In my daily dose of Spacing Wire this morning, Matthew Blackett articulated similar thoughts I was having yesterday about corporate sponsorship, however his post was in response to a new sponsorship program to add art onto Toronto garbage bins.

Matthew Blackett, Spacing Wire | June 27.07

I believe small projects like the Street Art™ Sponsorship Program only further legitimize ad-funded street furniture because the supplier (in this case Ecomedia) is “giving back” to the community.

Blackett also notes that there are positive aspects to sponsoring the arts (as any starving artist would tell you) but he is right to point out that it’s a complicated situation that companies can benefit from for PR purposes. Even if the benevolence is sincere (for the sake of argument), the company’s priority will always be to protect its bottom line.

In my view, the tension that arises within this program are echoed in libraries considering sponsorship deals. While libraries deal with a host of complicated issues with their vendor relationships as well, sponsorship opens the library door to the wider corporate community. This May 14, 2007 TPL staff report notes the library’s criteria for accepting sponsorship funds. Funding for libraries being the ongoing challenge that it is, deciding to accept sponsorship funds is a complicated issue that is best done with lots o’ public debate. Let’s start now. Question: Are libraries upholding their role as social institutions and civic spaces when their policy decisions expose citizens to a marketing campaign in order to enjoy access to public services?

Here are links to the May 14, 2007 TPL board meeting where the museums pass sponsorship proposal was discussed (in a closed meeting…). The board meeting minutes may not be an exciting read, but there they are. Torontonians, check them out. Whether you agree or disagree with library board decisions, no matter what community you call home, being a participant is key. Dr. Sam Trosow’s reflections from the recent LPL board meeting is a testament that.

Coincidentally there is a TPL library board meeting tonight!

Employee and Labour Relations Committee
Toronto Public Library Board - Meeting No. 1:
Thursday, June 28, 2007, 4:00 p.m.
Toronto Reference Library, Board Room, 789 Yonge Street, Toronto

Can’t go? Save the link to the TPL board and read about it.

-PC-

There’s been a lot of discussion lately in Toronto about the ROM, and not just about the opening of the controversial Libeskind designed crystal explosion on the north side (which after watching it grow and evolve through its baby to childhood to adolescent and finally adult crystal form, I am now a fan.)

The other hubbub concerns giving the public a way in while the museum bursts out of its walls. From the demise of free Fridays, and then the increase of $5 Fridays to $10 Fridays, admission prices have become less affordable. $20 for adults, $17 for students and seniors, $14(!) for children 5-14 yrs. As a student living downtown Toronto, I can assure you that I’ll be going in for the ‘free 90 minutes before closing’ deal (expanded from 60 minutes to bump up their allotment of free minutes). Like libraries, museums are civic spaces meant to inform, educate, democratize and inspire the public. So what gives?

Leah Sandals over at Spacing Wire writes in a few great pieces on both the blog and the Sunday star that discusses the museum environment, the successful plans in other cities that give free access to culture institutions, and Toronto’s plan to give away free passes through 24 selected branches at the Toronto Public Library.

TPL posted a link to the “Museum and Arts Passes” program today after officially announcing the program this morning. Twenty-four Toronto Public Library branches that fall in what the city refers to as 13 priority areas are slated to provide the passes. (It would seem that downtowners really are expected to slip in just before closing as the branches are in the burbs.) It would of course be ideal if the passes were available across the board. Or better yet, if there was a free admissions situation like the successful UK museums policy. However, it’s a good move to take a chunk out of cultural elitism by finding an audience and increasing traffic through the public library to boot.

The collaboration also includes the Art Gallery of Ontario, Bata Shoe Museum, Gardiner Museum, Royal Ontario Museum and Textile Museum of Canada. (And a corporate sponsor which I won’t mention here).

The Harper government cut significant funding to museums in the fall, but there’s not much in the media about the issue beyond a few paltry articles (see previous post) like this one that discusses how the recent influx of private funds have put cultural institutions in a tight spot in relationship to our current government. The Canadian Museums Association notes that despite targeted spending on specific projects by the feds, the MAPs cuts still need some advocacy work. No doubt this unstable funding environment makes our public institutions more susceptible to seeking sponsorship deals, and gives an entryway into our public institutions for a corporate mentality.

-PC-

This is important! Courtesy of Canadians for Democratic Media, a new coalition of media activists, labour groups, academics, civic organizations, research centres, and more.

-SIO

*****

Ensure a Diversity of Voices for our TVs, Radios, Newspapers, and Internet!

Media diversity is the cornerstone of democracy. But media ownership is more highly concentrated in Canada than almost anywhere else in the industrialized world. Almost all private Canadian television stations are owned by national media conglomerates and, because of increasing cross-ownership, most of the daily newspapers we read are owned by the same corporations that own television and radio stations.

This means a handful of Big Media Conglomerates control what Canadians can most readily see, hear and read. It means less local and regional content, more direct control over content by owners and less analysis of the events that shape our lives. It also means less media choice for Canadians and fewer jobs for Canadian media workers.

We must also be wary of the impacts mergers have on the diversity and neutrality of new on-line media. We need to reverse this trend before big media gets even bigger! Tell the CRTC what you think!

What you can do

Rules that truly curb media concentration in Canada are long overdue. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) - the body that regulates broadcast and telecommunications systems - is holding a hearing in Gatineau this coming September on how to ensure a diversity of voices in our media. The deadline for submissions is July 18, 2007. These hearings could in the long run lead to a more concentrated media and a relaxation of the foreign ownership rules leaving our media susceptible to take-over by even bigger U.S. Media Conglomerates. The airwaves belong to the public, and the CRTC needs to hear from you. Click here to let the CRTC know that media diversity matters to you.

Spread the word

Unless citizens speak out, the debate will continue to be dominated by large media corporations. Please forward this message to encourage others to participate in this crucial campaign. Tell your family and friends about this important campaign!

If you are not a Canadian citizen or resident, please do not send a message to the CRTC; visit http://democraticmedia.ca to find out about how you can support media diversity in Canada.

Just when it seems that international intellectual property agreements are making the world a narrower place than ever to live in, some good people come along and remind governments of why the information commons might be worth protecting, after all!

A meeting of WIPO people took place June 18-20, 2007 and while participants were supposed to finalize a basic proposal for a Broadcasting Treaty, they didn’t get very far. According to James Love, Director of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI):

Technically, the subject of the Broadcasting Treaty will continue to be on the agenda of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, but with a fairly tough hurdle before it can move to a diplomatic conference — after there is agreement on the objectives, scope and object of protection, topics for which there is no agreement in sight.

Please read the short news stories below — they provide some much-needed coverage to a media issue that had little coverage prior to the collapse of the negotiations last week.

Many, many thanks are due to Manon Ress, James Love, Thiru Balasubramaniam, and other activists at Knowledge Ecology International and in the A2K movement.

-SIO

**********

Piracy collapses broadcasting treaty
By Frances Williams in Geneva
Published: June 24 2007 17:21 | Last updated: June 24 2007 17:21

…developing countries in Latin America and Asia, led by Brazil and India, have opposed the push by European and African governments for broad new rights that would protect television programmes from unauthorised retransmission for up to 50 years.

Critics say the proposed new rights would overlay existing copyrights, restrict access to programme content that is now in the public domain, prevent legitimate private copying for personal use, and stifle technological innovation.

U.N. broadcasting treaty talks suffer setback
Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:09AM EDT

Efforts to clinch a long-sought international broadcasting treaty have suffered a setback from lingering disagreements over signal piracy and the Internet, a top U.N. official said on Monday.

WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Dead…For Now
Michael Hedges - June 25, 2007

“Several country delegations began to ask deeper questions about the rationale for the treaty, and examined ways to limiting the scope and nature of the treaty,” said James Love, Director of Knowledge Ecology International, reviewing Friday’s wimpy finale. “In the end, the
broadcasters demanded too much, and made too few concessions, for the treaty to move forward. Delegates at WIPO were no longer willing to ignore issues of access to knowledge, or the control of anticompetitive practices.”

Talks on global broadcast treaty fail
By FRANK JORDANS, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 22, 8:27 AM ET

The treaty fell victim to disagreements over issues such as whether protection against piracy should cover only traditional broadcasting methods — meaning cable, antenna and satellite signals — or whether it should include retransmission over the Internet, he said.

European countries wanted to give broadcasters rights over any content they transmit — even if they did not originally produce the content. That type of rights-based treaty is opposed by electronics and telecommunication companies like Intel Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc., as well as librarian groups and consumer advocates. They say it would stifle technological innovation and could prevent people from playing legal music or films over their home networks.
…
The biggest loser in this episode is WIPO. Failure to bring the Broadcasting Treaty to a Diplomatic Conference reflects badly on SCCR members and very badly on WIPO General Secretary Kamil Idris. Several developed nations, the United States included, find their constituents better served within the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) treaty. Traditional media will continue to chase “free-riders” but international treaties have broad stakeholders evermore diligent in defending common sense content and distribution rights.

Yay!

Below are some thoughts from Dr. Sam Trosow about last Wednesday’s London Public Library Board meeting. What he says about the “customer-service” approach to librarianship is particularly telling, I think, and the use of the associated terminology reveals a frightening lack of understanding about what librarians *do*. Niamh A. McGuigan wrote an excellent thesis entitled “A Critique of the Student as Customer Metaphor in Higher Education and Academic Libraries” which delves into this very issue. Trosow has addressed this issue himself in an article called “Terminology is Important” [Public Libraries v. 43 no. 2 (March/April 2004) p. 86-7]. John Buschman also writes well about the customer vs. patron debate in Dismantling the Public Sphere: Situating and Sustaining Librarianship in the Age of the New Public Philosophy (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2003). Should all be required reading for first-year library school students (and library board members)!

Dr. Alvin Schrader, now CLA President, is one of the world’s most eloquent supporters of intellectual freedom and he has written extensively on the topic of Internet filters in public libraries and the rights of children to access the online world. At the 1999 IFLA Conference in Bangkok, he gave a speech entitled “Internet Filters: Library Access Issues in a Cyberspace World” in which he said (on page 19) that “Outsourcing moral authority to faceless and anonymous Internet guardians is no alternative to family values and family responsibility, librarian and teacher guidance, and individual critical awareness. Technology is not an alternative to private or social conscience: filtered ignorance is still ignorance.”

-SIO

****************

As I was making my presentation to the Board, and then as Roma Harris was making her presentation, it seemed very clear to me that many of the Board members were attentively listening and seemed to be hearing these types of arguments presented for the first time. They seemed very concerned about what we were saying, they asked some good questions, and there was at least the beginning of a thoughtful discussion, at least until the Board chair cut it off.

One of the Board members (Nancy Branscombe who is also the city councilor representing the area around the university) tried to make a motion to rescind the policy pending further study and public feedback. As the Free Press article reports, the councilor was ruled out of order because proper notice of motion wasn’t given. It was then put over to the next meeting, which had the support of most of the Board members although no formal vote was taken.

A few things are clear in the aftermath of the meeting. The Board seems to have different opinions on this issue. There are some Board members who feel that not enough information was presented to the Board and the public prior to the May meeting to warrant such a decision. They would at least like to have a fuller presentation of both sides of what they now see as a complex issue. There are other members of the Board though who seem unlikely to want to challenge the management. Having a Library Board split on an issue like this one should be expected, and having a full public debate at a Library Board is not a bad thing.

But I think announcing ahead of time that there will be no debate, that Board members should just to listen to the presentations and move on, (as was done by the Chair at the beginning of the meeting) is not the best way to proceed. Still, due to the concerns of councillor Branscombe and others, the discussion will be back on the next Board agenda in September, and that is a good thing.

Since the meeting, most of the press coverage has been balanced and tried to get at both sides of the issue (like the Free Press article referred to in a previous entry). There’s was also some very balanced in depth coverage on CBC radio. Unfortunately, for some there is a tendency to sensationalize these sorts of issues and reduce them to the simple question of whether you think taxpayers should be subsidizing porn in the library. One of our morning talk radio hosts has decided to make ridding the library of porn a crusade. You can always count on the Rush Limbaugh wannabees to jump on sensitive issues like internet censorship and reduce it to a simplistic crusade against pornography.

But the debate is so much more complex than that simple reductive binary. If you view the issue in full context with the understanding that library users have diverse information needs, are often in very vulnerable and sensitive situations, that internet filters are imperfect, and that the border line between the appropriate and inappropriate is often subjective and dependent on the search context, the resulting debate is very different than the simplistic porn vs no-porn question. And this question of how the debate is characterized is closely linked to two competing philosophies of library service. On the one hand the model informed by the foundational core values of librarianship, (an essential part of the LIS program but something off the radar screen in other programs) takes the standpoint of the library patron who has the right to receive information that may be compromised by a commercial filter. On the other hand, we have the “customer-service” model of librarianship which will reduce complex decisions (often involving conflicting interests and values) to simple matters of marketing, branding, optics and customer satisfaction. One of the Board members commented during a later part of the agenda (the marketing director was rolling out the new logo, the result of a branding exercise) that she was tired of hearing library patrons referred to as “customers” and wanted this usage to stop. To which the chair responded, not so long as as I am chair.

So the debate will go on. I think its important for readers of this blog to stay on top of this debate in London and consider sending letters to Board members, to the editor of the local paper (there were some in the Free Press today and they will no doubt continue), or just to spread about this ongoing debate to others.

Samuel Trosow, Associate Professor
University of Western Ontario
Faculty of Information & Media Studies / Faculty of Law

Your chance to present at a conference with Drs. Toni Samek and Hope Olson! Or you can just attend the conference, too… no pressure. Please note that abstracts are due Oct. 15, 2007.

Courtesy of Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan, director of the Center for Information Policy Research, via James Pekoll.

-SIO

************
May 15-17, 2008
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Sponsored by the Center for Information Policy Research, the School of Information Studies, and the UW-Milwaukee Libraries, UW-Milwaukee

This conference will explore critical theories as grounded in and by alternative methodological perspectives and issues in intercultural information studies. Information studies as a field has become more disciplinarily, culturally, and methodologically diverse. This conference is intended to help advance the extension of traditional inquiry in this field into the important exploration of, and linkages to, such theoretical perspectives and approaches as feminism, disability studies, post-structuralism, queer studies, post-colonialism, post-modernism, semiotics, critical race theory, hermeneutics, and others is evident, as we face technological, legal, cultural, and global transformations. This conference seeks to bring together scholars from multiple disciplines, who engage in the discussion of “information” and “information studies” from alternative and critical perspectives, with a goal to promote social awareness, provide insight into inequities, and lead to progressive change in our information research and practices.

We will present work from leading scholars in information ethics and critical information studies followed by break out sessions based on open space methodology. In open space methodology, participants generate topics of interest based on keynote addresses and their own expertise. A part of the conference program is devoted to in-depth group discussions of those topics logically organized to contribute to the overall theme. Outcomes of those group discussions will be presented to the plenary and eventually form part of the conference recommendations on how to promote critical theory engagement and further research in LIS.

We are seeking abstracts of 500 words for review. Papers will be presented in 45-minute time slots, with 15 minutes of general q/a, and longer open space discussions to follow. We are particularly interested in works from women and people of color.

Abstracts due October 15, 2007
Notification by December 15, 2007

Full Papers, of 10-15 pages, due by March 1, 2008 (Authors will retain copyright, but all papers will be distributed in the conference proceedings, and archived electronically in the Center for Information Policy Research’s Occasional Papers; all subsequent publication by the author should reference the CIPR and the Thinking Critically Conference)

Submit papers to [email protected], attention Elizabeth Buchanan, Director, CIPR

Fee: $125/$75 (students); (conference speakers will receive a 50% discount of the conference fee)
Conference Hotel: The Astor Hotel (Refer to CIPR when making reservations for appropriate rates; reservations must be made by March 1, 2008 to ensure conference rates)

Registration details forthcoming.

Keynote Speakers:
Dr. Rafael Capurro, “Hermeneutics in the Information Age,” Founder and Director, International Center of Information Ethics, Senior Information Ethics Fellow 2007-08, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee
Dr. Hope A. Olson, “Transgressive Deconstructions: Feminist and Postcolonial Trespasses on Post-Structural Methodology,” Associate Dean and Professor, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee
Dr. Fernando Elichirigoity, “Living in the Age of Globally Distributed Algorithms,” Associate Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana
Dr. Toni Samek, “Action Research and Activism: Sustainable Library Interactions at the Grassroot,” Associate Professor & Graduate Coordinator School of Library & Information Studies, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, Information Ethics Fellow, 2006-07, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee

In keeping with the topic of the day, here’s a report on internet filtering from the National Coalition Against Censorship which is admittedly, a bit dated, having been produced in 2001. But it gives an excellent overview of many of the issues and problems being discussed in the wake of the LPL debate. And an update of the report in 2006 shows that the same concerns with internet filtering software remain to this day.

Here are some examples of what happens when you filter:

• CYBERsitter blocked a news item on the Amnesty International site after detecting the phrase “least 21.” The offending sentence described “at least 21” people killed or wounded in Indonesia.
• SurfWatch blocked the University of Kansas’s Archie R. Dykes Medical library upon detecting the word “dykes.”
• X-Stop blocked the “Let’s Have an Affair” catering company and searches for Bastard Out of Carolina and “The Owl and the Pussy Cat.”
• WebSense blocked a Texas cleanup project under the category of “sex,” and The Shoah Proj-ect, a Holocaust remembrance page, under the category of “racism/hate.”
• Cyber Patrol blocked a Knights of Columbus site and a site for aspiring dentists as “adult/sexually explicit.”
• BESS and SurfControl blocked curriculum materials on Populism because they also contained information about National Socialism. Symantec blocked the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun sites while allowing sites associated with gun control organizations.
• BESS blocked a site on fly fishing, a guide to allergies, and a site opposing the death penalty as “pornography.” It also blocked all Google and AltaVista image searches under its category of “pornography.”

- JH

For fans of the hipster indie publisher McSweeney’s, oodles of books and other emphemera (like a one line apology to your girl/boyfriend written by Miranda July) are up on the hawk block. In their words, “every single thing we’ve got is on sale”.

Why the madness? Independent news source Salon.com writes a great piece about how the small press world is dealing with the bankruptcy of Advanced Marketing Services, the parent company of Publishers Group West, that took care of the sales and marketing for approximately 130 independent publishers. According to Salon, it wasn’t the fanciful, bright eyed, ’support the little guy distributor’ PGW that was in financial trouble.

“Ironically, PGW — the largest American distributor of independent publishers — was by all accounts having its best year ever, and the financial troubles of AMS, a corporate giant that mainly distributed to wholesalers like Costco and Sam’s Club, brought it down. AMS filed for Chapter 11 on Dec. 29, a result of being unable to bounce back from SEC and FBI investigations into its advertising accounting practices — which led to three executive indictments — and a class-action suit on behalf of its shareholders. As Horowitz points out, ‘It wasn’t the indie distributor; it was a big, old-fashioned corporation with accounting problems.’”

Un-fans of McSweeneys might want to throw their support to another indie publisher, like Cleis. However not every small press outfit was equipped to deal with this; the mergers and additional bankruptcies have already started. Salon.com reports that Soft Skull, Hugh Lauter Levin and Inner Ocean were absorbed by larger publishers, while Carroll & Graf and Thunder’s Mouth, two Avalon Publishing Group imprints, folded.

The good news (sort of) is that another company, Perseus, took PGW over keeping much of it intact. The downside is that this results in consolidation of distribution for 300+ indie publishers under one company - a bit precarious for the industry should Perseus run into trouble.

McSweeneys approach is a testament to how any bunch of creative and independent maverick thinkers would deal with such a blow. To illustrate … (and yes, I like lists).

1) through derivative ideas. according to the McSweeneys website, Fantagraphics salvaged their company from a similar situation a few years ago.
2) using the Internet. cyberspace being a quick and effective ad hoc distributor of a shout out (but no substitute for the actual distributor).
3) through community. with love and support, their authors and loyal readership have come to their aid in a jiff.

Despite the alarm this raises, the deals to be had are awesome. Collection development librarians and avid readers alike can pick up some interesting titles by ordering online.

i) 50% off backlisted books
ii) 30% off new books
iii) $5 off subscriptions - including an ‘instant gratification’ subscription if you haven’t gotten your fix lately
iv) gift certificates - why limit your gift buying to birthdays and special occasions?

All of this flags the challenge for librarians in keeping their collections diverse in the age of outsourcing. Discussion around this issue calls for its own post, me-thinks. In the meantime, here are a few articles.

Rude, R. I. (2001). Academic libraries and social responsibility: The what? so what? and what now? Catholic Library World, 72(2), 94-98.

Manoff, M. (1999). Outsourcing selection in academic libraries. Technical Services Quarterly, 16(4), 67-70.

Knuth, R., & Bair-Mundy, D. G. (1998). Revolt over outsourcing: Hawaii’s librarians speak out about contracted selection. Collection Management, 23(1/2), 81-112.

Atton, C. (1994). Beyond the mainstream: Examining alternative sources for stock selection. Library Review, 43(4), 57-64.

Hitchcock Mort, K. A., & Mort, K. A. H. (1983). Small and alternative press acquisitions. Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory, 7(3), 233-238.

-PC-

The meeting of the London Public Library Board took place last night and from the morning-after article in the London Free Press, it sounds like the meeting didn’t go as smoothly for LPL CEO Anne Becker had hoped:

While the board meeting began with its chair, Svetlana MacDonald, cautioning members to listen to, not discuss, the issue, new board member and city councillor Nancy Branscombe quickly moved to rescind the filter program.

Told she had to give notice first, Branscombe, who didn’t attend the May meeting when the measure passed, suggested it be considered at the next board meeting, a direction that led four other board members to raise hands in support.

However, the filtering software is still going to be applied to the majority of adult computers in the library, as per Anne Becker’s recommendation, probably at least until the move is reviewed at the next Board meeting.

It is important to note, I think, that Anne Becker is not a librarian. She has an MBA and a background as an insurance executive. With a library school at its doorstep, the London Public Library could be a model for intellectual freedom, collections, programming, and innovative service. But no. Becker’s closing statement in the London Free Press article about the filtering critics not having “tested the software.” It seems that she’s missed the point entirely.

A participant on the link to an interesting article from genderIT about content regulation, censorship, and feminism:

Filtering software technology, regularly implemented to ‘protect’ internet users from the harm of pornography, has been known to over-block content on the internet, including information about women’s sexual and reproductive health. Women’s movements have struggled for many decades to articulate female sexual agency that is active, desiring and not necessarily appended to heterosexuality. Is it then useful, to call for censorship just when heterosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual female representations of sexuality are beginning to populate cyberspace, by naming them as the moral and legislative equivalent of pornography?

According to the Free Press article, that’s exactly what Roma Harris was talking about at the Board meeting. Was Anne Becker listening?

-SIO

We received the letter below from Lindsay Sage (Director, Marketing and Development, London Public Library) as a comment on the blog this afternoon. We are reposting it here to give it a wider audience.

-SIO

*****

London Public Library’s Internet Policy and Filtering Test Project
Update from the London Public Library

On behalf of the London Public Library (LPL), I am pleased to offer you the following information on our Internet Policy Review and Internet Filtering Test Project. As the LPL’s Director of Marketing and Development, I have been following your discussions with interest. We are keenly interested in, and appreciate, your feedback and insights on this issue and so, in the interest of transparency and to ensure you have the most comprehensive view on the test project, I am pleased to be able to offer you the following information. You will note that I have included contact information for members of our Senior Team at the end of this communication, and encourage you to continue to share your feedback with any one of them and with me. We have proceeded with this test project in good faith, working both to uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and to support our mission to create a community hub that is welcoming and comfortable for all of our customers. In the interest of transparency and anticipating our June 1 test start, we shared the following information with our community partners and stakeholders in the Library environment on May 17, 2007. Again, we welcome and appreciate your thoughts and feedback on this test project.

Best,
Lindsay Sage
Director, Marketing and Development
London Public Library

—

For the period of June 1 through October 31st, the London Public Library has undertaken a review of our Internet Policy, which includes our system-wide filtering practices. In order to do so, we will be temporarily changing the number of computers we filter, to examine and test the effects on the Library’s role as both a welcoming community hub and as an access point for information and ideas. Filtering in the Library is not a new practice. The Library has always filtered in certain areas, like in our Children’s Areas and our Employment Resource Centres. It is important to note that this test project is not about restricting access to information, but rather is part of an effort to mitigate the risk of unintentional exposure of customers to images that are not appropriate for a public space. It is very important to the Library that we provide a welcoming space and positive experience for all of our customers, while ensuring they have access to the information they need. Accordingly, a certain number of unfiltered workstations will still be available in the majority of our branch locations.

This project is timely, in terms of our policy review process, and is not in response to any particular incident. We have in the past experienced isolated incidents involving the unintentional exposure of customers to images that are inappropriate in a public space, and this review will simply allow us to continue to explore ways to strengthen our role as a community hub, welcoming for both individuals and families, and to balance this with our role in providing access to information and ideas of all kinds. Further, given the constant evolution of the Internet and the growing number of workstations in the Library, it behooves us to examine our policy. As the Library moves increasingly to be recognized as an important community destination, we need to be able to ensure our Internet Policy supports this position.

The filtering software, provided by Netsweeper, allows the Library to select filter criteria. In an effort to mitigate the risk of unintentional exposure to images that are inappropriate for a public space, extreme violence and sexually explicit images are being filtered. However, resources like sexual education sites are not impacted by this level of filtering.

It is important to note that filtering is not a 100% solution, but helps significantly in our efforts to reduce unintentional exposure to these images. Filtering works with most websites but does not apply to images downloaded by email or brought into the Library on external devices, i.e. USB drives.

Because public feedback is an important part of this test project, we will be offering the opportunity for interested stakeholders to attend a public forum this fall (date TBA), where individuals and groups will be able to request delegation status and provide feedback and insights on the project. The test itself will run until the end of October 2007. The months of November and December will be used to analyze the project data, including customer, staff and community feedback, and to make further decisions about filtering going forward. At that time, a report will be made to our customers, community partners and stakeholders in the Library community.

If you would like more information on the Internet Policy Review Project or would like to share your comments, which we welcome, we invite you to contact one of the following members of our Senior Team:

Anne Becker, CEO
519.661.5145
[email protected]

Susanna Hubbard Krimmer, Director, Operations
519.661.5143
Susanna [email protected]

Margaret Mitchell, Director, Quality Improvement
519.661.5134
[email protected]

Lindsay Sage, Director, Marketing and Development
519.661.6403
[email protected]