For the Internet competency I found the website of the National Coalition Against Censorship through the Google search engine (click on hyperlink to be taken to homepage). The NCAC is made up of 50 national not-for-profit organizations that have joined together in the interest of protecting First Amendment rights. At this site, a user may find news, resources and suggestions for dealing with censorship
I chose this website for my blog partly because of its comprehensive nature - many areas of censorship are addressed by the coalition, including internet, film, visual arts, libraries, science, etc. For example, note the variation and scope of these articles listed on the News page:
"Diabetes Drug Maker Covered Up Health Risks for 11 years"
"Song of Solomon retained in Indiana AP English Classes"
"BP hinders measurement of rate of oil flowing into Gulf of Mexico"
I also chose this website because of the information it offers on how to organize locally, regionally and nationally in the fight against censorship. There are practical tips on how to deal with people who censor, such as writing letters to newspapers and public officials and attending board meetings. These tips are a valuable resource for librarians working in any type of library.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Multimedia competency
*Graph is undersized in order to make it fit in its entirety on the blog; click on the graph for full-size image.
I chose to display this graph on my blog as a visual example of the reasons that are cited when books are challenged. The graph is based on the 10, 415 challenges made against books that are currently on file with the American Library Association (ALA). According the graph, the top three reasons for challenging books are sexuality, language, and unsuitability for a certain age group.
Source of image - American Library Association website
URL - http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengesbytype/index.cfm
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Database competency
The purpose of this competency is to test four different searching strategies using four different databases. For the purposes of this assignment, I searched for information on filtering/censoring internet use in public libraries.
Building block approach - Academic Search Complete
This approach begins with separate concept searches and then combines the resulting sets using Boolean operators. I used the * symbol for truncation purposes where appropriate.
I divided the query into three concept searches:
S1: public librar* (35,136 hits)
S2: internet use (2,658 hits)
S3: filter* (81, 601 hits)
S4: S1 + S2+ S3 (15 hits)
Relevant hit:
Ayre, Lori Bowen. 2004. Internet Use Policies. Library Technology Reports 40, no. 2: 64-76.
This search method was effective - separately, the searches retrieved an overwhelming amount of hits but the combination of sets retrieved a manageable amount of relevant results.
Snowball approach – WorldCat
This approach relies on the user to modify successive searches based on the results of previous searches until the user is satisfied.
S1: internet use (1910 hits)
S2: S1 + filter* (86 hits)
S3: Database prompted subject search of internet / public libraries (1308 hits)
S4: S3 + polic* (27 hits)
First hit:
Carson, B. M. 2003. Legally Speaking — “To Filter or Not to Filter: That is the Question:” A Brief Discussion of Internet Use Policies. Against the Grain 15, no. 4: 86-90.
The database was helpful in suggesting subject searches. A manageable amount of relevant results was retrieved.
Most specific facet first approach – JStor
This approach, applied to multiple concept searches, begins with the most specific term that should take the least amount of time to be processed.
S1: Internet use (41, 210 hits)
S2: Public librar*(63,186 hits)
S3: filter*(185,322 hits)
Most relevant hit:
Kreimer, Seth F. 2006. Censorship by Proxy: The First Amendment, Internet Intermediaries, and the Problem of the Weakest Link. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 155, no. 1: 11-101.
Predictably, the number of hits returned increased as the search terms became less specific. The sheer number of results returned show that this not an effective search strategy for the query.
Successive Fraction Approach – Project Muse
This approach is the opposite of the snowball approach and starts with a broad concept which is then narrowed by applying various limiting techniques.
S1 – filter* (5697 hits)
S2 – (Web OR Internet) filter* (1500 hits)
S3 – (Web OR Internet) filter* AND public librar* NOT academic (319 hits)
S4 - To get even fewer results, I clicked “modify search” and added the parameters of year (2000-2010) and discipline (Library Science and Publishing). This search netted 10 hits.
Most relevant article:
Preer, Jean L. 2004. Libraries, Museums, and Archives: Legal and Ethical Challenges in the New Information Era (review). Libraries and the Academy 4, no. 1: 155-157.
This approach is effective as it allows the user to increasingly narrow the search and stop once the results are satisfactory. It was helpful to be able to narrow the search by non-subject attributes as well as with Boolean operators.
Conclusion
There seems to be some amount of overlap with all of the searches and it is somewhat hard to completely distinguish one from another. I had the most success with building block approach and the successive fraction approach and the least success with the most specific facet first approach. The building block approach felt the most comfortable. The WorldCat database provided the most assistance during the search with subject heading suggestions and many limiting fields. LexisNexis also provided "Results Groups" for easier browsing of results. JStor and Project Muse appeared to be more basic databases without the same level of sophisticated searching.
Building block approach - Academic Search Complete
This approach begins with separate concept searches and then combines the resulting sets using Boolean operators. I used the * symbol for truncation purposes where appropriate.
I divided the query into three concept searches:
S1: public librar* (35,136 hits)
S2: internet use (2,658 hits)
S3: filter* (81, 601 hits)
S4: S1 + S2+ S3 (15 hits)
Relevant hit:
Ayre, Lori Bowen. 2004. Internet Use Policies. Library Technology Reports 40, no. 2: 64-76.
This search method was effective - separately, the searches retrieved an overwhelming amount of hits but the combination of sets retrieved a manageable amount of relevant results.
Snowball approach – WorldCat
This approach relies on the user to modify successive searches based on the results of previous searches until the user is satisfied.
S1: internet use (1910 hits)
S2: S1 + filter* (86 hits)
S3: Database prompted subject search of internet / public libraries (1308 hits)
S4: S3 + polic* (27 hits)
First hit:
Carson, B. M. 2003. Legally Speaking — “To Filter or Not to Filter: That is the Question:” A Brief Discussion of Internet Use Policies. Against the Grain 15, no. 4: 86-90.
The database was helpful in suggesting subject searches. A manageable amount of relevant results was retrieved.
Most specific facet first approach – JStor
This approach, applied to multiple concept searches, begins with the most specific term that should take the least amount of time to be processed.
S1: Internet use (41, 210 hits)
S2: Public librar*(63,186 hits)
S3: filter*(185,322 hits)
Most relevant hit:
Kreimer, Seth F. 2006. Censorship by Proxy: The First Amendment, Internet Intermediaries, and the Problem of the Weakest Link. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 155, no. 1: 11-101.
Predictably, the number of hits returned increased as the search terms became less specific. The sheer number of results returned show that this not an effective search strategy for the query.
Successive Fraction Approach – Project Muse
This approach is the opposite of the snowball approach and starts with a broad concept which is then narrowed by applying various limiting techniques.
S1 – filter* (5697 hits)
S2 – (Web OR Internet) filter* (1500 hits)
S3 – (Web OR Internet) filter* AND public librar* NOT academic (319 hits)
S4 - To get even fewer results, I clicked “modify search” and added the parameters of year (2000-2010) and discipline (Library Science and Publishing). This search netted 10 hits.
Most relevant article:
Preer, Jean L. 2004. Libraries, Museums, and Archives: Legal and Ethical Challenges in the New Information Era (review). Libraries and the Academy 4, no. 1: 155-157.
This approach is effective as it allows the user to increasingly narrow the search and stop once the results are satisfactory. It was helpful to be able to narrow the search by non-subject attributes as well as with Boolean operators.
Conclusion
There seems to be some amount of overlap with all of the searches and it is somewhat hard to completely distinguish one from another. I had the most success with building block approach and the successive fraction approach and the least success with the most specific facet first approach. The building block approach felt the most comfortable. The WorldCat database provided the most assistance during the search with subject heading suggestions and many limiting fields. LexisNexis also provided "Results Groups" for easier browsing of results. JStor and Project Muse appeared to be more basic databases without the same level of sophisticated searching.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Tagging
For the tagging competency I chose the book The Limits of Tolerance by Ann Curry.
This book is a valuable resource in helping library personnel better understand current debates on intellectual property rights and freedom of information. It contains the results of a survey conducted by the author about librarians' attitudes towards material selection. The author analyzes different factors, such as political pressures and personal beliefs, that play into librarians' decisions about censorship. She also includes helpful tips for managing complaints from persons and organizations offended by the inclusion or exclusion of materials from a library collection.
Following are the tags for this book from librarything.com:
interfuture (1), lefty (1), library (1)
To this list I would add the tags:
intellectual freedom, censorship, librarianship, material selection, librarians
http://www.librarything.com/work/8361622
This book is a valuable resource in helping library personnel better understand current debates on intellectual property rights and freedom of information. It contains the results of a survey conducted by the author about librarians' attitudes towards material selection. The author analyzes different factors, such as political pressures and personal beliefs, that play into librarians' decisions about censorship. She also includes helpful tips for managing complaints from persons and organizations offended by the inclusion or exclusion of materials from a library collection.
Following are the tags for this book from librarything.com:
interfuture (1), lefty (1), library (1)
To this list I would add the tags:
intellectual freedom, censorship, librarianship, material selection, librarians
http://www.librarything.com/work/8361622
Friday, July 9, 2010
RSS feed - PLA
The RSS feed of the Public Library Association - a division of the American Library Association - has been added to this blog.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Censorship podcast
Here is a very brief podcast from First Amendment Minute called "Banning Books" that describes censorship in action. I found this podcast through a Google search for "podcast index" which lead me to a page called "Podcast Alley" where I did a subject search for "censorship." I chose this podcast to show a real example of censorship at libraries as well as to share one side's opinion about censorship.
First Amendment Minute podcast: "Banning Books"
First Amendment Minute podcast: "Banning Books"
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Censorship: no one can agree
Through a Google search I discovered a blog called Censorship-Free Libraries, a site "dedicated to free speech and equal access in public libraries." Here is a passage from the blog which explains why censorship is such a troublesome issue for public libraries:
"One of the things that causes confusion in debates about library censorship is that there is no nationwide standard for defining what is illegally obscene, let alone who can or cannot distribute, display, or receive such materials. When it comes to obscenity and public libraries, it is quite possible, even common, that a specific item that is illegal in one jurisdiction is perfectly legal in another."
The blogger goes on to note that the only exception to this is child pornography, which is illegal everywhere under Federal law. Yet other subjects found offensive by many people - violence, drug use, sexual content - must be regulated by each individual library, which is then responsible to enforce and defend its censorship policies. This often puts library staff in a tough position as they feel the need to both adhere to censorship policies as well as placate the patrons whose tax dollars keep the library afloat.
"One of the things that causes confusion in debates about library censorship is that there is no nationwide standard for defining what is illegally obscene, let alone who can or cannot distribute, display, or receive such materials. When it comes to obscenity and public libraries, it is quite possible, even common, that a specific item that is illegal in one jurisdiction is perfectly legal in another."
The blogger goes on to note that the only exception to this is child pornography, which is illegal everywhere under Federal law. Yet other subjects found offensive by many people - violence, drug use, sexual content - must be regulated by each individual library, which is then responsible to enforce and defend its censorship policies. This often puts library staff in a tough position as they feel the need to both adhere to censorship policies as well as placate the patrons whose tax dollars keep the library afloat.
To censor or not to censor...
The purpose of this blog is to satisfy a requirement for a master's level graduate class on information organization and retrieval. This blog will give me space in which to explore technologies associated with information, information systems, information storage and information retrieval.
The topic of this blog is censorship and its place in libraries. Should libraries act as censors? Who (if anyone) should decide censorship guidelines? Who (if anyone) should enforce them, and how? These are questions I hope to explore throughout the semester. I am primarily interested in censorship issues in public libraries, although I hope to explore censorship issues dealt with in school libraries as well.
The topic of this blog is censorship and its place in libraries. Should libraries act as censors? Who (if anyone) should decide censorship guidelines? Who (if anyone) should enforce them, and how? These are questions I hope to explore throughout the semester. I am primarily interested in censorship issues in public libraries, although I hope to explore censorship issues dealt with in school libraries as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)