I should start by pointing out that I am truly ambivalent about this
issue. I see Lyo's (as always eloquent) point, but I also hesitiate
to see Law-Lib become an internet law reference desk. For now,
though, I don't think the issue of pro se questions posted to
Law-Lib is at such a level (yet) that we really need to be debating
this. Such questions as that posed by Monica are still relatively
rare. Until they become a large part of Law-Lib traffic, if they ever
do, we each can choose to answer or ignore such questions on a case
by case basis.
If such traffic becomes common and raises the signal to noise ration
to an unbearable level, then we can discuss how to deal with the
issue. Being an open list has definite advantages. If we were to try
to close or moderate it I fear we would find a whole hornet's nest of
defintional problems. I suspect that the number of different
descriptions of what Law-Lib is and does would be pretty close to the
number of subscribers.
As of now the number of postings on this issue have far exceeded the
number of pro-se questions I've seen on the list. And, of course,
I've just added one more....
Just my thoughts.
Paul D. Healey
Reference/Instructional Services Librarian
Warren E. Burger Library
William Mitchell College of Law
871 Summit Ave. St. Paul, MN 55105
Phone: 612.290.6306 Fax: 612.290.6318
e-mail: phealey@wmitchell.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:48:59 PST