This sort of discussion can rapidly degenerate if people aren't careful
to read the messages thoughtfully and with respect for the opinions
presented. Let's all step back and take a breath for a moment.
I'm not going to claim to speak for anybody else, but I don't believe that
anyone has argued that non-librarians ought to be excluded from the list.
Anne, I don't recall seeing any postings from you before, but let me
personally welcome you to law-lib! Dave Gowan
<dgowan@FREENET.SCRI.FSU.EDU> from TAP-INFO also seemed to think that some
wanted only librarians on the list. Perhaps some do, but I haven't seen
any messages that indicate that. Personally, I welcome Dave's
participation, as well as that of his colleagues from TAP; they may not be
librarians, but they have participated in this list to promote discussion
and debate of issues that, like it or not, are crucial to the future of
legal information and law librarianship.
So I don't think anyone is calling for excluding non-librarians or making
this a closed list. If law librarians really thought that the only
issues of interest called for closing off the rest of the world, we would
be in desparate straits indeed.
As far as PARTICIPATION in law-lib is concerned, I say "the more the
merrier." We all benefit from different perspectives. However,
PARTICIPATION in the list is not the same, to my mind, as random posting
of reference questions here. I think Gail Daly <gdaly@SUN.CIS.SMU.EDU>
made this point very cogently. By posting a reference question to the
list, you likely cause dozens of librarians to scurry around looking for
the same information, when a simple phone call to the public library will
usually yield the required information with much less effort. I will
gladly make this effort for a librarian-colleague, when I know we have
the information. On the other hand, law librarians as professionals have
to have priorities in levels of service. My first duty is to my faculty,
students, and staff here at SLU; I would feel irresponsible spending much
time answering reference questions from the general public that happened
to beam in to law-lib.
Law-lib can't be all things to all people. There is no "charter" for this
list; rather, these things evolve, and that's what this current discussion
is about. Remember: there are other options, besides opening up this list
for public reference inquiries. There's lawlibref-l@lawlib.wuacc.edu;
there's the Internet Public Library <http://ipl.sils.umich.edu/>.
Finally, a year ago a couple of people from the Legal Information Services
to the Public SIS was exploring ways to provide legal reference services
via the Internet; the project seems to have died from want of
volunteers. Perhaps that project could be revived now, and someone could
undertake the creation of The Internet Public Law Library?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Milles
Head of Computer Services, Saint Louis University Law Library
millesjg@sluvca.slu.edu http://lawlib.slu.edu/milles.htm
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:48:59 PST