Comments on: libraries and trust http://www.walkingpaper.org/285 A library design consultancy, shop and blog by Aaron Schmidt Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:25:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: 图书馆与信任 at 图林中文译站|学贯中西 http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-19197 图书馆与信任 at 图林中文译站|学贯中西 Sat, 25 Aug 2007 07:50:43 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-19197 [...] 原文出处：libraries and trust by aaron schmidt [...] [...] 原文出处：libraries and trust by aaron schmidt [...]

]]> By: Information Wants To Be Free » Blog Archive » Wishing doesn’t always make it so http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-344 Information Wants To Be Free » Blog Archive » Wishing doesn’t always make it so Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:19:08 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-344 [...] Aaron Schmidt, in his excellent post Libraries and Trust stated “non-user-centered library policy corrodes the trust that we should be aiming to develop.” I totally agree with him. However, as misguided as they are, sometimes these policies are created with the intention of helping patrons, not hurting them. [...] [...] Aaron Schmidt, in his excellent post Libraries and Trust stated “non-user-centered library policy corrodes the trust that we should be aiming to develop.” I totally agree with him. However, as misguided as they are, sometimes these policies are created with the intention of helping patrons, not hurting them. [...]

]]> By: NEKLS Currency » Libraries and Trust http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-330 NEKLS Currency » Libraries and Trust Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:23:09 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-330 [...] Definitely an interesting read. libraries and trust at walking paper Non-user-centered library policy corrodes the trust that we should be aiming to develop. “No Drinks in the Library” equals “We don’t trust you to keep our library clean.” “You must give us your name to use our computers” equals “We think there’s a chance that you’re going to do something wrong or bad and we want to know how to find you.” The same case could me made about the fines we charge or overdue items.. Do they exist because we don’t trust our users to bring items back? Is this justified? [...] [...] Definitely an interesting read. libraries and trust at walking paper Non-user-centered library policy corrodes the trust that we should be aiming to develop. “No Drinks in the Library” equals “We don’t trust you to keep our library clean.” “You must give us your name to use our computers” equals “We think there’s a chance that you’re going to do something wrong or bad and we want to know how to find you.” The same case could me made about the fines we charge or overdue items.. Do they exist because we don’t trust our users to bring items back? Is this justified? [...]

]]> By: NEKLS Currency » libraries and trust at walking paper http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-329 NEKLS Currency » libraries and trust at walking paper Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:19:46 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-329 [...] Definitely an interesting read. libraries and trust at walking paper [...] [...] Definitely an interesting read. libraries and trust at walking paper [...]

]]> By: IB Weblog » Blog Archive » Dem Nutzer vertrauen. http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-326 IB Weblog » Blog Archive » Dem Nutzer vertrauen. Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:00:10 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-326 [...] Dem Nutzer vertrauen. Non-user-centered library policy corrodes the trust that we should be aiming to develop. “No Drinks in the Library” equals “We don’t trust you to keep our library clean.” - ein kleiner Text vom 30. Januar im walking paper weblog: libraries and trust [...] [...] Dem Nutzer vertrauen. Non-user-centered library policy corrodes the trust that we should be aiming to develop. “No Drinks in the Library” equals “We don’t trust you to keep our library clean.” – ein kleiner Text vom 30. Januar im walking paper weblog: libraries and trust [...]

]]> By: Darren Chase http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-325 Darren Chase Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:13:38 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-325 In addition to trust, another characteristic of sharing is expectation. Our expectations must be clear, as does our understanding of (and ability to fulfill) our users' expectations. To slightly reframe your analogy: I trust my ability to ride my bike through traffic, and expect the cars sharing the road not to hit me. In addition to trust, another characteristic of sharing is expectation. Our expectations must be clear, as does our understanding of (and ability to fulfill) our users’ expectations. To slightly reframe your analogy: I trust my ability to ride my bike through traffic, and expect the cars sharing the road not to hit me.

]]> By: Brian http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-324 Brian Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:42:12 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-324 -- “You must give us your name to use our computers” equals “We think there’s a chance that you’re going to do something wrong or bad and we want to know how to find you.” -- Well, yeah, and the community as a whole trusts us to be able and willing to turn people in on the rare occasions when they actually do something illegal. (And us taking names likely reduces the chance that they will.) I don't think that's unreasonable, especially for libraries with Internet-use policies which explicitly say that using our computers to break the law may result in prosecution. How come you're not suggesting that we do away with linking library cards to indentifying info? Let's just hand out a card and activate its number for anyone who qualifies, without putting a name, address, etc., into the patron record. Let's just trust everyone not to rip us off! Or don't you have the *balls* to say that? (Grin. Just channeling Stephen Colbert there.) More seriously, re: Comments, wikis, tagging, etc. ... I have yet to see (but maybe I missed it) a discussion of the 1st/14th Amendment implications for public libraries removing or editing "inappropriate" entries. Non-governmental entities don't need to worry about that, but we can trust that a library will get sued for something like deleting tags that a KKK member adds to the catalog record for a bio of Dr. King (when we get tagging capabilities in our OPACs, that is). – “You must give us your name to use our computers” equals “We think there’s a chance that you’re going to do something wrong or bad and we want to know how to find you.” –

Well, yeah, and the community as a whole trusts us to be able and willing to turn people in on the rare occasions when they actually do something illegal. (And us taking names likely reduces the chance that they will.) I don’t think that’s unreasonable, especially for libraries with Internet-use policies which explicitly say that using our computers to break the law may result in prosecution.

How come you’re not suggesting that we do away with linking library cards to indentifying info? Let’s just hand out a card and activate its number for anyone who qualifies, without putting a name, address, etc., into the patron record. Let’s just trust everyone not to rip us off! Or don’t you have the *balls* to say that? (Grin. Just channeling Stephen Colbert there.)

More seriously, re: Comments, wikis, tagging, etc. … I have yet to see (but maybe I missed it) a discussion of the 1st/14th Amendment implications for public libraries removing or editing “inappropriate” entries. Non-governmental entities don’t need to worry about that, but we can trust that a library will get sued for something like deleting tags that a KKK member adds to the catalog record for a bio of Dr. King (when we get tagging capabilities in our OPACs, that is).

]]> By: Rick Roche http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-322 Rick Roche Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:23:49 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-322 I think the social order can be upheld without many rules. Extending trust helps gain compliance and cooperation, at least it does in our library, which is not a library strained by desperate user demands. In desperate communities, these ideals may be harder to reach. Still, all users must be served with respect and fairness, whether there are many or few rules. If not, we lose the trust. I think the social order can be upheld without many rules. Extending trust helps gain compliance and cooperation, at least it does in our library, which is not a library strained by desperate user demands. In desperate communities, these ideals may be harder to reach. Still, all users must be served with respect and fairness, whether there are many or few rules. If not, we lose the trust.

]]> By: Greg http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-321 Greg Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:59:46 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-321 "More people would use libraries if our institutions were associated with comfort and trust." Well said and easily agreed upon, but establishing trust is not quite so one-sided from my perspective. It's a delicate tightrope and here's why I believe so: Part of trust is the notion that libraries will have the necessary rules in place to limit abuses of the tenuous social contract that governs usage of library resources. (Oh my, that was wordy.) That is to say that part of the trust relationship is sending exactly the messages that you mention: that we will take the necessary steps to keep materials in the best possible condition, to get materials back, to make sure computer resources are evenly available, etc. We do these things to send the larger message that we are good stewards of taxpayer resources. So while trusting our users is an important perspective to have, it must be balanced against the trust that patrons have in us to prevent abuse - that is, to recognize that without some level of distrust, the whole system falls apart. Sure, you can see that as a very pessimistic view to take, but I hear from enough patrons to know that there is gratitude to be found in upholding the social order. “More people would use libraries if our institutions were associated with comfort and trust.”

Well said and easily agreed upon, but establishing trust is not quite so one-sided from my perspective. It’s a delicate tightrope and here’s why I believe so: Part of trust is the notion that libraries will have the necessary rules in place to limit abuses of the tenuous social contract that governs usage of library resources. (Oh my, that was wordy.) That is to say that part of the trust relationship is sending exactly the messages that you mention: that we will take the necessary steps to keep materials in the best possible condition, to get materials back, to make sure computer resources are evenly available, etc. We do these things to send the larger message that we are good stewards of taxpayer resources.

So while trusting our users is an important perspective to have, it must be balanced against the trust that patrons have in us to prevent abuse – that is, to recognize that without some level of distrust, the whole system falls apart. Sure, you can see that as a very pessimistic view to take, but I hear from enough patrons to know that there is gratitude to be found in upholding the social order.

]]> By: rochelle http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-320 rochelle Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:31:55 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-320 Aaron! Wow. This is one of the most meaningful pieces I've read in a long time. Echoing Kelli, I pointed to your post, and extended the trust issue to the workplace. Aaron! Wow. This is one of the most meaningful pieces I’ve read in a long time. Echoing Kelli, I pointed to your post, and extended the trust issue to the workplace.

]]> By: Alan Kirk Gray http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-319 Alan Kirk Gray Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:36:43 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-319 You've neglected to mention the trust that our patrons place in us when they walk up to a Circulation Desk and pass a book over the counter, a book that could be on a sensitive subject -- illness, life-style changes -- and put it in the hands of someone they know, and who knows them. The mutual tension that is often the result of that act, is an important reason why we're moving to adopt self-check. You’ve neglected to mention the trust that our patrons place in us when they walk up to a Circulation Desk and pass a book over the counter, a book that could be on a sensitive subject — illness, life-style changes — and put it in the hands of someone they know, and who knows them.

The mutual tension that is often the result of that act, is an important reason why we’re moving to adopt self-check.

]]> By: Aaron http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-318 Aaron Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:54:33 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-318 @kelly Yeah, I agree that we should be open minded about our patrons <strong>and</strong> coworkers. @carol o Hogging computers is no good at all. We require people to sign in, but just ask for their zip codes. That way we know the percentage of in-town computer users, and the percentage of people from surrounding communities. Your notion of “other patrons trust us to xyz” is really interesting. I see what you're saying, but I'm wondering if that line of thinking doesn't automatically make the actions of patrons suspect. In other words, "Other patrons trust us to xyz, <strong>and you might prevent this from happening if left on your own</strong>, so we're going to put rules in place to make you." Typing this it seems like we're discussing minutia, but such focus on Libraries' perception and treatment of library users might make for the solid foundation of a user-focused institution. Thanks for the input, it helps. @kelly
Yeah, I agree that we should be open minded about our patrons and coworkers.

@carol o

Hogging computers is no good at all. We require people to sign in, but just ask for their zip codes. That way we know the percentage of in-town computer users, and the percentage of people from surrounding communities.

Your notion of “other patrons trust us to xyz” is really interesting. I see what you’re saying, but I’m wondering if that line of thinking doesn’t automatically make the actions of patrons suspect. In other words, “Other patrons trust us to xyz, and you might prevent this from happening if left on your own, so we’re going to put rules in place to make you.”

Typing this it seems like we’re discussing minutia, but such focus on Libraries’ perception and treatment of library users might make for the solid foundation of a user-focused institution.

Thanks for the input, it helps.

]]> By: carol o http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-317 carol o Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:51:37 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-317 Those are excellent points... The example of library fines though-- I think you could make the case that they're examples of encouraging trust between the library and all their patrons, as opposed to the library and some individual patron. Many libraries charge higher fines when the item in question is being held by another patron. That other patron, and all patrons, should be able to trust that they'll be able to get their hands on any given item in a reasonable amount of time. Same goes for patrons trusting that the library will be a clean and safe place to study/work/hang out. I'm not familiar with the way public libraries keep their computer usage logs, but I'd bet that a good chunk of the reason why they make people log in is so to try and prevent the same people from hogging the computers all day when other patrons might be waiting. In other words, you could turn some of those "we don't trust you to do xyz" and invert them into "other patrons trust us to xyz" and so.. these rules. Just extending the argument from your first four paragraphs to the sixth. :) Those are excellent points… The example of library fines though– I think you could make the case that they’re examples of encouraging trust between the library and all their patrons, as opposed to the library and some individual patron. Many libraries charge higher fines when the item in question is being held by another patron. That other patron, and all patrons, should be able to trust that they’ll be able to get their hands on any given item in a reasonable amount of time. Same goes for patrons trusting that the library will be a clean and safe place to study/work/hang out. I’m not familiar with the way public libraries keep their computer usage logs, but I’d bet that a good chunk of the reason why they make people log in is so to try and prevent the same people from hogging the computers all day when other patrons might be waiting.

In other words, you could turn some of those “we don’t trust you to do xyz” and invert them into “other patrons trust us to xyz” and so.. these rules.

Just extending the argument from your first four paragraphs to the sixth. :)

]]> By: Kelli ('Brary Web Diva) http://www.walkingpaper.org/285/comment-page-1#comment-316 Kelli ('Brary Web Diva) Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:24:23 +0000 http://walkingpaper.org/?p=285#comment-316 Trust that the patrons can come up with ideas we might not thought of implementing (Superpatron). This can carry over to co-workers too... Trust that collaborative projects can become wonderful experiments, so try one! Trust that all (or some?) technology isn't like 'HAL 9000' from 2001: a Space Odyssey. Trust that the coworker you may have thought would not be an early adopter on a new tech idea just might become the best cheerleader for the project. :) Trust that the patrons can come up with ideas we might not thought of implementing (Superpatron).

This can carry over to co-workers too…

Trust that collaborative projects can become wonderful experiments, so try one!

Trust that all (or some?) technology isn’t like ‘HAL 9000′ from 2001: a Space Odyssey.

Trust that the coworker you may have thought would not be an early adopter on a new tech idea just might become the best cheerleader for the project.

:)

]]>