Ahoy-hoy. I apologize to all for the belatedness of my blogging. Where I live there is a radio personality named the Common Man who likes to brag that he offers the first day's take on the third day, and I'll be following in that tradition, at least this week. I chose the moniker "Alcibiades" for no other reason than that he was an interesting guy who lived in interesting times, and I've always been fascinated by him. As far as I know, he had no library connection, per se, but I'm sure he would have been in favor of libraries, or at least not overtly opposed to them. I've chosen not to use my real name, mostly because I plan to say a lot of offensive things and I do not want to face any ugly consequences.
That last part was probably a joke, but who knows? Not old Alcibiades, that's for sure.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Introduction
Hi Everyone, My name is Amy and I am not a fan of blogging and do not know how to really work one so bear with me throughout the semester and I try my hand at this. I can't be described as tech-savvy at all and usually need step by step instructions on how to use even photo editing software. Anyways, I'm in my second to last semester of the SLIS Master's program. I can't wait to be done with school so that I can actually have some free time to myself! I am taking three courses this semester as well as working almost full time and being involved in my brother's wedding in October. I work as an Assistant Children's Manager at a small town library in Illinois. A lot of my suggestions and ideas hit a brick wall and so my job is very frustrating for me. But back to the actual topic at hand....
Library Ethics!
John Stuart Mill poses the question of "should people be allowed to coerce or limit anyone's expression of opinion?" I would have to say NO. In my opinion (and probably most of yours), I feel that everyone has the freedom to their own opinion and you may agree or disagree with that opinion but you have no right to tell them that they are wrong for thinking the way they do. I also feel that Mill has something with his Utilitarian belief of the fact that we are more likely to acquire true beliefs if there is no censorship and that this leads to overall happiness. People are happy when they have all of the information presented to them. No one likes to be in the dark about a subject they are asked about. And how many times have we had an argument with someone who had no idea what they were talking about? This is why we need libraries and librarians! To show them all of the facts so that they can make an "informed opinion".
Also in Fallis' article, there was an ethical dilemma presented that stuck out to me. Can we tell police officers what patrons are reading? To me, this is not a dilemma at all since that goes against all of our privacy laws. We can't even tell a patron's spouse what they are reading, let alone a complete stranger (officer or not). Legally, we can't even tell an officer if we have seen a convicted felon in the library. Why would we tell him what that person is reading?
I can't wait to read all of your opinions!
Library Ethics!
John Stuart Mill poses the question of "should people be allowed to coerce or limit anyone's expression of opinion?" I would have to say NO. In my opinion (and probably most of yours), I feel that everyone has the freedom to their own opinion and you may agree or disagree with that opinion but you have no right to tell them that they are wrong for thinking the way they do. I also feel that Mill has something with his Utilitarian belief of the fact that we are more likely to acquire true beliefs if there is no censorship and that this leads to overall happiness. People are happy when they have all of the information presented to them. No one likes to be in the dark about a subject they are asked about. And how many times have we had an argument with someone who had no idea what they were talking about? This is why we need libraries and librarians! To show them all of the facts so that they can make an "informed opinion".
Also in Fallis' article, there was an ethical dilemma presented that stuck out to me. Can we tell police officers what patrons are reading? To me, this is not a dilemma at all since that goes against all of our privacy laws. We can't even tell a patron's spouse what they are reading, let alone a complete stranger (officer or not). Legally, we can't even tell an officer if we have seen a convicted felon in the library. Why would we tell him what that person is reading?
I can't wait to read all of your opinions!
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Greetings and Summarizations!
Hi there -- My name is Mel and I'm a second year SLIS student (and also a pseudo student in the Art History department). I'm in the process of applying for Art History PhD programs with an emphasis on artist books (which means studying for the GRE *cringe*). My goal is to work in a rare book library or or at an art museum outside of the US as a curator of the collection. In addition to those lovely academic things, I work and volunteer at various locations in Madison: Special Collections (the Rare Book Library), the Chazen Museum of Art, The Kohler Art Library (working with their artist book collection), and at the LGBT OutReach Center Library. If you have any questions about the magic of books and art combined -- I'm your gal.
While reading the blog post about blogging (heh) by Alex Halavais, I was nodding my head in agreement at several points. First, I'm a big "Googler", meaning before we even go out on a first date, I know way more than I should about you and simply act surprised when you tell me about your trip to Egypt (since I already found your Picasa album). Creepy? Maybe. Informed? Yes. I've avoided several bad dates simply by "stumbling" upon someone's Twitter page. But, I don't think I'm alone. You have to be aware of what you're throwing out there, especially because employers are now using the likes of Facebook to scope you out before they even call you for that first date -- the phone interview (my manager at the Chazen does it all the time and just today shared that a new hire likes "Kayne West" as he scrunched up his nose). You must treat the web, as Alex states, as a national newspaper -- you are publishing information about yourself that your grandchildren may see someday.
There was one point I wanted to touch upon with the Fallis reading (since my fellow A-K'ers touched on the Mills four main points before I could snatch them up as Sarah suggested) that is mentioned on page 25. "It is not always clear how library professionals should apply these principles to concrete cases." This is exactly where I'm looking for more direction: the pragmatic side of information ethics. I have these concepts and an understanding of what I should do theoretically, but what do I *really* do when a certain situation arises? I was happy to read further that these codes and theories should be backed up with real cases and classroom instruction of these examples. That's all fine and well, but where do I, as the potential library instructor, gather these case studies to share with my students? If I had experience (and hopefully a good, code-abiding librarian), I could draw on that. But, shouldn't the ALA publish some how-to's or does that cross into territory that no organization really wants to be responsible for (i.e. ALA TOLD me to say/do/think that!)?
While reading the blog post about blogging (heh) by Alex Halavais, I was nodding my head in agreement at several points. First, I'm a big "Googler", meaning before we even go out on a first date, I know way more than I should about you and simply act surprised when you tell me about your trip to Egypt (since I already found your Picasa album). Creepy? Maybe. Informed? Yes. I've avoided several bad dates simply by "stumbling" upon someone's Twitter page. But, I don't think I'm alone. You have to be aware of what you're throwing out there, especially because employers are now using the likes of Facebook to scope you out before they even call you for that first date -- the phone interview (my manager at the Chazen does it all the time and just today shared that a new hire likes "Kayne West" as he scrunched up his nose). You must treat the web, as Alex states, as a national newspaper -- you are publishing information about yourself that your grandchildren may see someday.
There was one point I wanted to touch upon with the Fallis reading (since my fellow A-K'ers touched on the Mills four main points before I could snatch them up as Sarah suggested) that is mentioned on page 25. "It is not always clear how library professionals should apply these principles to concrete cases." This is exactly where I'm looking for more direction: the pragmatic side of information ethics. I have these concepts and an understanding of what I should do theoretically, but what do I *really* do when a certain situation arises? I was happy to read further that these codes and theories should be backed up with real cases and classroom instruction of these examples. That's all fine and well, but where do I, as the potential library instructor, gather these case studies to share with my students? If I had experience (and hopefully a good, code-abiding librarian), I could draw on that. But, shouldn't the ALA publish some how-to's or does that cross into territory that no organization really wants to be responsible for (i.e. ALA TOLD me to say/do/think that!)?
Week 1 Introduction and Thoughts
Hi everyone! My name is Jonathan. This is my last semester in the MLIS program. I have really enjoyed it; but I am so ready to be done with school. 20+ straight years of education is enough for me. I need a long hiatus. Haha. I am the “Adult and Young Adult Program Coordinator” at the Sandwich District Library; but, as it is a very small library, I wear many more hats than my job title allows.
I am using a pseudonym because I hope to create an online presence beyond this class as a “Library Game Expert”, if you will – I am going to attempt to successfully promote the integration of Role Playing Games as a successful, educational, and literacy-promotional program appropriate for public libraries. Hence, LibraryRPGamer.
I don’t know why, but I always love reading the “old style” of writing as exhibited in Chapter two of John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”. Grated, I thought it was very, how should I say, long winded and took me many sittings to finish; but, I also found it almost poetic as well.
For this blog post, I am going to focus on one aspect of Mills’ discussion: “Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied”
Primarily, I agree with Mills in that an error in opinion, even if the originating opinion was true, is only a partial truth because it is merely a shadow of the first. However, being devil’s advocate here, why should we allow false truths to be spoken when they have the potential to hurt the public? In my CHI (Consumer Health Information) class it was emphasized that false truths, or inaccurate medical information, should be removed from the shelf. One prime example of false truths within medical publications is the many health books – and I use that term loosely – by Kevin Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau has been sued and found guilty of incorporating falsified data and non-realistic procedures stating them as “medical cures they don’t want you to know about.” He argues that these accusations are part of the conspiracy; but, many scientists say that his suggestions are hog wash. So, I ask you, should these false truths and slighted opinions, which have been found by court of law to be potentially harmful to the public, remain on the shelves? Or, does freedom of speech dictate that we should include Trudeau’s books within the collection based on principle alone?
BTW, this post is a bit late due to technical complications with Blogger.com. Please forgive the tardiness.
I am using a pseudonym because I hope to create an online presence beyond this class as a “Library Game Expert”, if you will – I am going to attempt to successfully promote the integration of Role Playing Games as a successful, educational, and literacy-promotional program appropriate for public libraries. Hence, LibraryRPGamer.
I don’t know why, but I always love reading the “old style” of writing as exhibited in Chapter two of John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”. Grated, I thought it was very, how should I say, long winded and took me many sittings to finish; but, I also found it almost poetic as well.
For this blog post, I am going to focus on one aspect of Mills’ discussion: “Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied”
Primarily, I agree with Mills in that an error in opinion, even if the originating opinion was true, is only a partial truth because it is merely a shadow of the first. However, being devil’s advocate here, why should we allow false truths to be spoken when they have the potential to hurt the public? In my CHI (Consumer Health Information) class it was emphasized that false truths, or inaccurate medical information, should be removed from the shelf. One prime example of false truths within medical publications is the many health books – and I use that term loosely – by Kevin Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau has been sued and found guilty of incorporating falsified data and non-realistic procedures stating them as “medical cures they don’t want you to know about.” He argues that these accusations are part of the conspiracy; but, many scientists say that his suggestions are hog wash. So, I ask you, should these false truths and slighted opinions, which have been found by court of law to be potentially harmful to the public, remain on the shelves? Or, does freedom of speech dictate that we should include Trudeau’s books within the collection based on principle alone?
BTW, this post is a bit late due to technical complications with Blogger.com. Please forgive the tardiness.
Week 1: Introductions & Reflections
Hello everybody,
My name is Frederick. I’m joining you all from Saint Paul, Minnesota, via the distance program at UW. I come to SLIS by way of several years in customer service for an internet commerce firm that ended last fall in a series of massive layoffs across two continents. As an undergrad, I held two jobs with the Minneapolis Public Library – as a Library Aide with the Central Library downtown, and as a tutor with the Homework Help program at the Franklin Community Library in south Minneapolis. I’m excited to back in school and more than a little trepidatious about chiseling my mark here in the cyberstone.
That said, here we go…
Since I’m relatively late to the party here, and this was requested earlier, here is my layman’s take on the four main points of Mill (paragraphs 41-44):
- To silence the opinion of another – whether individually or as a group – is to assume an infallibility that we, as flawed humans, cannot rightfully have. For all we know, that opinion may turn out to be true.
- Even in the opinions we silence as error, there can still be a grain of truth. But only through a free, honest and open exchange of opinions can we ever find that grain of truth.
- Even with widely held and acknowledged truths, it is still necessary to subject them to rigorous and thorough debate, so as to avoid these truths becoming dogma. This is to say to that’s much more important to understand why something is true than to simply acknowledge that it is.
- Finally, if one doesn’t understand why something is true or correct it’s not possible to apply that knowledge to new circumstances and situations.
As touched on in the Fallis piece, understanding the consequences of any given decision was, for Mill, how one could know whether or not that decision was ethical. In order to correctly predict the consequences, you have to be able to accurately judge what those consequences are going to be. You can only do that if you have a rational, nuanced, view of the truth – something best arrived through rigorous debate.
My name is Frederick. I’m joining you all from Saint Paul, Minnesota, via the distance program at UW. I come to SLIS by way of several years in customer service for an internet commerce firm that ended last fall in a series of massive layoffs across two continents. As an undergrad, I held two jobs with the Minneapolis Public Library – as a Library Aide with the Central Library downtown, and as a tutor with the Homework Help program at the Franklin Community Library in south Minneapolis. I’m excited to back in school and more than a little trepidatious about chiseling my mark here in the cyberstone.
That said, here we go…
Since I’m relatively late to the party here, and this was requested earlier, here is my layman’s take on the four main points of Mill (paragraphs 41-44):
- To silence the opinion of another – whether individually or as a group – is to assume an infallibility that we, as flawed humans, cannot rightfully have. For all we know, that opinion may turn out to be true.
- Even in the opinions we silence as error, there can still be a grain of truth. But only through a free, honest and open exchange of opinions can we ever find that grain of truth.
- Even with widely held and acknowledged truths, it is still necessary to subject them to rigorous and thorough debate, so as to avoid these truths becoming dogma. This is to say to that’s much more important to understand why something is true than to simply acknowledge that it is.
- Finally, if one doesn’t understand why something is true or correct it’s not possible to apply that knowledge to new circumstances and situations.
As touched on in the Fallis piece, understanding the consequences of any given decision was, for Mill, how one could know whether or not that decision was ethical. In order to correctly predict the consequences, you have to be able to accurately judge what those consequences are going to be. You can only do that if you have a rational, nuanced, view of the truth – something best arrived through rigorous debate.
Week 1: Introduction and Reflections
Hi, everyone. I’m Erin, and I chose to blog with my real name because I figure we’re all entitled to our opinions and also because I share my name with the author(s) of the Warriors series, so anyone Googling my name without additional information may have a difficult time finding the right Erin Hunter. I am a children’s librarian and I’ve been working in the same public library for over 10 years, the first 8 of which were in the circulation department. As a circulation clerk, I dealt a lot with patron privacy and confidentiality and workplace ethics, and now as a children’s librarian, it’s interesting to go through instances where personal judgment calls come into play and have to be pushed aside (collection development, etc). While my department certainly does its best to make sure we aren’t actually censoring our young patrons’ access to printed materials and information, we may sometimes caution (and I use the word caution loosely) them or their parents on recommended or intended ages or placement of the materials within the library. That being said, I’m interested to learn more about the ideas surrounding information ethics in my professional career.
The topic of ethics across different professions is similar because it deals with revealing confidential and private information. A pharmacist friend and we were discussing the Hippocratic oath and the importance of privacy and confidentiality of her patients and my patrons and how despite being in two very different careers, we still both deal with private information and we need to respect those we serve by not sharing that information or judging people based on their wants or needs.
The Fallis article brought up some interesting points and was a good introduction to information ethics. A few things that stuck with me from this article included Fallis’ mention of the people’s right to have access to information (29), and it made me think of an article some of us may have already read in a previous class about staff in a Kentucky public library removing a hold from a child’s card because they deemed the material’s content to be unsuitable for that child, based on the child’s age. (I couldn’t quickly locate the actual article but did find small blog entry about it: http://libraryshoptalk.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/librarians-fired-from-keeping-graphic-novels-from-young-patrons/) Where do ethics come into play in this situation? Fallis mentions the ALA belief that “access to library materials should not be restricted on the basis of age” (31). Staff thought they were protecting the child, but they were censoring material.
Where I work, we’ve been told at in-service days that to protect the fragile privacy of our patrons, we’re technically not even supposed to be “noticing” what those patrons are checking out. The Kentucky library story can also be a good discussion for another point made by Fallis, that “Information ethics is essentially concerned with the question of who should have access to what information” (24). It’s a sticky situation, but we should be aware of our need to step back and put our personal beliefs or biases aside, as difficult as that may sometimes be, so that we are best able to serve our patrons and our communities.
Puttnam discusses the changes in information through technology and use of entertainment as an educational tool. Access to information is changing, and people sometimes do now gain information through means that could be considered entertainment – libraries, park districts, and other community groups use such methods as Facebook and Twitter to communicate important or interesting information to their audiences. Emily mentions news-entertainment crossovers, and that was interesting because it’s a way that people have access to information which allows the heavy and serious topics at hand to become more easily-digestible.
The topic of ethics across different professions is similar because it deals with revealing confidential and private information. A pharmacist friend and we were discussing the Hippocratic oath and the importance of privacy and confidentiality of her patients and my patrons and how despite being in two very different careers, we still both deal with private information and we need to respect those we serve by not sharing that information or judging people based on their wants or needs.
The Fallis article brought up some interesting points and was a good introduction to information ethics. A few things that stuck with me from this article included Fallis’ mention of the people’s right to have access to information (29), and it made me think of an article some of us may have already read in a previous class about staff in a Kentucky public library removing a hold from a child’s card because they deemed the material’s content to be unsuitable for that child, based on the child’s age. (I couldn’t quickly locate the actual article but did find small blog entry about it: http://libraryshoptalk.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/librarians-fired-from-keeping-graphic-novels-from-young-patrons/) Where do ethics come into play in this situation? Fallis mentions the ALA belief that “access to library materials should not be restricted on the basis of age” (31). Staff thought they were protecting the child, but they were censoring material.
Where I work, we’ve been told at in-service days that to protect the fragile privacy of our patrons, we’re technically not even supposed to be “noticing” what those patrons are checking out. The Kentucky library story can also be a good discussion for another point made by Fallis, that “Information ethics is essentially concerned with the question of who should have access to what information” (24). It’s a sticky situation, but we should be aware of our need to step back and put our personal beliefs or biases aside, as difficult as that may sometimes be, so that we are best able to serve our patrons and our communities.
Puttnam discusses the changes in information through technology and use of entertainment as an educational tool. Access to information is changing, and people sometimes do now gain information through means that could be considered entertainment – libraries, park districts, and other community groups use such methods as Facebook and Twitter to communicate important or interesting information to their audiences. Emily mentions news-entertainment crossovers, and that was interesting because it’s a way that people have access to information which allows the heavy and serious topics at hand to become more easily-digestible.
Week 1. Reflections, Introduction.
Hello everyone,
My name is Daniel, I'm a second year library school student and am currently working in a campus library as well as with one of the English department's faculty on some digital humanities work. My background in undergraduate was in computer science and sociology, but I threw all that by the wayside and pursued various education related jobs before ending up in library school following the tech track.
I agreed with many of Fallis's points in his article and was particularly pleased to see him state that, “there is frequently too little emphasis on theory in information ethics courses in library science programs.” (27) As this is my first ethics course in library studies I can't speak to it's validity here at UW, but I'm guessing given it is in our opening readings we will see a good balance between the theory and the practice. I do think it is a hard balance to find in other areas of library school as well, as it is a field that tries hard to contain both rigorous academics as well as useful and worthwhile practical skill development.
I also liked his mention of the different theories to use when approaching an ethical question. Ethics can be a sticky enough issue that there is rarely one best way to approach the problem, and having well defined tools at ones disposal is highly valuable. I am curious to know if anyone has an opinion on whether or not any of the theories is overall more useful than any of the others. At first though I the consequence model the most straightforward, but after a few minutes of thoughts it strikes me as potentially the most difficult to figure out. Concepts like duty and rights and virtue often come fairly well defined within the constructs of any given society. However, imagining every possible consequence behind an action can prove to be quite difficult, and this is only the first step. Judging the magnitude of such consequence adds a new layer of difficulty which is then further complicated by the fact that consequences good for one party may be bad for another.
I think Mill makes some good arguments in favor of free speech, basically arguing that if we censor anything we run the risk of censoring the truth at some point. This stance however seems to presume that an infinite number of instances hurtful false statements are worth allowing for the sake of a single truth. I may be overstating this point, but perhaps more balance in this area is prudent. What do you think, group B?
Nice to meet you all class, I look forward to the semester of ethics.
My name is Daniel, I'm a second year library school student and am currently working in a campus library as well as with one of the English department's faculty on some digital humanities work. My background in undergraduate was in computer science and sociology, but I threw all that by the wayside and pursued various education related jobs before ending up in library school following the tech track.
I agreed with many of Fallis's points in his article and was particularly pleased to see him state that, “there is frequently too little emphasis on theory in information ethics courses in library science programs.” (27) As this is my first ethics course in library studies I can't speak to it's validity here at UW, but I'm guessing given it is in our opening readings we will see a good balance between the theory and the practice. I do think it is a hard balance to find in other areas of library school as well, as it is a field that tries hard to contain both rigorous academics as well as useful and worthwhile practical skill development.
I also liked his mention of the different theories to use when approaching an ethical question. Ethics can be a sticky enough issue that there is rarely one best way to approach the problem, and having well defined tools at ones disposal is highly valuable. I am curious to know if anyone has an opinion on whether or not any of the theories is overall more useful than any of the others. At first though I the consequence model the most straightforward, but after a few minutes of thoughts it strikes me as potentially the most difficult to figure out. Concepts like duty and rights and virtue often come fairly well defined within the constructs of any given society. However, imagining every possible consequence behind an action can prove to be quite difficult, and this is only the first step. Judging the magnitude of such consequence adds a new layer of difficulty which is then further complicated by the fact that consequences good for one party may be bad for another.
I think Mill makes some good arguments in favor of free speech, basically arguing that if we censor anything we run the risk of censoring the truth at some point. This stance however seems to presume that an infinite number of instances hurtful false statements are worth allowing for the sake of a single truth. I may be overstating this point, but perhaps more balance in this area is prudent. What do you think, group B?
Nice to meet you all class, I look forward to the semester of ethics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)