- Censorship is the opposite of what I want in my library, so why would I be interested in using this software?
- What is open source?
- Why is this better than a commercial filter?
- How much control would I have over the filter?
- Has anything similar been tried before?
- I have a question that was not answered: who should I contact and how?
Censorship is the opposite of what I want in my library, so why would I be interested in using this software?
If you want to receive federal funds for your library then using OpenChoice software could fulfill the filter requirement that the government has established. However, even if you are not interested in receiving federal funds OpenChoice might be something that you would want to have in your library. Obviously considerations of both budget and space prevent libraries from housing all possible print items, but even without these restrictions there could be materials that librarians would decide not to include in their collection. There is a plethora of such materials on the internet and a filter can prevent access to these materials. While the idea of taking material away from patrons is one that is initially anathema to most librarians, the approach of OpenChoice is to ensure that sites are only excluded as the result of an informed, collective decision.
What is open source?
Open source software is software developed by volunteers and distributed with minimal intellectual property restrictions, at little or no cost. Open source software has been used to considerably success in the arenas of operating systems (e.g. Linux), server software (Apache), and database management technology (MySQL). Several open source content filters already exist and have been deployed in a few library settings. Two of these filters, SquidGuard and DansGuardian, offer libraries non-proprietary yet technically viable Internet means of filtering.
Why is this better than a commercial filter?
Two of the main reasons why OpenChoice is better than a commercial filter are that librarians can be involved in what websites are or are not made accessible and because it is free for libraries to use. Another important reason is that OpenChoice's algorithms are not proprietary so the mechanics of the system can be freely explored by its users.
How much control would I have over the filter?
It depends. The amount of control that you would have would depend on both how much you chose to participate in the interactive rating system and how much your ratings of the web sites had accorded with the majority of participants over time. OpenChoice is organized in this way to protect the filter from being taken over by individuals whose viewpoints differ dramatically from the majority of users, or whose intentions are malicious.
Has anything similiar been tried before?
Several open source content filters already exist and have been deployed in a few library settings. In contrast to their commercial counterparts, these filters operate without recourse to proprietary algorithms or secret databases. Two of these filters, SquidGuard and DansGuardian, offer libraries non-proprietary yet technically viable Internet means of filtering. However, existent open source filters lack cohesive avenues for participation by their users in the creation of blacklists of blocked Internet sites. Additionally, the technology that underpins current software employs simplistic rule-based criteria that impede their classification accuracy. OpenChoice is being created to improve upon the utility of these currently available open source content filters.
I have a question that was not answered: who should I contact and how?
Any further questions can be forwarded to the project team by e-mailing choice@ischool.utexas.edu
