Great Debates.

Navigation: Main page

Author: Padgett, Lauree lpadgett@infotoday.com

I know I'm in the minority, but I love to get into heated discussions with people who may not share my point of view (political, religious, or anything in between). I'll talk about anything from who's the best NCAA men's basketball player this year (Duke's J. J. Redick, by far!) to what film should win the Oscar for Best Picture.

It's not a matter of proving myself right or someone else wrong. I just like being able to go head-to-head with someone who isn't going to back down from what he/she believes just because I don't agree with him/her. The articles I'm highlighting this month from Computers in Libraries, ONLINE, and Searcher all tackle topics that people don't see eye-to-eye on. But don't shy away; read them and maybe you'll get a few new points to ponder. You might not change your mind, but you may still learn something.

Not all libraries feel the same way about whether to give patrons wireless Internet access or, if so, how to do it, "Four Commandments for Writing Policies for Public-Access Wireless Networks" by Michael Sauers (CIL, March, pp. 16-18, 20) may help your library corral a range of opinions into a user policy everyone can agree upon.

Sauers provides the components of a policy set up by the Smoky Hill branch of the Arapahoe Library District (ALD) in Colorado as a model, which he considers to cover all relevant points in a well-written, user-friendly manner. (You can check out the entire policy at http://www.arapahoelibraries.org/FamilyOfSites/InternetAccess.cfm.) Why does Sauers think the ALD policy is worth emulating? The policy's introduction explains how simple it is for a patron to use his or her laptop at the library and clearly identifies the technical requirements for connecting to the library's Wi-Fi system. The policy does not attempt to provide detailed instructions for any of the multiple combinations of devices a user might need to accomplish the Wi-Fi connection.

Next, the policy moves on to its disclaimer section, which deals primarily with service limitations and security concerns. Every library's design and building materials will be different, which means the "hotspot" and "dead" areas will be different. Don't make your patrons guess where they can and can't pick up access. Spell it out for them.

Also spell out whether a patron using the library's Wi-Fi must also follow the library's Internet access rules. (The consensus is that since the patron is using your library and your connection, he should adhere to your rules.) Another point to consider: How far does your signal reach, and if people can sit outside the physical building and still access the signal, do you care?

Finally, Sauers says, your policy should clearly describe security concerns. Make sure your patrons understand that Wi-Fi access is not secure. Also make sure patrons understand that your staff will only provide limited computer assistance and that the library disavows responsibility for patron data and hardware.

Perfectly illustrating the point that sometimes our perspectives differ based on experience, the March/April issue of ONLINE has taken a multipronged approach to the very hot and often volatile topic of Google Book Search. Editor Marydee Ojala presents an introduction ("Reviewing Google Book Search," pp. 12-14) that outlines the search capabilities of Google Book Search, explaining how initial results are displayed, how a user views book pages, and what happens when a book is in copyright or out-of-print, Ojala also points out a few "unknowns," such as how many books are in Google's database or exactly how Google's ranking algorithms work.

With the intro finished, Ojala turns over the Book Search debate to an author, an editor, and a reference librarian. Not surprisingly, each one has a different take on the subject.

In "An Author Looks at Google Book Search" (pp. 15-17), Michael Banks wrote that "as a nonfiction book writer, I'm less than enthusiastic about the service for two reasons: First, Google Book Search is using copyrighted material for profit without paying for it. Second, and more upsetting, Google Book Search dissuades its users from buying certain kinds of nonfiction books." Banks looks at how in the music industry the ASCAP and broadcasters work harmoniously, suggesting that Google should pay for the right to use copyrighted works in the same way broadcasters do. He also takes Google to task for what he sees as its "Don't Buy This Book" stand regarding nonfiction books.

K. Matthew Dames is as supportive of Google Book Search as Banks is against it, and he criticizes library representative organizations (LROs) for remaining "eerily silent on digitization copyright issues at a time when they desperately need to be vocal." In his piece, "Library Organizations Should Support Google Book Search" (pp. 18-19), Dames quotes a white paper by Jonathan Band, legal counsel for the Library Copyright Alliance, who opines that Google's activity falls within the fair use doctrine and challenges LROs to get in the game and advocate Google Book Search.

How does Ronald Reagan fit into this deliberation? Well, I'll tell you. David Dillard uses our 40th president's penchant for a chewy candy in "Librarians, Jelly Beans, and Google Book Search" (pp. 20-21) to show why he's another Book Search believer--it's because of its ability to enable research librarians "to find topical content in the far corners of one or more monographs." Dillard presents a few examples from the 90 pages he found of books containing commentary on Reagan's affection for jelly beans and celebrates the enhanced access offered to specialized content through Book Search.

In her Searcher article "Wikipedia and Britannica: The Kid's All Right (And So's the Old Man)" (March, pp. 16-26), Paula Berinstein focuses on the central question that concerns info pros: reliability. "Can the 'public' concoct and maintain a free, authoritative encyclopedia that's unbiased, complex, and reliable?" She addresses this question through a number of angles--the contributors to both Wikipedia and Britannica and each site's audience, missions, and scopes--while studying the process each site undergoes.

Sprinkled liberally throughout her article is extensive commentary by Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia leader and co-founder, and Tom Panelas, Britannica's director of corporate communications. It's no shocker that each man is passionate about why his product is superior. Still, their words and points of view help the reader to get a better feel of what makes these two services so different.

Berinstein does a good job of giving equal time to each service, showing the positives and the flaws of each. In the end, in her mind, the choice between Wikipedia and Britannica comes down to a case of apples and oranges. It's more a matter of what a user needs than one site being the hands-down winner over the other. But thanks to Berinstein, readers should at least know exactly what each service does and does not provide before they decide which one will, in most cases, best serve their needs.

I loved my debate class in high school. Sadly, debating is becoming a lost art. Nowadays, we don't debate--we yell and we scream. We have no patience for those who think differently than we do, and we dismiss anyone who isn't on the same page as we are.

The only way we can really grow, though, is to expose ourselves to alternative ideas and concepts. So, my challenge to you is to brush up on your reasoning tactics and find someone who isn't your viewpoint clone, pick a juicy topic, and go at it. Argue your case, but remember to show respect for the other person's side of things. I bet you'll both walk away with a new perspective.

Send your comments about this column to it letters@infotoday.com.

~~~~~~~~

By Lauree Padgett

Lauree Padgett is Information Today, Inc.'s manager of editorial services. Her e-mail is lpadgett@infotoday.com.