Perhaps someone has studied this as a thesis or library school article, (or anywhere) and you can point me to the right place. I'm NOT looking for a study that looks at whether filters work or don't work.
I'm looking for a study that looks at the other side of the equation - what information is lost when filters overblock and patrons don't get the information they need? I'm especially interested in libraries that have filters but will unblock or disable them on request, yet patrons don't ask.
All of us who have worked in libraries know that patrons are often reluctant to ask librarians for help finding material. This is especially true for sensitive issues, like reproductive and other health concerns. How often are libraries that use filters ASKED by users to UNBLOCK or disable them? If they're not asked frequently, why not? Is it that the filters work fantastically well, blocking only pornography, or that the bother, embarrassment, burden etc. keeps patrons from asking for help?
"Please unblock this site on erectile dysfunction" may not be the most fun question to ask the librarians for help on, for example. Websites on abuse, contraception as well as random other topics can all fall victim to overblocking. Is there anyone out there studying this issue - or even able to suggest a framework to study the issue?