http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/Their-View-Librarians--Keep-public-library-Wi-Fi-free
I was able to find a very interesting article about how some libraries are trying to ban WiFi from their buildings. They based their decision on scientific/medical research demonstrating harm from electro-pollution. They say they are completely for the use of Internet as "It is our obligation as librarians to provide uncensored information to all people. These ideals, a) no censorship, and b) no barriers to access." Yet I feel they are walking a pretty fine line as they are not completely allowing everyone to use their computers because of people who are adversely affected by electromagnetic fields, including epileptics. They do not want to create barriers for people who can have adverse reactions to exposure that can induce severe symptoms such as heart arrhythmias and seizures. They say that WiFi is a barrier for them.
The most interseting part of the article for me was how the author, completely for banning WiFi, stated "There is no comparison today with Wi-Fi in libraries. It does not narrow the digital divide or the socio-economic gap as if often claimed by Wi-Fi proponents. It simply perpetuates the inequities in society. Providing a Wi-Fi signal does not magically produce a laptop computer. It only serves those who own a laptop. Why should those who can afford a laptop get a "free" signal while those who can't are relegated to "sign up" for an hour of computer use? It is fallacious to claim that Wi-Fi will free up computers."
With any decision that is made, some group will be angered. Whether it be people with laptops who would like to have free WiFi to use in a public space, or people who are affected by WIFi signals. I would like to know if these people are able to enter coffee shops, peoples houses that have WiFi, or even be on the University of Wisconsin campus without feeling the effect with WiFi. It seems like most of the nation is going wireless and it could be near impossible for everyone to accomidate the certain few who are affected by WiFi.
Video Reflection
14 years ago
This is such an interesting article, but I have to admit that the author really confused me as I was reading it. Of course Wi-Fi frees up computers! The people who would normally surf the web on their laptops must then wait in line for a workstation, adding burden to limited resources.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard about the dangers of "electro-pollution," and like you I have to wonder how many precautions are really feasible, just because a minority of the population are adversely affected by wireless connections. Hotels and hospitals would also be unsafe for epileptics then! I googled "electro-pollution" and "wi-fi" and most of the returned sites were from blogs and forums, and Google News returned nothing. It seems rather sensationalist, and while I do believe that wireless connections may affect some people with SERIOUS conditions, Wi-fi still has so many advantages. It's interesting how Thatcher mentions that the National Library of France has a budget of $254 million--they can afford to use microwave radiation, but most U.S. public libraries cannot. I'm especially thinking of this week's online lecture and how some rural impoverished libraries do not have ANY form of Internet connection. Installing Wi-fi is not simply "a matter of convenience, opinion, or trendy and short-sighted decision making" as Thatcher claims, but rather the most money efficient and democratic means (anyone at anytime can tap into a connection) to providing Internet access!