Should libraries have this kind of stuff?

[Elizabeth I]

I work for a public library. Today while I was putting together some information to take to a meeting, I ran across a folder that our reference staff put together about "alternative medicine resources." I offered the opinion that as a library we shouldn't be promoting that kind of stuff, and one of the reference librarians said, "Why not? It's one of our resources." (Which it is.)

However, that's exactly my point. Does a public library have an obligation to provide only authoritative, accurate information? Given that most people trust the library to have authoritative, accurate information, should we even make "alternative medicine" resources available?

I realize that libraries also carry materials about elves, Ents, witches, and Sherlock Holmes, but those are clearly marked "fiction." (Although I once knew someone who insisted that Sherlock Holmes was a historical figure.) But should we let people think information is accurate when the odds are that it isn't?

[fuelair]

I work for a public library. Today while I was putting together some information to take to a meeting, I ran across a folder that our reference staff put together about "alternative medicine resources." I offered the opinion that as a library we shouldn't be promoting that kind of stuff, and one of the reference librarians said, "Why not? It's one of our resources." (Which it is.)

However, that's exactly my point. Does a public library have an obligation to provide only authoritative, accurate information? Given that most people trust the library to have authoritative, accurate information, should we even make "alternative medicine" resources available?

I realize that libraries also carry materials about elves, Ents, witches, and Sherlock Holmes, but those are clearly marked "fiction." (Although I once knew someone who insisted that Sherlock Holmes was a historical figure.) But should let people think information is accurate when the odds are that it isn't?
Library Lady will likely pop in to write on this, but,as I also have my MLS I'll stab it first. Libraries are data storage and retrieval sources. That is, they gather material and arrange it in ways that, hopefully, improve it's accessability to the consumer of media. Libraries generally have policies that preclude what you are speaking of (the technical term is labeling and we are taught in LS courses that that is a Bad Thing) because that is not the library's function - and if it is, there need to be a lot more non-librarians there for advising what materials should and what should not be provided for our customers. And, cataloging should be accurate within the possibilities of the system being used (A book about the Loch Ness Monster goes into the same classification whether it supports the monster, is neutral about the monster, or believes the monster is a complete fraud, etc.). A good librarian/media specialist will follow that policy and offer other information (direct customer to , shall we say, better choices of material on the subject - after all, the collection is supposed to be balanced but there is no reason not to offer assistance when asked.) You might ask your Selection & Acquisition department about this!! :)

[Mojo]

I work for a public library. Today while I was putting together some information to take to a meeting, I ran across a folder that our reference staff put together about "alternative medicine resources." I offered the opinion that as a library we shouldn't be promoting that kind of stuff, and one of the reference librarians said, "Why not? It's one of our resources." (Which it is.)

However, that's exactly my point. Does a public library have an obligation to provide only authoritative, accurate information? Given that most people trust the library to have authoritative, accurate information, should we even make "alternative medicine" resources available?


What sort of sources are included? Does it include critical sources, or just pro-alternative medicine stuff?

[bjornart]

Have them available, yes. Promote them, no. (I'd argue for my opinion, but it's self evident and/or I'm lazy.)

[LibraryLady]

Oddly enough, I and a couple of other librarians where I work were just having this discussion. Actually, we were joking that we could have a display titled, "Don't Believe Anything in These Books!" with Kevin Trudeau, Deepak Chopra, Sylvia Browne, etc. Then we all got back to reality. The truth is that we are conduits of information and cannot try to influence the patrons to believe one thing or another. That is a Bad Thing indeed. Also known as censorship.

If someone approaches me and asks for books about S.B., and about half her books are in my department, I look them up and hand them over. If someone approaches me and asks a general question about life after death, I show them books with varied opinions. If I'm asked if I can recommend something, I point out the ones I've read and felt were well reviewed, well written and held solid arguments.

I can't impose my beliefs and knowledge on others, as tempting as it might be. I can read a hell of a lot and do decent readers' advisory.

For what it's worth.

[biomorph]

hi Elizabeth,

The problem is that a library, much like a book shop, provides the labels for the catagories it itself uses. And the user expects the library to be accurate in this matter, so they can trust it enough to conduct an easier search.

So the library does have a duty to do this properly and without bias.

Possibly a section labeled "medical - old wives tales and unproven practices" or similar needs inserting in the medical section.
Along with leach's and other practices now known to be unworkable.

I wouldn't file it under fiction, as the original intent of the book is to portray fact, and was not written as fiction. You can put it in the "considered untrue" section of the factual section of the medical though.

I don't think i could live with it as an Alternative Medical section, because that implies that the library considers it to be an alternative. It isn't if it is unproven. The library being a public facility has to be seen to be unbiased.

Considering such material to be labeled "alternative" does display a bias, if the practice is not an alternative because it can't be proven currently to work under medical conditions and actually do something.

I'd have a placebo section in there to somewhere, probably for homeopathy. Also Ideomotor Effect for the dowsing books.:p

Critical matter of such a subject also ought to reside in the same section. :)
However I can see some bias in the labels I've made up myself. so somehow to just be neutral is the aim.
regards

[Miss Whiplash]

Thank you Library Lady! My thoughts exactly - this is censorship. The role of a library is provide a collection of literary and artistic materials to the public, not to promote some material and withhold others. Though we conclude alternative medicine is woo, we can't censor these books or put stickers on the covers to alert readers. If we did, we would be just as guilty of bias as the Christian right-wingnuts who attempt to censor evolutionary theory in biology books.

[Denver]

I'd agree that a library should be a provider of resources, rather than a promoter. But the issue really comes down to how the library decides to label or categorize something, as that could be seen as promoting and becoming non-neutral.

I'd want things to be labeled for the easiest way to find them. I would expect homeopathy, acupuncture, etc, to be found under alternate medicine. And I think a library that labels them as such is not promoting them as a valid substitute for medicine, but rather just following already established and accepted norms for classification. Accepted norms for classification I don't think means the same as accepted norms for medical science.

[bokonon]

If someone approaches me and asks for books about S.B., and about half her books are in my department, I look them up and hand them over. [...]

I can't impose my beliefs and knowledge on others, as tempting as it might be. I can read a hell of a lot and do decent readers' advisory.
I recently checked some John Edward and Sylvia Browne out of the local library, for research into possible parodies I'm considering. I sure wasn't interested in buying copies, and I was glad they were there.

I'd say that in addition to being unable to impose your beliefs on others, you don't necessarily know why someone has an interest in a particular book. The library in question has 5 or 10 books on evolution for every one book by Sylvia, John, or Nostradamus. I don't think they're doing a disservice to the public.

[Brown]

I agree with what's been said. The library should have the books. The library's concern is classification. A book that is fringe or outright hokum should not be classified as science. Call it "spiritual," call it "alternative views," call it "paranormal," but DON'T call it "science" or "medicine."

A few years ago, I had this crazy idea that I would see whether my local library had a copy of "Dianetics." Basically, I wanted to see what the fuss was about, and whether there might be anything to it."Dianetics" is total horse crap. If you like reading double-talk and pretentious stream-of-consciousness pronouncements passed off as something representative of genuine psychology, then maybe the book is for you, Mr. Cruise. But if you don't care much for horse crap, and if you have the small measure of sense to recognize it for what it is, then the book is not worth serious study.Well, the library did have a copy of "Dianetics." In fact, the library had a dozen copies on the shelves. Maybe people bought the book, then decided to donate it to the library. Maybe cultists simply flooded the library with donations. I don't know, but my guess is the former. Many people, when they buy a book and find out that it is crammed full of intellectual excrement, can't bring themselves to throw the book away. Throwing a book away is too much like book burning, which they see as a moral crime regargless of the book. So instead of discarding or destroying the book, they donate it.

All of which is fine... but what I don't understand is why the library had so many copies. One--or at most two--would suffice. If that meant that ten extra copies would get tossed into the trash, then so be it.

[Elizabeth I]

Thanks everybody. You've said everything I also think, but, boy, I go back and forth.

Like the whole "Internet filtering" thing. My library doesn't filter Internet access, and (for those of you who don't know) most libraries no longer limit children's access to the adult section of the library (as a former kid who had to check out a lot of stuff I wanted to read on my mother's card, I appreciate that.) The reason given, among others, is that libraries can't limit access to materials.

BUT, as a function of collection development policies, libraries routinely limit access to materials. No library can afford to buy, nor do they have the room to house, everything in the world. That means the collection development librarians exercise discretion as to what to buy. They use lots of resources to research their decisions, but they do make decisions. Some items are purchased and some are not. For example - and this is an argument often used by filtering proponents - very few libraries subscribe to Hustler. Yet many, if not most, libraries allow patrons to access stuff online that's way more hard-core.

This is not a matter of my personal feelings about porn or obscenity (though I have some pretty strong ones about child porn and the objectification of women.) It's more about what I see as a contradiction in the way librarians talk about this. We "don't limit," but we do limit when we make selections of what to buy. I have asked lots of librarians about this and never gotten what I considered a satisfactory answer.

(Can I just say that, on rereading this, it looks like one of those sandbag threads that pop up all the time on the Conspiracy subforum, where people are at first "just asking questions," then it turns out they actually have an agenda, usually a pretty weird one? I didn't really mean this to turn out this way - one question just kind of led to another, and in a way I think they are related.)

[jimbob]

At university, I used to be in charge of the college library, I filed Whitley Streiber's "Communion" under humour...

[calebprime]

Thanks everybody. You've said everything I also think, but, boy, I go back and forth.

...

(Can I just say that, on rereading this, it looks like one of those sandbag threads that pop up all the time on the Conspiracy subforum, where people are at first "just asking questions," then it turns out they actually have an agenda, usually a pretty weird one? I didn't really mean this to turn out this way - one question just kind of led to another, and in a way I think they are related.)

Conspiracy theorists don't worry too much about how they sound. So, don't worry.

[Elizabeth I]

At university, I used to be in charge of the college library, I filed Whitley Streiber's "Communion" under humour...

Baaaad librarian. :p

And don't you go picking on Whitley. He's one of our own hometown authors. Fortunately, we have others. Jacques Barzun and Rick Riordan, to name just two. Also Janette Sebring Lowrey.

[Rat]

The situation where my girlfriend works is more complicated. She works in the library at a college, so the same rules as a public library aren't applicable. I give her a lift home on Tuesdays, and as I usually arrive early, I browse the shelves as I wait. Of course, the books are geared to the courses offered at the campus. At the campus in question, they have sports students, beautician and hair students, catering, construction, and some others that I can't remember.

The shelves are of course divided by category, but there is complementary therapy amongst the health and beauty sections. Not just of the wishy-washy new age type, but all the homeopathy, crystals, and everything similar that you can think of. The college is of course funded by local authority. My girlfriend finds my objection to be a mix of annoying and quaint (she's not woo in the slightest, but she hates all of you a lot more), so she would never raise an objection.

Should this be in the library of a college, which has none of the duties of a public library? The public library should make all available, but the college library surely has a duty to education? I have no reason to believe that the tutors in whatever courses these books relate to warn their students of the relevant pitfalls.

[JJM]

Librarians, like journalists, labor under the misconception that anything that is not blatantly wrong (to them) is an opinion worthy of consideration; and they are just conduits. The world is not flat; nobody who believes otherwise is going to be hurt by walking off the edge. It takes a lot more study to recognize quackery; but that does not mean that quack ideas are more respectable than the flat Earth notion. Quackery is at best harmless (aside from the cost); whereas, quacks working to their standard of care, can be seriously (and, predictably) harmful. Acknowledging that is a fact, not an "opinion" or a "bias."

If librarians are going to provide reliable information, they need to consult people who can separate the wheat from the chaff among the sources available.

What is "reliable" information on so-called alternative medicine (sCAM)? There are two answers to that. First, there are the ideas of adherents. However, every individual practitioner of sCAM is free to adopt whatever ideas s/he wants, so no book can be said to be definitive. Second, there are the facts; which can be (and often are) conclusive. If someone wants to investigate the notions of a topic in general, the first sort of books can be useful. If someone wants to investigate a treatment for an existing condition, the latter are more informative and less likely to lead to tragedy.

It is within the bounds of an interview to determine which type of information a patron wants.

I admit that reliable health information concerning sCAM is hard to find. The Health Robbers (Barrett and Jarvis, eds., Prometheus, 1993) should be in every reference department. Also, www.quackwatch.org (http://www.quackwatch.org) is the single, best Online reference.

Reviews of sCAM books, in library lit., are usually poor. For example, a book on herbal medicine by Penelope Ody was recommended for all libraries in The Library Journal; at quackwatch, search for Varro Tyler (the late, esteemed professor of pharmacognosy), he calls the book hazardous. Similarly, an encyclopedia of alternative healing was extolled (in LJ) for "not making exaggerated claims." The entry on acupuncture said it is "a complete system of diagnosis and treatment." That is an exaggerated (read, factually incorrect) claim.

Finally, the same reviewer found Kurt Butler's Consumer's Handbook for "Alternative Medicine" (Prometheus, 1992) "biased." Butler's book is totally factual, and sCAM fares poorly in the face of facts; that is not a bias.

Librarians need to own up to the fact that supporting the notions of quacks (despite claiming agnosticism) hurt people who are ill, and develop another model for providing information.

[DrDisco]

I realize that libraries also carry materials about elves, Ents, witches, and Sherlock Holmes, but those are clearly marked "fiction."

And where is the Bible, with plenty of "alternative medicince" recommendations, located?

I agree with you. If I had my way, the entire religion section would be moved to fiction.

[JJM]

And where is the Bible, with plenty of "alternative medicince" recommendations, located? {snip}Perhaps you will be satisfied to know the Library Congress designation for the bible is BS.

[LibraryLady]

Maybe you'd like to read a library selection policy. (http://www.prattlibrary.org/uploadedFiles/www/about/books_and_materials/how_baltimore_chooses_8th_ed.pdf) Warning: 1.72 megs.

[six7s]

I can't impose my beliefs and knowledge on others

It's true :)

But, as you point out, you can share them

I can read a hell of a lot and do decent readers' advisory

Like a zillion or so others, I appreciate that librarians (and staff in good bookshops) do just that, and so look to them for advice

For what it's worth.

Lots :)

------

1 Q: Since the advent of database-driven search tools, is it no longer quite as important where a book is stored?

[JJM]

Maybe you'd like to read a library selection policy. (http://www.prattlibrary.org/uploadedFiles/www/about/books_and_materials/how_baltimore_chooses_8th_ed.pdf) Warning: 1.72 megs.It is a long document- can you provide the salient details? In my experience, library documents are long on words and short on concrete.

Maybe this is the exception. Help me out. Does this promote anti-quack material and reject quack stuff? Remember, my concern is mis-information on health care, more than fairy-tales that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

[LibraryLady]

I'm off to TAM 5.5 in the morning, so won't be participating anymore today. However, when I do get back, I'll try to pick out some salient points.

[LibraryLady]

Rebecca discovered another “rad librarian” at TAM 5.5 and introduced the two of us. We had a great time talking about various subjects, and I shared the gist of this thread with her; she had a great idea—a thought experiment!

You are now a librarian with a $1000 per month or $12,000 per year materials budget. Your funding is based on the following factors:

Number of books checked out per month.
Number of reference questions asked per month.
Number of people who come into the library.

The following are average prices for books with their average circulation. The borrowing period is maximum two weeks.

Science books @ $50 with an average of 1 circulation per month
Humanities books @ $25 with an average of 3 circulations per month
Books on the paranormal @ $20 with an average of 3 circulations per month
Social science books @ $50 with an average of 1 circulation per month
Art books @ $75 with an average of 1 circulation per month.

Bear in mind, if your statistics go down, so does your budget.

How would you spend this money?

[rjh01]

I would
1. Query the stats for starters.
2. Does buying more books on the same subject alter the averages? I mean do we have groups of people who borrow the same types and numbers of books regardless of the number of books that exist in the library?
3. How do book purchase decisions impact on the number of people who come into the library and the number of people who make reference questions?

[LibraryLady]

I would
1. Query the stats for starters.

You can query them all you want, but they are what the administration hands you. They are what you work with.

2. Does buying more books on the same subject alter the averages? I mean do we have groups of people who borrow the same types and numbers of books regardless of the number of books that exist in the library?

I'm sorry, please clarify. It's probably clear to others, but I'm still recovering from TAM.

3. How do book purchase decisions impact on the number of people who come into the library and the number of people who make reference questions?

It's hard to say, about the first part of this question. I work in a very large (1.5 million volumes) library which is the center of a state network. Do we count online questions as people who come into the library or not? Telephone calls? Do we count the people who do not use the books at all, but for example sit all day at the computers playing games? These are all real questions discussed in the literature.

The number and depth of the reference books do have an impact on how many reference questions we get, as opposed to people who are reading for self-education or enjoyment. My library has a huge reference collection for the reasons cited above.

I hope this helps you in making your collection development decisions.

[rjh01]

I'm sorry, please clarify. It's probably clear to others, but I'm still recovering from TAM.

No problems. This is the critical issue. Let me put it another way. Suppose the library purchasing staff went mad and bought $12,000 worth of books in one year all in one of those subjects you listed. What would that do to the figures you quoted? Suggested possible answers
1. They will have no impact. There will however a huge increase in the number of people borrowing books on that subject.
2. The same number of people borrow the same type of books. As the library has now more books on one subject the averages are changed.

I suggest the second answer is close to being right.

[JJM]

I'm off to TAM 5.5 in the morning, so won't be participating anymore today. However, when I do get back, I'll try to pick out some salient points.I thought this was a response to my posts (#16 and 21) observing that the current, reference-librarian model ("I don't stand behind anything, here is what someone wrote") is inadequate for questions about sCAM from people who are considering it for therapy.

The OP asks if libraries should have material promoting sCAM. My response is that the library should, so researchers can see what mis-information is being promoted. When it comes to someone who is ill and wants to use sCAM, the library should convey only the rational publications that are critical of the subject (or send the inquirer to a real, medical professional). That is because the criticism is fact-based, not mere opinions.

On top of that, the librarians who support sCAM should learn the facts, or recuse themselves. That includes many who review the sCAM books.

[Oroborus]

Well look at it this way, maybe someone will want it to increase the strength of their anti-woo by knowing the enemy :D

[JJM]

Well look at it this way, maybe someone will want it to increase the strength of their anti-woo by knowing the enemy :DI tried to make that point. Someone else did, as well.

[LibraryLady]

I thought this was a response to my posts (#16 and 21) observing that the current, reference-librarian model ("I don't stand behind anything, here is what someone wrote") is inadequate for questions about sCAM from people who are considering it for therapy.

The OP asks if libraries should have material promoting sCAM. My response is that the library should, so researchers can see what mis-information is being promoted. When it comes to someone who is ill and wants to use sCAM, the library should convey only the rational publications that are critical of the subject (or send the inquirer to a real, medical professional). That is because the criticism is fact-based, not mere opinions.

On top of that, the librarians who support sCAM should learn the facts, or recuse themselves. That includes many who review the sCAM books.

On target.

[dudalb]

I realize that libraries also carry materials about elves, Ents, witches, and Sherlock Holmes, but those are clearly marked "fiction." (Although I once knew someone who insisted that Sherlock Holmes was a historical figure.)

That someone probably saw some of the essays on Sherlock Holmes done by Holmes enthusiasts,where the fiction that Holmes was a historical characters whose adventure were recoreded by John Watson and edited by Arthur Conan Doyle is a standard technique.
It's sort of a big inside joke,and not meant to be taken seriously,but a few simple souls are still taken in by it.

[Skullaxide]

At university, I used to be in charge of the college library, I filed Whitley Streiber's "Communion" under humour...

Me and a few friends used to put Bibles in the fiction section. A Christian friend asked why we didn't put any Korans in the fiction section, so we did that too and everyone rejoiced.

[arthwollipot]

Me and a few friends used to put Bibles in the fiction section. A Christian friend asked why we didn't put any Korans in the fiction section, so we did that too and everyone rejoiced.Oh yeah, I think you're going to fit right in here. :D

[Foolmewunz]

I sort of expected some votes for the negative side of the question, but see none. That's fairly impressive (or the rest of the hard-edged skeptics are off trying to read through Plumjam's latest....).

I really think it's a basic question. Libraries provide stacks of material. Chemicals can make you sick or blow up your bedroom. Should the library stop carrying books on chemistry? You can burn down your kitchen in a cooking mishap. Maybe they stop carrying cookbooks? Auto accidents are a major cause of death. No more auto-maintenance books?

In all cases the answer is a resounding "No!", obviously. The librarian, trustees, administrators, et al have to assume that Mrs. McGinty knows something about Chemistry and is looking at the book for more detailed information in a certain area or on a certain topic. Or that Dr. Chin knows not to leave a pot boiling on a gas stove and go for a three hour drive. And that Mr. Rodriguez has a license and knows how to driver properly. Similarly, LL and others have to assume that the person looking into alternative medicine, pyramid power, reincarnation or whatnot are sentient beings and know what they're looking for and have their own reasons.

We often wind up comparing religion to various forms of woo. Let's reverse that. What if someone goes into the local library and says to LL, "Hi, I'm totally devoid of a spiritual core. I'm looking for the bestest religion of 'em all." Is LL going to direct them to the section on Judaism? Or should she direct them to something on Comparative Religions or Philosophy of Religion, and let them decide on their own? To me (and I'm going to take a chance and guess to LL also) the answer's pretty obvious.

I want my library, whether brick and mortar or virtual, to have source materials on non-fiction* items, and scads of criticism of same. I don't want them sub-sorted in terms of someone's subjective favoritism.

*for fiction, I just want them to have lots and lots of it...

[Dancing David]

Me and a few friends used to put Bibles in the fiction section. A Christian friend asked why we didn't put any Korans in the fiction section, so we did that too and everyone rejoiced.

They ate Robin's priest and there was much rejoicing...

[Dancing David]

Um, the ability to access information is what libraries are about, while some can read on homeopathy and the Chopralites I can read up on history, science and 'satanic' fiction (Harry Potter, Roger Zelazny and the like).

Free speech is uncontrolled.

[TheAnachronism]

I work as a page in our county library (meaning I stock all of the circulating books), and the other day I found quite a few books on Sylvia Brown in the juvenile section. I only found them when stocking one of the books, meaning that someone had to have checked it out.

I can't believe parents would let their children read that trash.

[Leicontis]

I would think that it's sort of the librarian's perogative to comment on the books, especially when any sort of question is asked.

I want my library, whether brick and mortar or virtual, to have source materials on non-fiction* items, and scads of criticism of same. I don't want them sub-sorted in terms of someone's subjective favoritism.
What about sub-sorted in terms of objective fact? Many of the claims of sCAM have been scientifically proven false. Study after study says that these practices are at best a harmless placebo. For what they are at worst, I would direct you here (http://whatstheharm.net).

Intelligent Design books belong in the Religion section. IMO, that's also the best place to put much of the sCAM literature - all belief and bad science, no verifiable fact.

[JJM]

{snip} Similarly, LL and others have to assume that the person looking into alternative medicine, pyramid power, reincarnation or whatnot are sentient beings and know what they're looking for and have their own reasons. {snip}I think most of your points have been addressed. We agree that all points of view (opinions) should be available. The "reference interview" can elicit whether the person only wants proponent material, opponent material, or both. When someone seeks information for personal health-care, it is important to point them to factual material.

It is a fact that homeopathy has been disproven http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=35 What other facts could a person looking for health-care need to know?

There are some practical problems in totally neutral presentation of published material. For one thing, patrons look for reliable information from librarians; offering nonsense betrays that trust. In addition, sCAM practice (even within one cult- e.g., chiropracty, acupuncture, homeopathy) has no standards; so proponents promote conflicting ideas.

Another practical problem is that, unlike your Utopian ideal, the public isn't very discriminating. For example, in a large library they may find a dozen books that promote homeopathy and only two that expose it for what it is. So, the figure the consensus favors sCAM. This is a standard imbalance because proponents make more money on their books than do critics.

If you don't buy that argument- consider all the people who dote on astrologers, psychics, chiros, Chopra/Weil, faith healers, etc. If the public were critical thinkers, those woos would starve.

[roger]

What I want from my library is access to information. For example, suppose I was writing an article on sCAM, or crystal power, or whatever. It sure would be nice to be able to go to the library to read some of these books.


You don't get to decide what I think about, thank you very much.

[Foolmewunz]

Leicontis / JJM,

I think you're assuming that I'd want, say, homeopathy under 'medicine', or that I'd want bigfoot research under 'archaeology' or 'anthropology'. I'd expect them in their correct category (and not knowing if there is such a category, I won't hazard to guess if the Dewey Decimal System has an area for either).

I just would like to have all the information available that's possible within the budget constraints of the particular library.

And yes, I think the public has a duty to educate itself. The library can offer resources towards that end, but there are other areas (like the JREF) that are there for promoting critical thinking skills.

At any rate, I think your arguments are more towards how to clarify or classify the information. You're not saying to ban it, so I think we just differ in that area.

(And yes, if asked, the librarian should give advice. But there you're assuming the librarian is LL. What if she's Mrs. Plumjam, or Tokie? Do you want them dispensing advice at your library? Or is it limited to like-thinking (wise like me) librarians? I'd sure hate my kid walking into a library in Tampa for something on comparative religions and getting advice from someone out of Kent Hovind's cult.)

[skeptigirl]

Libraries should not be in the business of picking information for us. On the other hand, they should have such stuff properly cataloged and not be putting fiction in with legit references. Lobby to have a section labeled, alternative (to evidence) medicine, rather than simply alternative medicine. :D

I love this group. I post something before reading what everyone else posts and then find someone thinking along the same line has posted just above me.

[JJM]

Libraries should not be in the business of picking information for us. On the other hand, they should have such stuff properly cataloged and not be putting fiction in with legit references. Lobby to have a section labeled, alternative (to evidence) medicine, rather than simply alternative medicine. :D {snip}I fear we are stuck with the term "alternative medicine" since it has been around so long. There is some discussion here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/01/renaming_complementary_and_alternative_m.php
One of the comments, by Wallace (Wally) Sampson is notable.

[six7s]

Its a shame the phrase 'mental health' has already been taken

;)

[KS_SKEPTIC]

I realize that libraries also carry materials about elves, Ents, witches, and Sherlock Holmes, but those are clearly marked "fiction." (Although I once knew someone who insisted that Sherlock Holmes was a historical figure.) But should we let people think information is accurate when the odds are that it isn't?

That someone my have been doing what in Sherlockian circles is called "playing the game".
It is the gentle fiction that Holmes and Watson really lived. Take for example, a discussion on the life of Conan Doyle is followed immediately by a somewhat frivolous speculation as to when Conan Doyle and Dr. Watson might have met: "Perhaps these two young writers met in Edinburgh or perhaps their similar medical backgrounds led them to the same lecture."
You tend to work The Great Detective and his Boswell (chronicler) Dr. Watson into that time period as if they were real historical figures.

Then again he might have been a nut!!!

[Foolmewunz]

That someone my have been doing what in Sherlockian circles is called "playing the game".
It is the gentle fiction that Holmes and Watson really lived. Take for example, a discussion on the life of Conan Doyle is followed immediately by a somewhat frivolous speculation as to when Conan Doyle and Dr. Watson might have met: "Perhaps these two young writers met in Edinburgh or perhaps their similar medical backgrounds led them to the same lecture."
You tend to work The Great Detective and his Boswell (chronicler) Dr. Watson into that time period as if they were real historical figures.

Then again he might have been a nut!!!

There are a number of Holmes societies that play this game. They consider everything written by Doyle to be "the canon", and go to lovely ridiculous lengths to prove, for instance, the place of Watson's birth... Citing references from the stories/novel, and then checking into birth records, military records, etc... The best of these were the exhaustive efforts to locate 24B Baker Street, an address (the number) that never existed (on a street that did/does exist). After exhaustive discussions, they more or less accept a conclusion (sometimes after ten years arguing it) and this becomes accepted research. It's rather funny, really and totally harmless. And since it's been going on for about seventy-five years, I think of it as the original Mornington Crescent.

ETA: Sorry for the derail. Just happens to be one of my side fascinations.

[Elizabeth I]

Libraries should not be in the business of picking information for us. On the other hand, they should have such stuff properly cataloged and not be putting fiction in with legit references. Lobby to have a section labeled, alternative (to evidence) medicine, rather than simply alternative medicine.

I know this is the philosophy, and I agree with it, as a philosophy. But in practice, it's impossible. Libraries by definition DO limit access to information every time they make a decision to purchase one book/publication/database and exclude another.

An example often used by pro-Internet-filtering advocates is that libraries don't subscribe to Hustler, so why should people be able to access porn on library computers? The one librarian I asked this question of replied that libraries don't have to offer Hustler because people have access to it in other places - bookstores, news stands, friends' copies, etc. But the same thing is true of computer access. If you don't have a computer, you don't have to check out porn at the library, you can go to an Internet café, a friend's house, whatever.

I guess my problem is that it seems disingenuous to say, "You can't limit access to information," then proceed to do exactly that, every time you decide what to purchase (and with the limited budgets on which most libraries operate, they do a fine job of selection.) I admire librarians tremendously. You won't find a defender of the First Amendment who is any more fierce than your average public librarian. By and large, they joined the profession because they have a deep dedication to public service. So I get a sense of cognitive dissonance between the "we don't limit" and the reality. Somebody needs to think of something different to say about this issue.

That someone my have been doing what in Sherlockian circles is called "playing the game".
It is the gentle fiction that Holmes and Watson really lived. Take for example, a discussion on the life of Conan Doyle is followed immediately by a somewhat frivolous speculation as to when Conan Doyle and Dr. Watson might have met: "Perhaps these two young writers met in Edinburgh or perhaps their similar medical backgrounds led them to the same lecture."
You tend to work The Great Detective and his Boswell (chronicler) Dr. Watson into that time period as if they were real historical figures.

Then again he might have been a nut!!!

Not a he - she - and she was simply very ignorant. I know about the Holmesian researchers, and believe me, my acquaintance was not one of them. :)

[Lamuella]

in the case of most public libraries, the sad truth is this: most of what they stock is what people have expressed a preference in reading.

They have to try and strike a balance between providing good information sources and providing the kind of "popular nonfiction" that gets checked out a lot. Hence, the public library I work for has a lot of very good and very worthwhile books on medicine, but also things like the Kevin Trudeau book, simply because it's a popular book.

Where the major part of the quality control comes in, however, is in staff directing people to information. I would never in a million years direct someone to the kevin trudeau books if they had a medical question because it's not a quality resource. However, it is still in the collection because some people want to read it.

What we're trying to do is balance good information with popular books. Sometimes finding the balance can be tough.

[KS_SKEPTIC]

There are a number of Holmes societies that play this game. They consider everything written by Doyle to be "the canon", and go to lovely ridiculous lengths to prove, for instance, the place of Watson's birth... Citing references from the stories/novel, and then checking into birth records, military records, etc... The best of these were the exhaustive efforts to locate 24B Baker Street, an address (the number) that never existed (on a street that did/does exist). After exhaustive discussions, they more or less accept a conclusion (sometimes after ten years arguing it) and this becomes accepted research. It's rather funny, really and totally harmless. And since it's been going on for about seventy-five years, I think of it as the original Mornington Crescent.

ETA: Sorry for the derail. Just happens to be one of my side fascinations.

One of my side fascinations too, but I am sorry to say that I have never been to a real Holmes society meeting.

[JJM]

in the case of most public libraries, the sad truth is this: most of what they stock is what people have expressed a preference in reading.

{snip} Hence, the public library I work for has a lot of very good and very worthwhile books on medicine, but also things like the Kevin Trudeau book, simply because it's a popular book.Yes, and it is interesting to note that the early reviews of his book at Amazon by true believers (before he got his own people to promote it) were bad. Therefore, most people who borrow it from the library don't buy it.

What we're trying to do is balance good information with popular books. Sometimes finding the balance can be tough.Yes.

[69dodge]

An example often used by pro-Internet-filtering advocates is that libraries don't subscribe to Hustler, so why should people be able to access porn on library computers? The one librarian I asked this question of replied that libraries don't have to offer Hustler because people have access to it in other places - bookstores, news stands, friends' copies, etc. But the same thing is true of computer access. If you don't have a computer, you don't have to check out porn at the library, you can go to an Internet café, a friend's house, whatever.

I guess my problem is that it seems disingenuous to say, "You can't limit access to information," then proceed to do exactly that, every time you decide what to purchase (and with the limited budgets on which most libraries operate, they do a fine job of selection.)

Buying Hustler costs money that could be spent on other, arguably more worthwhile, stuff. Allowing people to view porn on a computer doesn't cost any more than disallowing it, so why not allow it?

[AmyWilson]

Does a public library have an obligation to provide only authoritative, accurate information?

What makes you think it isn't accurate?

[Foolmewunz]

What makes you think it isn't accurate?

Must..... Resist..... Someone get me to my Trollaholics Anonymous meeting.

[Elizabeth I]

Foolmewunz, just stay calm. Someone's bringing the Trolleradicator.

[Elizabeth I]

Buying Hustler costs money that could be spent on other, arguably more worthwhile, stuff. Allowing people to view porn on a computer doesn't cost any more than disallowing it, so why not allow it?

And there you come right back to it - a value judgment. If a value judgment can be made in this case, why not in the case of woo?

[jimbob]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1449446e42bd0b38b6.png

[Seventhsally]

Were in not for the havoc it would cause with the classification systems in use in most libraries, I might be inclined toward an 'associative sell' technique- next to the book on homeopathy, place a section on critical thinking, statistical analysis (basic chemistry?); next to the alternative medicine- maybe some books on how clinical trials are run (and why)...

This appeals to my sense of balance, and dovetails well with my hobby of leaving copies of 'The Descent of Man' in random hotel room dressers (and hiding the Bibles of course- yes I know I'm going to hell for that). I usually pick up a stack at Barnes and Nobles cut rate counter- I also keep one in the back window of my car-like to folk who keep their bible prominently displayed there- no one has keyed the door (yet).

The libraries goal of course is to provide the information, not thoughts or comments about the information- so all these suggestions are just for fun, but it would be nice to have an objective 'BS-factor', like the fat content in snack foods are required to have. Not sure who would get to legislate that :-)
oh well-