Hmmmmm... Taking a cue from Frank Drake's message, how about this:
If you want to answer a question, do; if you don't, then don't. If you
want to subscribe, or post to the list, do; if you don't then don't. If
you want to unsubscribe, you can do that too. If you want to risk being seen
as giving legal advice over the 'net to someone, and you aren't really sure
who they are, you can take that
chance; if you don't, then ignore the message. In other words, how about if
everybody decides for themselves the appropriate course of action, within
the bounds of netiquette, of course. Personally, I could feel differently
about helping a non-librarian on any given day, more depending on how
much energy and time I have, and what the question is. But then, you may
feel differently... Or maybe your library has a policy about who you help
and what level of support you give to what class of patron, and you could
let that be your guide to how you answer to the list. How about we talk
about something else now, okay?
On Tue, 8 Aug 1995, Anne Jochnowitz wrote:
> Laura Raymond writes:
> "Personally, I tend to ignore requests from unnamed or
> non-librarian requestors, so perhaps that is the solution. If we
> answer them, they will come. If we ignore them, maybe they'll go
> away. . . .
>
> * * * * * * *
> I think this is terrible! I'm a non-librarian who works for a publishing
> company. Not answering us (non-librarians) is childish. It's not a
> solution it's misleading! The types of questions as well as the "rules"
> should be defined and updated as needed.
> If non-librarians are not acknowledged, why are we allowed to join in the
> first place? Ridiculous AND disappointing.
> Anne
John D. Moore
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Library
jmoore@capaccess.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:48:59 PST