Finally, an official response from Johns Hopkins regarding POPLINE via ResourceShelf.
I was informed this morning that the word “abortion” was blocked as a search term in the POPLINE family planning database administered by the Bloomberg School’s Center for Communication Programs. POPLINE provides evidence-based information on reproductive health and family planning and is the world’s largest database on these issues.
USAID, which funds POPLINE, found two items in the database related to abortion that did not fit POPLINE criteria. The agency then made an inquiry to POPLINE administrators. Following this inquiry, the POPLINE administrators at the Center for Communication Programs made the decision to restrict abortion as a search term.
I could not disagree more strongly with this decision, and I have ordered that the POPLINE administrators restore “abortion” as a search term immediately. I will also launch an inquiry to determine why this change occurred.
The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of knowledge and not its restriction.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Klag, MD, MPH
Dean, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
I will be quite interested in the results of this inquiry.
As of noon Pacific Daylight Time, 1320 records are now available via basic search.
Showing posts with label popline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label popline. Show all posts
Friday, April 4, 2008
Please hold: Reconnection at POPLINE?
After yesterday's discussion of POPLINE apparently listing 'abortion' as a stopword for their search engine, I have just now rerun a POPLINE basic search on abortion 3 times in the span of several minutes.
14, 48, then 67 records were available via this search. Interesting.
There is still no mention that I can find on POPLINE regarding this alleged action, nor has there been an update at ResourceShelf which was told they would receive an update today.
Now at 11 am Pacific time, the results are up to 105.
The question still remains: What, if any other relevant search terms, may have also been coded as stop words... and why?
14, 48, then 67 records were available via this search. Interesting.
There is still no mention that I can find on POPLINE regarding this alleged action, nor has there been an update at ResourceShelf which was told they would receive an update today.
Now at 11 am Pacific time, the results are up to 105.
The question still remains: What, if any other relevant search terms, may have also been coded as stop words... and why?
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The number you have dialed is no longer in service: Intentional disconnection at POPLINE?
I'll admit I joined a major listserv in my field solely because of the fallout from last week's ruckus regarding the PhD student from Harvard, and was dismayed by some of the comments made there by my colleagues regarding the situation. I initially wanted to write further about the matter, but David Rothman & The Krafty Librarian have covered additional perspectives well. I'm still mulling over how to identify relevant national, regional and community medical blogs and the roles medical librarians can serve in both participation and outreach on them.
However, I've watched the listserv traffic with alarm today at what appears to be search term censorship at POPLINE, a federally-funded search engine operated at Johns Hopkins that bills itself as "the world's largest database on reproductive health."
There's just one (known, what else might there be?) small problem: a librarian conducting a query earlier this week found fewer records than previous searches. For a comprehensive database, that means something about the way the database is organized/indexed has changed when nothing else with the query has or there's some type of problem.
You can see the problematic indexing in action yourself: enter abortion in the subject box, click search and voila... nothing. Now try entering abortion in the subject box, then clicking browse index, which brings a popup box (Inmagic, blech! I'm having library school dbase programming flashbacks!) Enter abortion again there, then click the Go to button, and you'll pull up the term with almost 25,000 records. Next, click paste and you'll notice the formatting in the main search box changes to ="Abortion" Click the search button again, and all of the records display.
The reason from Johns Hopkins for this convoluted search nonsense at the world's largest database on reproductive health appears so incredulous that I'm still suspicious that there is a horrible April Fool's Day joke being played here:
Yes we did make a change in POPLINE. We recently made all abortion
terms stop words. As a federally funded project, we decided this was
best for now., according to an email forward supposedly originating from Debbie Dickson on April 1st.
Stepping outside our library jargon, stop words are terms like a, and, the: most search engines don't look for these terms unless a search is specifically constructed to include them because they aren't relevant to the information being sought.
No one can find a way to explain to me how the term abortion, which includes not just the major subject but areas like spontaneous abortion = miscarriage, is not relevant to a search of a reproductive health database, and I will not stand for it as a newly minted librarian and former Project Censored student reviewer. If it starts and succeeds with POPLINE, who is to say MedlinePlus isn't next as a federally funded agency?
This is currently on the front page of Wired with a link to their listing in the Privacy, Security, Politics & Crime section.
I am expressing my dismay to Johns Hopkins regarding this decision and hope that you will as well.
However, I've watched the listserv traffic with alarm today at what appears to be search term censorship at POPLINE, a federally-funded search engine operated at Johns Hopkins that bills itself as "the world's largest database on reproductive health."
There's just one (known, what else might there be?) small problem: a librarian conducting a query earlier this week found fewer records than previous searches. For a comprehensive database, that means something about the way the database is organized/indexed has changed when nothing else with the query has or there's some type of problem.
You can see the problematic indexing in action yourself: enter abortion in the subject box, click search and voila... nothing. Now try entering abortion in the subject box, then clicking browse index, which brings a popup box (Inmagic, blech! I'm having library school dbase programming flashbacks!) Enter abortion again there, then click the Go to button, and you'll pull up the term with almost 25,000 records. Next, click paste and you'll notice the formatting in the main search box changes to ="Abortion" Click the search button again, and all of the records display.
The reason from Johns Hopkins for this convoluted search nonsense at the world's largest database on reproductive health appears so incredulous that I'm still suspicious that there is a horrible April Fool's Day joke being played here:
Yes we did make a change in POPLINE. We recently made all abortion
terms stop words. As a federally funded project, we decided this was
best for now., according to an email forward supposedly originating from Debbie Dickson on April 1st.
Stepping outside our library jargon, stop words are terms like a, and, the: most search engines don't look for these terms unless a search is specifically constructed to include them because they aren't relevant to the information being sought.
No one can find a way to explain to me how the term abortion, which includes not just the major subject but areas like spontaneous abortion = miscarriage, is not relevant to a search of a reproductive health database, and I will not stand for it as a newly minted librarian and former Project Censored student reviewer. If it starts and succeeds with POPLINE, who is to say MedlinePlus isn't next as a federally funded agency?
This is currently on the front page of Wired with a link to their listing in the Privacy, Security, Politics & Crime section.
I am expressing my dismay to Johns Hopkins regarding this decision and hope that you will as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)