Weinheimer Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu> wrote:
> In the U.S., librarians subscribe to a Code of Ethics, available at:
> http://staging.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/codeofethics/codeethics.cfm
The funny thing about that Code of Ethics is that they are all good,
except the first and primary sentence ;
"We provide the highest level of service to all library users through
appropriate and usefully organized resources"
First of all, "usefully" is subjective and has been the topic of many
discussions here; useful to whom? I think it's fair to say that
traditionally, most library organisation of materials have been mostly
useful to librarians. And this has a direct correlation with the word
"appropriate" which puts constraints and judgement on the resources.
I'm not saying you shouldn't do this or that you couldn't have done it
any other way; someone needs to make a decision about the resources
you choose to stock, but an appropriation is always a sticky ethical
issue because it is so darn subjective. If you appropriate to the top
of the bell curve, you'll always have huge amounts of focus falling
off the sides. This is the reality of a library that deals in
*physical* objects, where you *have* to make a culling.
But we're going virtual, and there's no need to even worry about the bell curve.
> Although people like to believe that they can "trust" Google results, such
> results can and are regularly manipulated by all kinds of groups who
> have learned how to make the google search result act in ways that help
> their cause, their politics, their business, their beliefs, or other ways they
> prefer.
Hold on, now; librarians *also* affect what results any searcher will
find, someone at the library has made subjective decisions about the
resources they choose to make available, so this is a fragile place to
point fingers. It may not be so obvious at the library (because, we
all trust the librarians to be proper, if nothing else) *because* you
have your excellent code of ethics (no capitalization required) just
like a lot of other government run organisations both in the US and
around the world (ie. you're not alone in proclaiming these ideals),
but don't kid yourself into thinking you are above the subjective
influence of being human beings either. (And for the record, I know
you don't think that, this is just a friendly reminder)
You see, Google has a code of ethics, too. It boils down to famous
"don't be evil", of course, but they, too, have as part of their
employment and HR policies, a set of ethical codes and guides. And
here's the rub; they are no less valuable, strident, important or
excellent than yours. Their status as a for-profit company doesn't
demean their ethical ideals.
The difference between you is who is paying the bill. And what there
is a *lack* of in the librarian code of ethics is "we, the people."
That's who's paying you, that's who you're working for, that's who you
make decisions for, that's who your subjective culling of the library
resources affect. Don't for a second think you are *not* a business;
you are, you damn well are! You are as affected by income and outcomes
as the rest of us. Your academic leanings do *not* grant you immunity
from politicians and voters you might disagree with.
And this has to do with ethics, as well, and sadly I don't see this
much discussed here.
> In the U.S., librarians have had to deal with the Patriot Act, which
> some librarians consider turns them into spies since they can be
> forced to turn over circulation information to the government.
> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/06/librarians-desc/
> Librarians have always had to deal with demands for censorship,
> but what about using a stop word list for censorship purposes,
> e.g. to block words related to "abortion"?
> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/04/administrators/
Yes, this is the ugly part of being part of society; fight for the
freedom and rights of the people where new rules might muddy the
waters of established law (and in your case, this crazy notion of
county law vs. state law vs. federal laws ... no wonder you're a
lawyers paradise :), or abide to things like censorship, lift the
privacy of users and other things you've spent 200 years building up.
(I won't go into a blame-game here, but you know who you are,
people-who-can't-handle-other-people's-opinions!) This is a proud part
of the librarian tradition, a part I was very, very proud to be a part
of. I wish it was more emphasized in the code of ethics, though, or
even clarified better.
> Professional journalists certainly have their part to play, but librarians
> have just as important of a role to provide ethical access to materials
> in a non-biased and reliable way. None of this can be done perfectly
> of course, but it is librarians who have had the experience doing
> precisely this.
I'll push this even further; librarians have a much more important
role to play than *any* journalist, simply by being paid by the people
to help the people. Where are the super-librarians who enters the
political sphere of freedom, rights and democracy? And where are the
library organisations in educating the people about all of this?
(Hint: most library organisations don't deal with people, they deal
with librarians and the odd politician) To put differently; when
politicians shut down the library, will people with iPads (and
similar) stand at the gates and protest? I'm not so sure, because,
well, they probably don't know what is being shut down.
Regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Tue May 11 2010 - 19:28:30 EDT