I dislike the idea of limiting who can send a question into lawlib. I was taught that librarians are to encourage the sharing of information, not to limit access to it. While we can not provide legal opinions or advice, we can direct people to where they can find the information.
Becky Wentz rwentz@lukins.com
librarian
>>> Dina Dreifuerst <dina@neosoft.com> 09/09/97 11:43AM >>>
Fellow law-libbers:
I recently contacted Judy Janes, law-lib's listowner with an idea
that I'd like you all to consider. I am re-posting the message I
sent her, with additional comments, in hopes that it will spark a
discussion and ultimately guide her decision.
In the last month, law-lib has received several messages from
nonsubscribers who seem to think that law-lib is a reference desk
for the general public. While this has always been an intermittent
problem, I'm afraid it's only going to increase as more and more
people learn how to use the Internet and come to view it as a free
resource designed to cater to their every need.
In addition, in the past we've seen several instances where some
have been told by non-net-savvy *librarians* to "post your question
on law-lib and someone will answer it for you!" The end result is
that members of the general public who post their general and legal
reference questions to the list get viciously flamed by members who
are *tired* of seeing messages like "How do I clear my driving
record?," "Can my landlord evict me?" and "How much is my car worth?"
Most listservs are set to bounce messages from people who are not
members. I really think that the law-lib community would benefit
from having law-lib set to receive messages only from subscribers.
This option is a much more viable solution to a growing problem
than trying to educate the world at large about law-lib's true
purpose (whatever that may be!).
Personally, I view law-lib as a kind of electronic water-cooler,
somewhere I can go to interact with my professional peers, vent
about the frustrations of my job, brain-storm solutions to
difficult problems, share experiences, give and receive advice,
and occasionally chat about non-work-related issues. When people
speak disparagingly of "non-law-librarians," I picture the true
outsiders, not the legal professionals, vendor representatives,
library students or others who truly share our interest in the
fields of legal research, education, etc. Past discussions on the
list lead me to believe that others hold the same view I do.
What I propose is that the posting of messages to law-lib be
restricted to those who are actually subscribed to the list. I
don't feel we need to limit who can subscribe, since anyone who
cares enough to find out how to subscribe is far more likely to
make a meaningful contribution to our little group than the
random person who finds out about us from a link to our archive
site and drops a note to ask how to determine the value of
Grandpa's stamp collection.
Some people might worry about the effect on those who find them-
selves involuntarily postponed or unsubscribed from the list. In
a way, they will benefit from the limitation. They can send a
test message to determine whether they are still subscribed. If
the message goes through, they'll know that they've just been
postponed and can take the necessary steps to remedy the problem.
I welcome your comments on my proposal, preferably to the list at
large.
TIA,
Dina Dreifuerst, Law Librarian
Clements, O'Neill, Pierce & Nickens (713) 654-7600
1000 Lousiana, Suite 1800 (fax) 654-7690
Houston TX 77002-5009 dina@neosoft.com
Definition of an Upgrade: Take old bugs out, put new ones in.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:43 PST