For whatever reason, many of my colleagues refuse to accept the concept of a selection policy for Internet resources. I am told this is censorship. However many of these same folks use a selection policy for collection development. What is the difference?

There is no difference. First let’s look at the American Library Association’s definition of “collection development”.

A term which encompasses a number of activities related to the development of the library collection, including the determination of the library collection, including the determination and coordination of selection policy, assessment of needs of users and potential users, collection evaluation, identification of collection needs, selection of materials, planning for resource sharing, collection maintenance, and weeding. (ALA Glossary of Library & Information Science, 1983)

Now let’s consider ALA’s definition of “library collection”.

Total accumulation of materials provided by a library for its target group. Synonymous with library holdings and library resources.

(Note: I tried to find a newer edition of the ALA Glossary but it seems this is the latest edition. Regardless, this source serves to remind us of what collection development has historically represented.)

What do these two definitions tell us?

• Library collections are determined by selection policies written and applied by librarians.
• Selection policies are unique to the needs of individual libraries.
• The selection process is not passive. Materials provided have been selected by a librarian.
• A library collection is the “total accumulation of materials provided” by a library, including resources. These definitions make no distinction of medium, nor do they mention ownership or purchase as requisite for something to be considered a part of a library collection.
• There will be materials not selected.
• There will be materials weeded.

Using these criteria, it is evident that the Internet should not be precluded from a collection development policy. It is a provided resource that is a part of a library collection, no different than books, (electronic and print) periodicals (electronic and print), software, VHS, DVD, microfilm, microfiche, cassette tapes, fishing poles, scientific calculators, desk lamps, etc.. The medium makes no difference. Why does our profession, particularly ALA, wish to make an exception for the Internet?

Selection Policies

Selection policies are defined by a local library constituency. They are usually developed within a collection development policy and can be viewed as assuring collection "quality control" per se. As mentioned in the previous definitions, the medium of the material is inconsequential. So too if the material was purchased or donated as a gift.

Many selection policies also address obscene material. Here are the selection criteria for Downers Grove Public Library.

Regardless of selection criteria, the Library recognizes its obligation to abide by Illinois Criminal Statutes and so will not purchase or retain in the collection material found to be obscene or harmful to minors by an Illinois court of law.

The criteria staff use include:

• Authenticity of information
• Authority of author
• Currency of material
• Curriculum support
• Diversity of subjects, ideas, and opinions
• Literary quality
• Local interest
• Physical features and format
• Popularity
• Price and availability
• Readability and style

Selection policies are about making judgments on the local level. Many are also about preventing obscene material from being accessed within a library. Why doesn’t ALA defer this collection development issue to libraries when speaking about the Internet?

But It’s Free

It may be argued that because the Internet has little budgetary impact upon a library, aside from fixed access costs, that what is essentially free should be also freely available. This is nonsense and not what collection development has historically represented. Donations and gifts are still subjected to a collection development policy by many libraries. The following is from Boulder Public Library.

All gifts are subject to evaluation by the general and specific criteria listed in the policy for the relevant collections. Donors are informed that any gifts to the Library may or may not be added to the collection. Any item which is not added may be donated to another institution where it might be used, or it may be sold in the Library Foundation Book Sale. Monies from such sales are used to benefit Boulder Public Library services and programs.

For those unwilling to accept this evidence, my challenge still stands for anyone to demand their public library accept and make available vintage porn donations e.g. Hustler, Playboy or Penthouse. Not to mention the more raunchy variety like WaterSports, Jugs or anything involving hooves.

But Filters Censor

Some may characterize filters as rejecting or censoring however they can also be considered as selecting or providing. For example, instead of rejecting web sites that have a meta tag of “breast”, it can be said that filters are only selecting sites without a “breast” meta tag. The same semantics apply to the collection development librarian.

The fact remains that selection is also rejection. Only the Library of Congress can make the promise that it attempts to collect every book published. And this is just a promise. Why does ALA hold public libraries to this same standard with the Internet?

But Filters are not Perfect

Neither are librarians. Shame on those who believe they are. The reality here is the selection process in not a perfect science. Nor has it ever been. Humans are fallible, predisposed to bias, prejudice and mood swings. Filters have their technological baggage too. However they do offer a tool, the best one available, for librarians to apply a selection policy to the Internet from within their library. If perfection is required we, librarians, are all in trouble.

For those concerned about legitimate subjects being unfairly blocked I suggest buying books on these subjects. Yes books. We need to be careful not to Googleize our collection development though I fear this is beginning to happen. Aside from being sloppy and short sided, this strategy to subsidize web sites for books does little to justify the need for libraries.

There is also the issue of quality assurance. I doubt that many librarians would purchase out-dated or authentically questionable books about breast cancer. I would also assume that many of these same librarians would also weed old titles from their shelves. This is a part of collection development and something that requires the critical eye of a librarian. However, many librarians willingly yield their collection building expertise to the Internet. The same expertise that patrons have historically relied upon and that distinguishes our profession from book dealers, collectors and other brokers of information. Why do we make an exception with digitally transmitted data packets?

Ironically another ALA publication, The Whole Library Handbook 3 (American Library Association 2000) echoes this point. The first item listed on “The Worst Choices or, what NOT to do” is

Abdicate selection responsibility. From filtering online what you would or should buy in print to accepting online what you wouldn’t or shouldn’t.

Conclusion

Wrapping up, I contend that filtering is a collection development issue. ALA’s Glossary of Library & Information Science agrees. Because we are dealing with a new technology that is accessed rather than owned makes no difference. It is still a “provided” resource within the library and thus deserves the scrutiny of a selection policy within a greater collection development policy. For now we have filters that are getting better as any technology does with time. We shouldn't confuse the principle with the technology. Nor should librarians allow filters to do all of their work. Filters are a tool, not a panacea.

This issue is also about standards. Libraries are not warehouses, but collections developed specifically for local users. Catered may be a better term. Until recently, the notion of free and open access only extended to what had been judged by a librarian as having a place within a library collection. Today many are lead to believe this means something entirely different. This is disingenuous.

If the collective mission of libraries is changed, as ALA wants, to serve more as a digital conduit to the outside world than a provider of professionally selected resources, we risk conceding perhaps the most important characteristic expected of librarians. Our expertise. This at a time when many of our patrons are simply overwhelmed and underequipped when searching for information. At a time when public trust and support can no longer be expected. Is this something we really want to do? Perhaps more importantly, is this something our stakeholders want us to do?