Radical Militant Librarian

I've got an MS/LIS, and I'm not afraid to use it.

[radicalmilitantlibrarian]

Connie Willis is a great author, but on this she’s wrong.

Let me start with the end: She claims that libraries are “supposed to be archives of literature and history.” But they’re not. Not most of them, anyway.

The major academic libraries? Of course. Specialist libraries? Within their specialties, quite possibly. The grand metropolitan systems, with cathedral-like main buildings? Most definitely . . . at that main building. An isolated rural library half a county away from its nearest compatriot? Only to the extent that it has the space and budget, and history is probably best left to the local historical society. A single-location suburban public library? Only by chance and happenstance.

Now, if applied as a collective allegation against libraries in general, perhaps she’s correct to say that we should be archives of literature and history. But if you’re evaluating libraries in the aggregate, then we actually are, so the allegation that we’re not is still incorrect.

Let’s me take my situation. I work for a suburban public library district in Illinois. We have roughly 66k people in our district. There are a number of other libraries within fifteen to twenty minutes drive, all of which have reciprocal borrowing agreements with us, so our cards work there and vice-versa. Like most public libraries in the state, we do interlibrary loan (ILL) to and from not just other libraries in the area but throughout the state. Academic libraries also participate in the ILL system, and for that truly rare item we can always try going out-of-state. So if you come to us and we don’t have something, there’s a very good chance that you’ll have your choice of popping over to a nearby library and picking it up that same day or having it delivered to us in one to two weeks. In the rare case that that’s not possible, if the book’s still in print then we can usually buy a copy. It’s very difficult to stump us.

So what is available in Illinois? Well, according to WorldCat—the catalog we’d use for finding out what other libraries have and requesting it from them—just the 25 most popular editions of Moby Dick have a combined 965 copied owned in Illinois. (And there’s a lot of editions of Moby Dick.) Our Town? 916. Three Men in a Boat, To Say Nothing of the Dog is much rarer, at only 121, but that’s still enough to guarantee that I could get you a copy if you wanted one. But if we wanted every public library to keep a copy of every book as good as Three Men in a Boat on their own shelves, we’d all have to be monoliths approaching the size of the main branch of Chicago Public Library and would collectively own thousands and thousands more copies of every single book than would be in use at any given time. Also, it would bankrupt our constituents. Instead, we spread the load. (And yes, whether other copies are available nearby is a selection/deselection criteria!)

Now, I have already explained elsewhere why the allegations made by Cory Doctor and repeated by Connie Willis about the Florida case are probably wrong and in any case would be unrepresentative of the Florida system’s policies, much less the wider profession’s. But I can understand if a librarian, confronted by a patron—even Connie Willis—gave a short, misleading summary rather than try to explain procedures and criteria best taught via a semester-long graduate school course and applied by trained professionals.

[libraryadvocates]

Action Alert

Ask your Representative to support the Email Privacy Act

On Monday, February 6, the entire House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 387. If approved in the current Congress, the bill finally will extend full 4th Amendment privacy protection to all Americans’ emails, texts, tweets, cloud-stored photos and files, and other electronic communications. Now is the time to start making that a reality.

No matter where you live, we need you to help bring the 4th Amendment fully into the 21st century by calling, emailing, and/or tweeting your Member of Congress.

[libraryprivacy]

Library Privacy Checklists

This set of seven checklists is intended to help libraries of all capacities take practical steps to implement the principles that are laid out in the ALA Library Privacy Guidelines. Each checklist is organized into three priority groups. Priority 1 are actions that hopefully all libraries can take to improve privacy practices. Priority 2 and Priority 3 actions may be more difficult for libraries to implement depending on their technical expertise, available resources, and organizational structure.

These checklists were created by a group of volunteers from the LITA Patron Privacy Interest Group and the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee’s Privacy Subcommittee.

Overview

Data Exchange Between Networked Devices and Services

E-book Lending and Digital Content Vendors

Library Management Systems / Integrated Library Systems

Library Websites, OPACs, and Discovery Services

Public Access Computers and Networks

Students in K-12 Schools

[radicalmilitantlibrarian]

Two employees at the East Lake County Library created a fictional patron called Chuck Finley — entering fake driver’s license and address details into the library system — and the…

IMPORTANT: I’ve read the underlying news article, and at no point does it say, as Cory Doctorow alleges, that fully-automated weeding software is involved. And to the extend that algorithms were used, there’s no evidence that they were the final decision-maker. Indeed, the article’s claim that “the library services division works with the branch libraries on the weeding process” would suggest that it’s a process and not simply an automatically-generated list that’s blindly adhered to. The article does say that no circulation within one to two years is generally, as a rule of thumb, grounds for weeding an item, but this is not a terribly unusual rule of thumb in non-fully-automated systems; as I explain below, using a one-year cutoff to generate a list of items to investigate further is a standard first step in the weeding process. I don’t know if Cory Doctorow knows something that I don’t (and that he is not reporting the source of) or if he is jumping to conclusions and presenting a version of the story that better fits his beliefs, but his obvious bias affecting his presentation of news stories in his blogging is why I don’t usually read him even though I agree with his biases.

Let’s consider the use of fully-automated systems for weeding anyway:

The blind following of fully-automated systems for weeding would violate any standard collection development / materials selection policy and professional best practices. Such policies usually specify goals that include items such as maintaining a balanced collection and serving a broad range of interests across the entirety of the local community, not merely the majority pop interests. In terms of best practices, while looking at whether an item has been checked out within the past year is usually the starting point of developing a weeding list, it's not supposed to be the end because the list then needs to be vetted for those additional, non-automatable concerns.

Now let’s look at the relevant policy at the library system in question:

In the general directives, it states that "The System recognizes the importance of acquiring materials of permanent value and timely materials on current issues." Thus, long-term value is a value that should be taken into account.

In assigning who is responsible for enacting the policy, it states that "The main responsibility for collection development rests with the local librarians [...] adhering to the generally accepted professional practices involving [...] selection and de-selection tools." It would seem that the librarians in this case were attempting to fulfill their Board-mandated responsibilities. Additionally, “generally accepted professional practices” do not include relying solely on the judgement of an automated de-selection tool.

In the selection section, it states that "There is no single set of criteria that can be applied to all items because of the great diversity of materials. Some items are judged primarily in terms of artistic merit, scholarship, or documentation of the times, while others are selected to satisfy the informational and recreational needs of the community." Now, this is admittedly selection rather than deselection policy. However, it recognizes the distinction between works acquired due to demand and works acquired due to other merits. Immediately deselecting works that fall into the latter category would be wasteful and contradictory.

Finally, in the deselection section, it states that "Materials are withdrawn according to the following criteria: [...] D. Materials which have had little recent use and are of questionable value." (emphasis added) This clearly indicates that deselection cannot occur purely on the basis of recent use but rather must satisfy a further, value-based inquiry as well.

So I have no reason to believe that automated software was blindly followed at this system, but if it was, it would be in violation of every single policy they have on the issue.

[Updates: This post has been updated to better explain the distinction between blindly following fully-automated systems and the use of systems for generating a starting point for further, human inquiry.]

[radicalmilitantlibrarian]

An important ruling from the 9th Circuit in United States v. Mohamud.

[geobrarian]

Hey, so did you know that librarians tend to run liberal?

And that they’re really against censorship?

And that nearly all libraries have policies that prohibit people from harassing others inside?

And that nearly all libraries have free wifi and desktop computers that erase history when you’re done using them?

And that librarians are totally chill with you hanging out all day? (provided you don’t spill things on the books)

And that libraries often have huge offerings of dvds which you can watch on your laptop in the library?

And that libraries tend to have lots of resources for folks who find themselves in distress?

What I’m saying is, if shit hits the fan, go to the library, you’re welcome here.

[angelqueen04]

Abso-fucking-lutely!

[deadcatwithaflamethrower]

Yes. This. Absolutely THIS.

[stimpak-addict-deactivated20190]

As a librarian, I love this so much :) Go down to your local library!

[radicalmilitantlibrarian]

In two weeks, it will be easier for Uncle Sam to search your computer [Updated]

Under Rule 41, warrants allow searches of multiple devices—without naming the suspects.

This has been in the works for three years and involves only the judicial branch of the federal government. It's still scary that this power will be freshly available for newly-elected security-state nuts.

[electricliterature]

Do you know of any specific resources for LBGT+ writers and/or writers of color to get support and funding throughout the writing and publishing process?

Lambda Literary is a good place to start for LGBT writers, and Kimbilio Fiction for writers of color.  Grants are available for writers from the NEA, as well as  from many state arts foundations, and some grants may be specifically focused on diversity. 

[radicalmilitantlibrarian]

I may not like the Authors Guild, but they’re not wrong about everything; this is good advice, insofar as I can tell.

[nortonliterature]

If you can’t get enough villains in your life through The Cursed Child, try out the Norton Critical Edition Periodic Table of Literary Villains (click to zoom) to find your next favorite evildoer! 

[radicalmilitantlibrarian]

@veschwab, I think they have your number. . . .

[radicalmilitantlibrarian]

Deeply Disturbing or Profoundly Weird: Round Rock ISD and the Texas Public Information Act

On June 10th, I sent a Texas Public Information Act request to Round Rock ISD for "All records relating to the disinvitation of author Phil Bildner from speaking or presenting at Round Rock ISD as had been planned for September 2016." (Note: The link there is for your reference; it was not in my request.)

On August 4th, I received the files. The delay was partially due to vacations and shortened hours at the district over the summer. I think that they probably filled it as quickly as possible for such a vague request.

I have now reviewed the files. The story seems a bit more complex than it's been portrayed thus far. Additionally, while there are no smoking guns here, the files are in some ways more interesting in what is not included. Let me explain:

The very first document—and the only one that isn't formatted badly—is the official statement that Round Rock put out on June 8th or 9th. Above that is the phrase "Please see our statement below." It's not clear if that's from the original statement or if it's directed at me. Is Round Rock recognizing that I'm investigating them and preemptively attaching their official PR response or was it merely viewed as a responsive document? I'm leaning towards the former for the following reason: The official statement is the only document from this year. Everything else is emails from late September / early October 2015. There are no other official statements, there are no letters from outside, there are no emails to or from Mr. Bildner in 2016, nothing. We know these communications exist; Mr. Bildner and outside organizations reacting to the disinvitation have discussed them, and no-one's challenged their accounts. But they're not included here; only the official statement is.

Even weirder, the actual decision to disinvite Mr. Bildner is included nowhere in these emails. Lots of discussion supporting their eventual rationale is, but look at the dates: All of the emails are from September and October of 2015. In December of 2015, they signed a contract inviting him back for the visit that would eventually be cancelled. Either the decision to disinvite him came after that or they signed a contract that they had no intention of honoring. It wasn't until May 27th in 2016 that they wrote him and canceled. Regardless of when it occurred, either the decision to disinvite him was not written down or the decision to disinvite him was considered unrelated to his disinvitation and thus not provided to me. The actual email disinviting him is apparently also unrelated to his disinvitation. Or, possibly, all of those later, controversial documents have been deleted and only these old emails remain. All of these options are either deeply disturbing or profoundly weird.

Finally, in the emails I can see at least three controversies or objections surrounding Mr. Bildner's booktalks:

The account of the first of these controversies—a parent's objection prior to the 2015 talks and subsequent Twitter argument with Mr. Bildner—is clearly fragmentary. It was clearly an ongoing saga by the time of the earliest email released to me. But it's officially not why he was disinvited from a return visit, so presumably Round Rock doesn't consider it related to his disinvitation, so it didn't send me any other emails about it; I only know about it because it happened to be discussed in the same emails as the official reason for his disinvitation.

A second objection was raised regarding the book George in specific. From what emails I have in front of me, only a single person raised that objection and it was ignored by the administration except for a later comment that they had no problem with George. But, of course, because that's officially not why Mr. Bildner was disinvited, there may very well be other emails on the subject that have been withheld from me because they’re officially considered unrelated to the disinvitation.

The third objection is the official one, which I presume I have been provided a complete record of, the fact that all of it occurs a month or two prior to Mr. Bildner being invited to return and more than half a year prior to his disinvitation notwithstanding.

So, this is where I stand: I have requested everything related to Mr. Bildner's disinvitation. Someone at Round Rock has reviewed my request, intuited that I'm looking for the behind-the-scenes reasons, and given me (1) the official statement of their reason, and (2) a selection of documents that are limited to the initial internal discussion of what would become their official reason and nothing else, including the eventual decision and the disinvitation itself. It’s impossible to tell if there were other factors that may have even subconsciously played a role in the decision to disinvite Mr. Bildner because anything that doesn’t match the official narrative is officially irrelevant and therefore doesn’t have to be disclosed. Without filing multiple follow-up requests to specifically dig into the loose threads and massive blank spaces disclosed by this response, I can only come to a few cursory and unobjectionable conclusions regarding this incident. And perhaps that was the point.

[radicalmilitantlibrarian]

He's offering the state registry data as a block list.

Video games are protected first amendment expression and an abridgement of the freedom of access to protected material has to be capable of surviving judicial review, potentially under a strict scrutiny standard. This wouldn't. I mean, seriously, this wouldn't even stop an active predator from finding out where the locations are. The fact that they're near places were RSOs are already living isn't going to change just because you tell the RSO to not play the game.

[incorrectshadesofmagicquotes]

I’m in.

[radicalmilitantlibrarian]

ALL HAIL THE SCHWABLIN QUEEN!

[writing-prompt-s]

Your Tumblr username decides your profession. How is your first day at work?

[teddy-the-queer-wizard]

Either there are flying bears or there are going to be.

[endorathewitchwriter-deactivate]

Let’s see, I’m writing, doing magic and irritating some mortal named Dagwood. :)

[jupiter235]

I’m the king of the Roman Gods, so……..

[buttersketches]

Well, there’s butter and I’m sketching it

[starrypawz]

I’m a magical dog or something I guess? idk

[oolathurman]

i’m going to die by a fucking rancor tearing me apart rip me

[stealyourshiny]

I’m obviously an international jewel thief. This is acceptable.

[combination-nc]

Apparently I was put in a position where I could accidentally wreck a ship. Who hired me?

[radicalmilitantlibrarian]

Umm. This is my profession?

[radicalmilitantlibrarian]

Training volunteer parents to hold opinions; requests to create a booklist about overweight adolescents and to remove books about suicide.

Just your usual stuff in the library world.

[radicalmilitantlibrarian]

"At their best, public libraries exist to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

I would make a somewhat different argument with a similar conclusion.

We are dedicated to truth and facts and equity of access. We're dedicated to giving people what they want, even if someone else doesn't want them to have it. We're dedicated to providing information on current issues.

So yeah, put up a Black Lives Matter display. It's a current news issue that requires a lot of background reading for people who haven't been paying close attention. Give people who want to understand it better something to read. Stock it with books on the killing of Trayvon Martin (where the phrase originated) and all who have followed him. Stock it with books on the civil rights movement. Stock it with books on police brutality. Stock it with books on police reform.

And hell, if you have any books arguing the other side—I'm not sure what that would be, exactly, but I'm trying to address a general ethics question as well, so let's pretend there are some—put those in there, too. Even if you disagree with it 100%; there's always value in understanding how the other side thinks and constructs its arguments. We believe in democracy, which means we believe that, given sufficient information, most people will figure out what's right most of the time. If we didn't trust the public to separate the wheat from the chaff more than we trust ourselves to be perfect and unbiased, we wouldn't be in favor of free speech.

[conza]

In short, a person does not have a “right to freedom of speech”; what he does have is the right to hire a hall and address the people who enter the premises. He does not have a “right to freedom of the press”; what he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet, and to sell that pamphlet to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it). Thus, what he has in each of these cases is property rights, including the right of free contract and transfer which form a part of such rights of ownership. There is no extra “right of free speech” or free press beyond the property rights that a person may have in any given case.

Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (via conza)

So a person has freedom of speech insofar as they can afford to hire a private forum or to self-publish? And apparently there exist no rights to speech in public spaces or traditional public fora, such as park and sidewalks, presumably because there are no public commons in a system in which everything is predicated on private property rights.

Yeah, no, I prefer our way better.

[radicalmilitantlibrarian]

Some Real Talk On Piracy From A Witcher 3 Dev

Marcin Iwiński, co-founder of GOG and development studio CD Projekt Red, has some curious thoughts on how to handle a very thorny subject: piracy.

CD Projekt Red has always had awesome and relatively fact-based, outcome-oriented approaches to the issue of piracy rather than moralizing and whining and doing stuff that doesn't actually help their bottom line.