2016
DOI: 10.1080/0361526x.2016.1245645
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using Piwik Instead of Google Analytics at the Cornell University Library

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, GA might be inappropriate for some types of cultural institutions, such as libraries, which have a tradition to protect the readers' privacy. Another alternative for web analytics might be Piwik (piwik.org), a free, open source tool, which supports local data collection (Chandler and Wallace, 2016).…”
Section: Monitoring Website Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, GA might be inappropriate for some types of cultural institutions, such as libraries, which have a tradition to protect the readers' privacy. Another alternative for web analytics might be Piwik (piwik.org), a free, open source tool, which supports local data collection (Chandler and Wallace, 2016).…”
Section: Monitoring Website Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Much of the library-related privacy literature focuses on the importance and adoption of secure Internet communication protocols (e.g. https), the development of privacy policies, and ethical data collection and use, often providing practical tips for librarians who are trying to secure a library's web presence (American Library Association, 2020; Breeding, 2019; Breeding, 2016; Chandler and Wallace, 2016; Nichols Hess et al , 2015; O'Brien et al , 2018; Quintel and Wilson, 2020; Thomchick and San Nicolas-Rocca, 2018). Singley (2020) calls for librarians to widen their perspective of privacy, focusing less on traditional concerns, such as the anonymity of circulation records, and more on those resources provided to the library (or directly to users) by third parties, developing a holistic approach that considers privacy in collection decisions, user authentication, instruction and advocacy efforts on campus.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The LIS profession has also witnessed increasingly widespread concern about digital surveillance as libraries in the United States grapple with the consequences of facing ICE in the wake of the PATRIOT Act (Jaeger, McClure, Bertot, and Snead 2004;Matz 2008;Carpenter 2015;Lamdan 2019;). Libraries have also worked to enhance the privacy of web protocols (Askey and Arlitsch 2015), web analytics (Chandler and Wallace 2016), and cloud-based library services (Kritikos and Zimmer 2017). Profession-wide training and conversations about the implications of digital surveillance have strengthened the field's stance against unnecessary data collection, and has provided us with tools and partnerships necessary to understand complex technological issues, raise awareness for privacy, and advocate against surveillance.…”
Section: Privacy Advocacy and Actionmentioning
confidence: 99%