Previous by Date | Next by Date | Date Index
Previous by Thread | Next by Thread
| Thread Index
| LM_NET
Archive
| |
Sorry, I disagree. If there is one thing that working in a high school library has taught me in twelve years it is that we have a diversity of students and thata significant number will go looking for the most indecent material avialble on the net. Personally I'd like them to find a lot less of it. Rayna ------------------------------------------------------- Rayna Patton, Librarian Marysville Exempted Village Schools Marysville High School Voice 513/642-0010 800 Amrine Mill Rd FAX 513/642-2033 Marysville, Ohio 43040 E'Mail KMV_PATTON@K12.MEC.OHIO.GOV On Sun, 11 Feb 1996, Carol Simpson wrote: > On 10 Feb 1996, Tom Whipple wrote: > > > to be so familiar with. I've been using the internet for seven years and = > > no one has made be view or read anything that I did not go looking for. = > > I will second that. I have NEVER come across anything inappropriate > (even in the days of less-than-optimum indexing) while doing an > appropriate search. Sure, it's quite easy to find porn if you look up > words like the f-word, or even close variants of appropriate words such > as "doggy" (as in doggy-style). Chances of a student searching on those > terms in a curriculum-related search are slim. For those who expect that > students will search on "dog" and find "doggy-style", look for a search > engine that ranks results based on how close the results conform to the > original query. Thus, "dog" is at the top of the list with a result of > 100, and "doggy" is way down a long list with a rating of 30 or so. > There is the problem of searching words such as "sexual" as in sexually > transmitted diseases and locating information on sexual positions). No > internet advice on that one! However, information about sexual > positions isn't considered "indecent" and certainly not pornographic > when presented in an informational manner. >