_In watching Did You Know 4.0, I selected a the following trends as examples that can impact digital citizenship. They have been categorized into different elements of information policy.

Information Literacy:

_There is exponential growth in the amount of information available to people. This does not necessarily mean that all information is good. With the growth of digital advertising and the sheer volume of videos on Youtube (some excellent, some not), participants in social media may have a different purpose than some of us might expect. Social media is shifting the evaluation of information from the contributor (as with television networks, or publishers) to the user. It requires that users have skills which allow them to consider the intent and appropriateness of the information they encounter.

Poor judgement:

_In these cases, users disregard policy. It seems that technology has depersonalized interactions, giving people the comfort to conduct themselves in ways they might not do in “real life.” I know many people who download music without paying for it, yet those same people would never walk into a store and steal a CD. In social matters, there are many people who “say” things online, but would never say such things in person. While policy is important, they are most effective when enforced.

Access/Connectedness:

_I believe these two trends are exmplify the human need to be connected. To support this, one infographic stated that 2/3 of Americans sleep with mobile devices at their bedside (guilty). Mobile devices do what our computers did before and so much more, only today it fits in our pocket. The innovation of mobile devices allows people to be social, and access information and knowledge. I believe this innovation and easy access to information allows for learning to move away from solely knowledge and on to more complex problems. Schools must embrace this need for connectedness, and leverage it to support communities in learning. Just like many social media tools, I don’t think they can be entirely regulated. Students will do inappropriate things, and policy must enforce those situations. Policy should support their use as a complement to the current system.

xplanevisualthinking. (2009). Did You Know 4.0. [video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ILQrUrEWe8
Miller, A. (2012). Your first date with online PR [infographic]. Retrieved from http://www.prmarketing.com/blog/your-first-date-with-online-pr/

I just spent some time considering the topic of censorship. My first thoughts were about free and open access to information. If I, as a librarian, have a professional commitment to intellectual freedom and free access to information, I foresee some problems with my particular situation.

First off, intellectual freedom and free access to information is strongly supported in democratic society. I completely support it as well. While the school I work(ed) supports democratic beliefs, I can't say that my host country does. How am I supposed to write this into my library policies when doing so can contradict the beliefs of the country in which I live? Please, I'd love suggestions here.

I read an article by Doug Johnson who mostly addressed the issue of internet censorship in schools. My reaction to this is unique I believe, because our school does not censor sites that many schools do. However, we are faced with great censorship problems at a national level. Although I appreciate Johnson's suggestions on ways to possibly address the problem, they are assuming that I might be able to reason with policy makers. In my case, there isn't a fat chance that's going to happen.

Secondly, Both Moody and Jenkinson's articles really shed some light on the practice of censorship by librarians. Essentially, we may have a tendency to censor books or resources because "someone" will find them offensive. I fall into this boat. I have been known to tell our librarian about resources that I thought were inappropriate, or pass along messages from parents who had comments about certain books. While reading these articles, I was forced to think about whose standards I was using, when deciding what was inappropriate.

For example, there was a European book in our library (in their language) which had cartoon illustrations, and it was about being at the beach. Many of the characters were nude. My initial reaction was that (as a teacher of 9 year-olds) my students would grab this book and share it with their friends and do nothing but laugh at it. I thought the book was inappropriate for young kids. However, I know that in Europe, nudity is not always as big of a deal as it is for Americans. I was applying my own standards, and probably the standards of many American children, on my international school. I was falling into what Jenkinson calls "community standards" and was assuming that the standard we employ is one where no one is offended by anything. In reality, people always face the chance of be offended if exposed to different points of view. That is how we grow and learn, and become more well-rounded open-minded individuals. Of course, when we face adversity, we should be coached, guided, or have the chance to learn and ask questions. Those are learning opportunities. However, sometimes we just want to avoid this.

In thinking about this, I continue to wonder how such problems are addressed. I suppose something should probably be written into our policy, defining what is unacceptable, and what to do when faced with a challenge. What is our stance? It would be easier to defend my practice if it were backed by policy approved by the school board. I'm just not exactly sure how to go about this. Samples? Suggestions?

References:
Jenkinson, D. (2002). Selection and censorship: It’s simple arithmetic. School libraries in Canada, 2(4), 22

Johnson, D. (2010) Censorship by omission.  Library Media Connection,  Vol. 28(4), 48-49

Moody, K. (2005). Covert censorship in libraries: A discussion paper. Australian Library Journal, 54(2), 138-147. Retrieved from http://www.alia.org.au/publishing/alj/54.2/full.text/moody.html