banned just because it is easier than dealing with them. I also think a lot of library personnel do not know how to interact with the mentally ill and therefore see them automatically as a threat. I suppose this is hard to say which is the right side considering I have never seen this man in action.
It does scare me though when I hear about these types of lawsuits being brought against libraries. It seems it gets harder for the library staff to make decisions about banning when lawsuits like these arise. Remember the man who successfully sued the library for banning him over his smell? I suppose this should prompt libraries to reevaluate their policies and strengthen any wording that is not clearly defined.
Update: The Lecture Will Be Held in Greenwich
On February 14, the library officials for the Greenwich Library agreed to allow Alison Weir, the founder of If Americans Knew, to proceeded with the two scheduled lectures. The lectures are centered around Israeli-Palestinian relations and some members of the community complained. According to Executive Director Mario Gonzalez, "The library does not normally receive complaints on programs that have been held on its grounds, so when numerous complaints came in on this particular program, the library needed to do due diligence and determine what was in the best interest of the public."
After the initial cancellation of Weir's talks, she insisted that it was her constitutional right to deliver her lectures. After receiving numerous complaints from Weir's supporters, the library sought legal counsel and it was affirmed that "although the library is a private non-profit organization, because the town of Greenwich supplies some of the operating budget, the facility is technically a public institution that cannot discriminate over which groups can hold events there."
Weir hopes that the lectures will be still receive attendees since the library already announced that the program "violated public sensibilities."
I, for one, am glad the library chose to let Weir hold her lectures. Even though the library does not endorse her speeches the library should allow her to be heard. Just because some members of the community disagree with her ideals and viewpoints does not mean the entire community feels that way. By not allowing Weir to talk, the library was basically censoring the issue. If the offended members do not want to hear the talk, don't attend. They have no right to deny the next person entry.
After the initial cancellation of Weir's talks, she insisted that it was her constitutional right to deliver her lectures. After receiving numerous complaints from Weir's supporters, the library sought legal counsel and it was affirmed that "although the library is a private non-profit organization, because the town of Greenwich supplies some of the operating budget, the facility is technically a public institution that cannot discriminate over which groups can hold events there."
Weir hopes that the lectures will be still receive attendees since the library already announced that the program "violated public sensibilities."
I, for one, am glad the library chose to let Weir hold her lectures. Even though the library does not endorse her speeches the library should allow her to be heard. Just because some members of the community disagree with her ideals and viewpoints does not mean the entire community feels that way. By not allowing Weir to talk, the library was basically censoring the issue. If the offended members do not want to hear the talk, don't attend. They have no right to deny the next person entry.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Free Speech Issues at Greenwich Library
While reading ALA Direct I came across this article about the Greenwich Library in Greenwich, Connecticut. A group called "If Americans Knew" was scheduled to talk at the public library about issues surrounding the media coverage of the Middle East. The group is very critical of Israel and United States media coverage pertaining to the Middle East. The group claims that the media misinforms Americans on what is really going on.
Greenwich Library officials say that they canceled the group's talk because some residents were complaining. Library officials refer to their policy which states "that the meeting should not be considered offensive to public sensitivity." If this condition is not met then the library can refuse the group or persons from using the meeting room. Another concern of the library is that patrons might think the library endorses the group's line of thinking. Also, library officials did some background checking and found that Alison Weir (of the organization) has been controversial in the past.
Some Greenwich residents are outraged that the library has chosen to cancel the talks. Some are concerned that opposing viewpoints of high profile situations will be censored.
I am wondering what some of you think about this situation. I know that my hometown library has a policy in place that stipulates the regulations and conditions of allowing events in their meeting rooms. I know that they do not allow someone to use the room to recruit for business or a political party. They also do not allow churches and the like to recruit as well. I think this is to make sure that patrons are not falsely thinking that the library endorses these parties, groups, etc.
But should the library have banned these particular talks just because a few of the residents complained? If some of the community did not want to hear the talks then they should just stay at home. Don't go. I don't really see a harm in allowing the group to speak. They were not trying to recruit to their organization or sway votes for something. They were only trying to give a different viewpoint to an ongoing problem. Are we not allowed to disagree with the majority anymore?
Greenwich Library officials say that they canceled the group's talk because some residents were complaining. Library officials refer to their policy which states "that the meeting should not be considered offensive to public sensitivity." If this condition is not met then the library can refuse the group or persons from using the meeting room. Another concern of the library is that patrons might think the library endorses the group's line of thinking. Also, library officials did some background checking and found that Alison Weir (of the organization) has been controversial in the past.
Some Greenwich residents are outraged that the library has chosen to cancel the talks. Some are concerned that opposing viewpoints of high profile situations will be censored.
I am wondering what some of you think about this situation. I know that my hometown library has a policy in place that stipulates the regulations and conditions of allowing events in their meeting rooms. I know that they do not allow someone to use the room to recruit for business or a political party. They also do not allow churches and the like to recruit as well. I think this is to make sure that patrons are not falsely thinking that the library endorses these parties, groups, etc.
But should the library have banned these particular talks just because a few of the residents complained? If some of the community did not want to hear the talks then they should just stay at home. Don't go. I don't really see a harm in allowing the group to speak. They were not trying to recruit to their organization or sway votes for something. They were only trying to give a different viewpoint to an ongoing problem. Are we not allowed to disagree with the majority anymore?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Amy Winehouse Banned by U.S.
I don't know about you but I simply adore Amy Winehouse. Sure, she has her problems with drugs, attracting and dating the wrong men, marrying the wrong guy, and becoming a wild child but she isn't doing anything that most musicians have not done at least once. This is why I think it is utterly ridiculous for the United States to ban her from entering the country so she could perform at the Grammy Awards. Regardless of whether or not she goes to rehab, she earned those nominations with her powerhouse voice and awesome songwriting ability. She deserves to be there just as much as the next person. Hell, how many of the performers that night won't be raging drunk at some point? Who remembers back in the early 1990's when Guns N' Roses were so drunk that they stumbled on to the stage used the "f-word" a few dozen times on live television? They were not banned from ever returning. The worst that happened was that the live show had to have a delay before it reached the television-viewing audience in case obscenities ever flew out of mouths again.
Why ban her when we allowed BritneySpears to perform a few months ago even after she flashed her privates, acted like an insane person, put her children's lives in jeopardy, and made bad hairstyle decisions. Are we saying that, "yeah, you can drive around with your toddler on your lap but if you do a little pot and get arrested for it in Norway we have to ban you." Mel Gibson gets drunk, drives his car and then makes racial slurs against the Jewish community and people just lined up to forgive him. Is it because he is American and Amy Winehouse is not? How can we attack Amy Winehouse for her personal life and her decisions and not other celebrities? How do we determine their value and worth? Who gets to make those decisions because who gets in and who doesn't is not a balanced equation.
I think Amy's personal troubles should be left out of the decision to let her perform. The Grammy committee thought it was alright to nominate her and she was no different then than she is right now. Is this what it is coming to? We base whether or not the world can see you on whether or not we agree with your actions? I think this is the same thing with books and authors. We can not ban a book simply because we disagree with the author's lifestyle or personal opinions because those viewpoints are not necessarily in the book's overall theme. Same with music. Sure, part of the artist will be in the work but we can not ban someone from performing it just because they lead a different lifestyle than us.
I am wondering what the rest of you think about this.
Why ban her when we allowed BritneySpears to perform a few months ago even after she flashed her privates, acted like an insane person, put her children's lives in jeopardy, and made bad hairstyle decisions. Are we saying that, "yeah, you can drive around with your toddler on your lap but if you do a little pot and get arrested for it in Norway we have to ban you." Mel Gibson gets drunk, drives his car and then makes racial slurs against the Jewish community and people just lined up to forgive him. Is it because he is American and Amy Winehouse is not? How can we attack Amy Winehouse for her personal life and her decisions and not other celebrities? How do we determine their value and worth? Who gets to make those decisions because who gets in and who doesn't is not a balanced equation.
I think Amy's personal troubles should be left out of the decision to let her perform. The Grammy committee thought it was alright to nominate her and she was no different then than she is right now. Is this what it is coming to? We base whether or not the world can see you on whether or not we agree with your actions? I think this is the same thing with books and authors. We can not ban a book simply because we disagree with the author's lifestyle or personal opinions because those viewpoints are not necessarily in the book's overall theme. Same with music. Sure, part of the artist will be in the work but we can not ban someone from performing it just because they lead a different lifestyle than us.
I am wondering what the rest of you think about this.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Open Access Benefits for Students
I came across this interesting article entitled, "The Right to Research highlights Open Access benefits for students. SPARC ( the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) have started an initiative to get students more interested in open access for information. According to the article, The Right to Research:
For more information on the subject, the following website is helpful: http://www.arl.org/sparc/students
I personally think this is a great idea. I know that sometimes subscription-only models can be very expensive and a library might not be able to afford the costs. This would be a great alternative to allow students continued access to pertinent research information.
- helps students recognize the problem of access.
- introduces the principle of open access, making a clear distinction between the principle and the ways open access is being realized (through open access journals, repositories, copyright management, and policies).
- indicates how open access can make an easier time for research by widening the access for those who need it.
- offers ways to support open access for both undergraduate and graduate students.
For more information on the subject, the following website is helpful: http://www.arl.org/sparc/students
I personally think this is a great idea. I know that sometimes subscription-only models can be very expensive and a library might not be able to afford the costs. This would be a great alternative to allow students continued access to pertinent research information.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Compass Points Back to Shelf!
In an article posted in the Calgary Herald today, The Golden Compass finds its home among the other books on the shelf among the Calgary Catholic School District. It was two months ago that the books were removed due to concerns over the book's anti-religious themes. An official review of the book was taken and after careful consideration, the school board decided that even though the text "is harsh in terms of its language about organized religion and that it presents a consistently negative view of the church, clergy, and faith-based institutions; however, there are glimpses of light with opportunities for positive reflection." This was quoted by the review.
There is still some were are upset that the school made the decision to pull the book off the shelf during the review process. I tend to agree that the book should have remained on the shelf and available until a judgment had been made (innocent into proven guilty) but at least the book is back!!
The review board urges all teachers to use instruction guides when teaching the book to classrooms and to pay attention to the questions that are raised by students. This same principle should apply to parents as well. Pay attention to what the children ask!
I am hoping that since the book was returned to its rightful place, that students will not only read the book closely but analyze the material and think about the issues surrounding the book. What better way to fight censorship then to read and interpret that which has been challenged!
There is still some were are upset that the school made the decision to pull the book off the shelf during the review process. I tend to agree that the book should have remained on the shelf and available until a judgment had been made (innocent into proven guilty) but at least the book is back!!
The review board urges all teachers to use instruction guides when teaching the book to classrooms and to pay attention to the questions that are raised by students. This same principle should apply to parents as well. Pay attention to what the children ask!
I am hoping that since the book was returned to its rightful place, that students will not only read the book closely but analyze the material and think about the issues surrounding the book. What better way to fight censorship then to read and interpret that which has been challenged!
Will AT & T Go "1984?"
In an article entitled "Has AT&T Lost Its Mind?", AT&T announced that it is seriously thinking about implementing plans that would monitor Internet traffic. The plan would crack down on supposed copyright infringement. AT&T plans to block certain information that it deems infringes copyright laws. The problem with this whole idea is that in order for this plan to even work properly, it will have to block everything including material that is in no violation at all!
Another issue to consider is whether or not this type of plan is even legal. According to the article, carriers have always avoided liability for what happens on their lines. By implementing this type of plan, AT&T could be opening itself up to many, many copyright infringement lawsuits. It isn't surprising to hear that other Internet providers are NOT in unison on this "copyright" plan. At best, these other providers will be picking up old AT&T customers left and right.
I'm not sure about you but I for one think this is a horrible idea. How does AT&T really plan to view all Internet content before it hits the viewer? How does it plan to scan all Internet sites that exist and are being created this very moment? It seems like a big waste of resources, money-wise and staff-wise when they could be using these resources to help speed up Internet access.
All I know is that if I were an AT&T customer and this plan went in to effect, I would seek out another provider. Immediately. I don't need my Internet provider making judgment calls for me as to what I should be allowed to view or download.
Another issue to consider is whether or not this type of plan is even legal. According to the article, carriers have always avoided liability for what happens on their lines. By implementing this type of plan, AT&T could be opening itself up to many, many copyright infringement lawsuits. It isn't surprising to hear that other Internet providers are NOT in unison on this "copyright" plan. At best, these other providers will be picking up old AT&T customers left and right.
I'm not sure about you but I for one think this is a horrible idea. How does AT&T really plan to view all Internet content before it hits the viewer? How does it plan to scan all Internet sites that exist and are being created this very moment? It seems like a big waste of resources, money-wise and staff-wise when they could be using these resources to help speed up Internet access.
All I know is that if I were an AT&T customer and this plan went in to effect, I would seek out another provider. Immediately. I don't need my Internet provider making judgment calls for me as to what I should be allowed to view or download.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Myspace Agrees to Fight Sex Predators
In an article published in the New York times, myspace has agreed with attorneys general "in 49 states to take new steps to protect children from sexual predators on its site." It will also develop new technology to help verify ages and identities of Internet users.
I applaud the steps they are taking to protect children against predators seeking them out on the site but I question what methods they will be using to secure the identities of the Internet users. I wonder what kind of information will be harvested and what will be done with this information. While I won't argue that there are sexual predators out there stalking children on myspace, there are also thousands of people who use the site for communicating with friends for legitimate reasons. I don't want my information harvested to only be compromised later on. I fear that when this information gets stored, it can be passed off to something else for "security reasons" and my information is floating around in cyberspace for anyone to fish out.
According to Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Attorney General, the steps in the new agreement will "separate children's profiles from those of adults and to seek ways to verify users ages." Myspace will also lead a task force to find ways to verify ages and online identities and report their finding back to the attorneys general.
Myspace plans to install safeguards that would "require an adult user to prove that he or she knows the child user in order to contact that child, for instance by typing in an address or phone number." This will work great if children are honest about their ages, addresses, and phone numbers when they set up accounts. That's one of the draws to using an Internet profile, you can be whoever you want. I'm not sure all these safeguards will be as effective as they hope they will. I think the best course of action is still for parents to TALK to their children about Internet usage, sexual predators, online environments, and social networking. Having open communication between children and parents is one way to help safeguard children from Internet harm.
I applaud the steps they are taking to protect children against predators seeking them out on the site but I question what methods they will be using to secure the identities of the Internet users. I wonder what kind of information will be harvested and what will be done with this information. While I won't argue that there are sexual predators out there stalking children on myspace, there are also thousands of people who use the site for communicating with friends for legitimate reasons. I don't want my information harvested to only be compromised later on. I fear that when this information gets stored, it can be passed off to something else for "security reasons" and my information is floating around in cyberspace for anyone to fish out.
According to Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Attorney General, the steps in the new agreement will "separate children's profiles from those of adults and to seek ways to verify users ages." Myspace will also lead a task force to find ways to verify ages and online identities and report their finding back to the attorneys general.
Myspace plans to install safeguards that would "require an adult user to prove that he or she knows the child user in order to contact that child, for instance by typing in an address or phone number." This will work great if children are honest about their ages, addresses, and phone numbers when they set up accounts. That's one of the draws to using an Internet profile, you can be whoever you want. I'm not sure all these safeguards will be as effective as they hope they will. I think the best course of action is still for parents to TALK to their children about Internet usage, sexual predators, online environments, and social networking. Having open communication between children and parents is one way to help safeguard children from Internet harm.
In Dallas, Porn is a regular sight
I found this article while reading the ALA Libraries Direct email. It appears that some patrons are finding that viewing hard-core porn is as easy as getting a library card. A survey was compiled during a 45 minute period to see how many pornographic sites were accessed. It showed more than 5.200 web pages depicting nudity, sex, and other sexual acts. And for the patrons who walked past the open computer screens, well, some of them are not happy.
Dallas City Officials have agreed to launch an investigation into this matter. Mayor Tom Leppert was quoted stating, "We want people to come to our libraries and use them for traditional reasons. Viewing this material--it's clearly not what the computers in the library are there for."
I wonder what definition of "traditional" he is referring to? Traditional meaning "informational needs" regardless of what it is? Accessing the Internet to find information related to his specific needs?
I understand the uproar over open viewing of pornography. I certainly would not want my nine year-old niece sitting next to someone watching sex videos. The problem is, pornography is not illegal and while I might not agree with the subject matter being viewed, I can not have that person arrested for it. They have a right to come to the library and fullfill their informational needs.
I think a solution rests in redesigning the computer lab. Recessed screens for privacy would help this matter greatly. This way individuals can view those type websites without patrons strolling past knowing what is on the screen. I think even a youth computer lab would be beneficial as well. So if parents in the community really push for filtering and blocking software, it can be arranged on those computers available to youth under the age of eighteen. This might be a fair compromise.
So far the representative from the library stated "We don't think filtering is the answer because of the reasons the American Library Association has outlined."
Dallas, like other cities across the nation, are struggling with how to address Internet access. Taxpayers in some cities have launched huge campaigns to stop funding if filters and blocking software are not added to protect the innocent. They feel strongly that tax dollars should not be spent to allow people to view pornography on library computers. This is indeed an interesting time to be studying Intellectual Freedom. While the library must stand up for the Library Bill of Rights and equal access to everyone, it must also remain operating which can become difficult when the funding is not made available to them over conflicts and moral standings.
Dallas City Officials have agreed to launch an investigation into this matter. Mayor Tom Leppert was quoted stating, "We want people to come to our libraries and use them for traditional reasons. Viewing this material--it's clearly not what the computers in the library are there for."
I wonder what definition of "traditional" he is referring to? Traditional meaning "informational needs" regardless of what it is? Accessing the Internet to find information related to his specific needs?
I understand the uproar over open viewing of pornography. I certainly would not want my nine year-old niece sitting next to someone watching sex videos. The problem is, pornography is not illegal and while I might not agree with the subject matter being viewed, I can not have that person arrested for it. They have a right to come to the library and fullfill their informational needs.
I think a solution rests in redesigning the computer lab. Recessed screens for privacy would help this matter greatly. This way individuals can view those type websites without patrons strolling past knowing what is on the screen. I think even a youth computer lab would be beneficial as well. So if parents in the community really push for filtering and blocking software, it can be arranged on those computers available to youth under the age of eighteen. This might be a fair compromise.
So far the representative from the library stated "We don't think filtering is the answer because of the reasons the American Library Association has outlined."
Dallas, like other cities across the nation, are struggling with how to address Internet access. Taxpayers in some cities have launched huge campaigns to stop funding if filters and blocking software are not added to protect the innocent. They feel strongly that tax dollars should not be spent to allow people to view pornography on library computers. This is indeed an interesting time to be studying Intellectual Freedom. While the library must stand up for the Library Bill of Rights and equal access to everyone, it must also remain operating which can become difficult when the funding is not made available to them over conflicts and moral standings.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Intellectual Freedom Seminar
This is my first attempt at blogging so it might take me awhile to get the hang of it. This blog is required for my SLIS 640 class for Intellectual Freedom. This is a very hot topic and one that I discussed frequently when I worked on the back reference desk at my local library. The back desk is in charge of monitoring the adult computer lab. What separates the adult lab from the children's lab is that it is not filtered. Because of this, young people who are under the age of eighteen are not allowed to use the lab unless their parent or legal guardian signs a waiver giving them permission.
Seems easy enough. No. The biggest problem we had was children stealing other people's cards to gain access to the lab. Most of the weekend work days were spent checking sign-in numbers against the age of the person registered to the card. It could sometimes be a complete nightmare when children, especially teenagers, would cause a huge scene and threaten some of the librarians. I never knew Internet access could insight such rage!!
The other problem we frequently ran in to was because the lab was unfiltered, some patrons would get in their daily dose of porn. Inevitably, some other patron would catch a glimpse of the porn riddled screen and come storming out to speak to a librarian and formalize a complaint. That was always fun explaining to those patrons that looking at porn was not illegal (as long as it was not child pornography) and that the lab was unfiltered and the porn patron had a right to look at it.
I am excited about this class because these issues are extremely important. Also, I hope to become a sort of wiz at blogging!
Seems easy enough. No. The biggest problem we had was children stealing other people's cards to gain access to the lab. Most of the weekend work days were spent checking sign-in numbers against the age of the person registered to the card. It could sometimes be a complete nightmare when children, especially teenagers, would cause a huge scene and threaten some of the librarians. I never knew Internet access could insight such rage!!
The other problem we frequently ran in to was because the lab was unfiltered, some patrons would get in their daily dose of porn. Inevitably, some other patron would catch a glimpse of the porn riddled screen and come storming out to speak to a librarian and formalize a complaint. That was always fun explaining to those patrons that looking at porn was not illegal (as long as it was not child pornography) and that the lab was unfiltered and the porn patron had a right to look at it.
I am excited about this class because these issues are extremely important. Also, I hope to become a sort of wiz at blogging!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)