Talk:American Library Association/Archive 1

Why is the Goosebumps series banned or challenged?

Dunno, but it isn't banned or challenged by the ALA. They seem to be against such things. The ALA website seems to be promoting goosebumps: http://www.ala.org/ala/alsc/greatwebsites/greatwebsitesfavorite.htm AdinaBob 21:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is this question here, instead of on the Goosebumps page? Shouldn't it be removed? In any case, the ALA doesn't challenge books, it reports on the challenges issued to school and public libraries by parents and community members. The Goosebumps books were challenged "for being too frightening for young people and depicting occult or “Satanic” themes" [1]. Deborah-jl 02:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

cite for liberal/conservative information?

Is there any sort of a cite besides personal observations about the liberal/conservative information added to the ALA page? Besides having typos, the newly added information is also unsourced. Jessamyn 14:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That the ALA has a political stance and issues statements on issues of national politics is a fact and the examples given are cited; I've sectioned them off. That some librarians refuse to join the ALA because of its political stance is irrelevant (some refuse to join because of its irrelevance to their jobs, for example, or because of the cost. Similarly, I'm sure many retired people don't join the AARP or many black people the NAACP because of the political stance; in the absence of a counter organization of encyclopedic interest, I don't find it a wiki-worthy statement. Deborah-jl 02:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the sectioning off works really well to get this information across in a NPOV way. Good edit! Jessamyn 15:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I'm all blushy, because, dude, you're Jessamyn. Deborah-jl 03:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Critical Responses section added

All. I just added a critical responses section. It is wiki-worthy to have just such a section. I have written it in as fair a fashion as possible by adding qualifying phrases such as "for what they view is" and "they argue." Further, I have limited links to critical groups to only one, though of course there are many. The wording is also written in an encyclopaedic, nonjudgmental tone. Only four sentences have been added, including a link to and a sentence from US v. ALA. I have tried to be as respectful as possible. Thank you very much. 24.149.135.182 06:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think your edit shows NPOV but I think its inclusion in an article that is essentially supposed to be an encylopedia article about ALA seems a bit non-NPOV in and of itself. You basically stated that ALA breaks the law, and groups that support following the law disagree with ALA. I dispute your assertions.
  I am aware that many groups have concerns with ALA's stance on access rights for children and the ALA Bill of Rights as contrasted with CIPA, but without further explanation, I feel that your addition is out of place here. The ALA Bill of Rights predates the CIPA decision, first of all, and CIPA primarily is concerned with materials harmful to minors, much of which is already explicitly not available in libraries to begin with under current obscenity laws.
  CIPA concerns funding only, and what people who receive funding need to do. Libraries that receive e-rate or other money from the federal government need to install filters on their computers. CIPA does not cover, except anecdotally and in a non-legally binding fashion, what the law should be for libraries that don't receive government funding. While the SCOTUS decision made mention of the protection of children, the law is about funding and compliance with funding guidelines. ALA has an obligation to help libraries that must comply with CIPA as well as libraries that either do not need to comply or have chosen not to comply. They are a member organization and their obligation is to their members. Add to this that ALA has no actual authority over these libraries, they provide guidance and advice but do not license or approve of these libraries in any way. As such, I think your edit is in need of a rewrite, if it is to stay at all. For people who do not know the law, do not know ALA's relationship to libraries and do not know the history of all three, your paragraph confuses several issues in ways that muddle the facts and appear to promote one organization without establishing it as anything other than a group opposed to ALA.
  I'm aware that you have made edits to many other ALA-related pages and I don't want to start an entire hot debate here, I'd just like to make sure that the critical responses section is fact-based and does not appear to be promoting only one organization's issues with ALA. If there is a posse of groups that share this exact same concern, perhaps they shoudl be listed. It would be helpful if these groups themselves had verifiability. As it stands it seems like safelibraries.org is going to all ALA-related pages on Wikipedia and repeating basically the same information. I know you feel strongly about your position, but I'd like to try to hammer it out into something that is encyclopedia-worthy and meets the guidelines for verifiability and accuracy. I'm leaving it as-is for now, but I'll return to the main page and try to make it a bit more factually based using citations instead of links to SCOTUS decisions that people will be unlikely to read through. If you have other suggestions in the meantime, feel free to leave them here Jessamyn 22:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Jessamyn. I really appreciate your response. It was reasoned, respectful, and reasonable. I hope I have been as well. Your suggestion to list various organizations opposed to the ALA's policies with regard to the age issue is greatly appreciated. I did not add them because on a page about the ALA I thought such a list would not be appropriate, although obviously I would have loved to have done that. The only other page ALA-related I have changed is the Judith Krug page. I honestly feel the page is much improved and more interesting courtesy, frankly, of some Wikipedian and not me. And I really think that Mrs. Krug would actually want some of her positions to be to publicly broadcast. She feels, I surmise, that libraries made too child friendly place too many restrictions on adults. Guess what, I actually agree with her. Adults should be able to access essentially whatever's legal. We disagree essentially on the method for finding the right balance. I think the guidance of CIPA and US v. ALA, even if a library does not accept federal funding, is the best guidance available considering the source and should be followed. (Note I do not think my personal ideas are important, rather I look to existing laws and request that they be applied.) She thinks CIPA should not be followed wherever legally possible to do so. That's partly why, for example, Multnomah County, OR, turned down over $100,000 in federal funding. Now it is also my belief, based on watching library crime and the reactions of libraries as reported in the media that I can access online, that children continue to suffer from the very actions that CIPA and US v. ALA were designed to stop in libraries. I contend that anyone can look at such media and come to essentially the same conclusion, whether they wish to admit it publicly or not. Besides, it's just plain common sense that children should not have access to certain materials. So I am of the belief that if parents/patrons become aware of the actual situation in their libraries instead of what they think is happening from when they were children, they would want to use CIPA and US v. ALA as guidance for what goes on in their local public library, not the ALA. As you say, the ALA's obligation is to its members. Well a local library's obligations should be to the patrons it serves, not the ALA. If patrons took back de facto control of the libraries from the ALA, less children might be negatively affected. And that is the ultimate goal of the many groups responding to various issues that are all rooted in the ALA's age discrimination policy. By the way, I like your web site. The banner graphic is intriguing - I'm curious to see the top half of the picture. Thanks again for your comments. 24.149.135.182 01:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for responding, it seems that you're saying that to you, CIPA is a very important guideline as to how libraries should behave w/r/t children, in terms of some of the things the justices said, and not necessarily the conclusion that was legally arrived at which I can sum up bluntly "re: funding. follow our rules or get no funding." ALA disagrees with your conclusion or, rather, as a matter of policy does not have an explicitly stated Thou Shalt Not/Shall Filter rule except for what the Library Bill of Rights states. I think we can also agree that you are entitled to that opinion, and I am entitled to mine. Where I draw the line is taking cases and advocacy groups and conflating them with what you feel is actual harm without more concrete linkages.
      That is, a few of your statements, notably "...children continue to suffer from the very actions that CIPA and US v. ALA were designed to stop in libraries. I contend that anyone can look at such media and come to essentially the same conclusion" and "it's just plain common sense that children should not have access to certain materials" are much more contentious than they seem on the face of it. America is a giant place and contains a multitude of people from many cultures. While I think it might not be a stretch to say many people agree with your stated positions, I think it would be a stretch to say that most people would agree with them. I think it's also a stretch to say that ALA agrees with them, or has the same understanding of common sense that you do. There is, clearly, a huge conflict between how to solve the problem of letting adults access whatever they want and trying to do what we think is best for children. However, in our imperfect world with its imperfect filters, we all have to ask ourselves the question of which side do we want to err on? I'd prefer to err on the side of letting parents decide what is right for their children, at home and in the library instead of restricting access to others who legally deserve it. You clearly disagree. I don't think that anyone honestly thinks that ALA is in favor of children accessing pornography, just that it's not proper for them to make decisions outside of the laws which already exist, including CIPA.
      So, while I clearly see your objection to ALAs age discrimination policy, fully stated as:
      'Denying minors access to certain library materials and services available to adults is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that parents--and only parents--have the right and the responsibility to restrict the access of their children--to library resources. Adopted 1972, amended 1981, 1992.' [2]. (As you can see this was last amended in 1992, pretty much pre-Internet and certainly pre-CIPA.)
      I would have to say that 1) I think you are representing it unfairly, unless you are referring to interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights which should be clearly indicated as such. 2) objections to the Bill of Rights that claim that it is in some way extra-legal post-CIPA seem to be not accurate. The US Bill of Rights didn't become extra-legal post USA PATRIOT Act, but lawmakers and governments and all sorts of people needed to respond to the conflicts between the bill of rights and the new law. This is what ALA is doing with the Library Bill of Rights just like it is what local and state governments are doing all over the US with the PATRIOT Act. It seems to me that an analogy would be me adding to the State of Vermont's home page their refusal to adhere to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The introspection on the part of large institutions like ALA may not be as quick as you or I would like (perhaps for different reasons) but they are paying attention to this and considering it. 3) your primary issue seems to be with ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom, where your concerns about Judith Krug were placed on her Wikipedia page. I'm not sure if they also need to be on ALA's page since by your own admission this is primarily an issue directed towards one part of ALA, where it has already been addressed on Wikipedia. I could see this being on a page on the Library Bill of Rights page, or the OIF page, but on the ALA page which is small, very general and already has a section on politics, I'd be more inclined to change what you wrote into a one-sentence addition to the politics section which is already about people who have objections to the ALA for their own reasons. Again, I'm not in a place where I want to approach this at this point, but that is likely what I'll try to do the next time I am wearing my editor hat. Thank you for your reasoned response. Have you considered getting a Wikipedia login so that you can have signed entries and comments? Jessamyn 02:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Jessamyn, I have considered it but a) I haven't figured out how yet, b) lack of a name doesn't make my arguments have any more or less force, and c) I have very little time as it is to do what I'm doing with regard to the ALA and getting such a login would be low priority to me. Regarding "Where I draw the line is taking cases and advocacy groups and conflating them with what you feel is actual harm without more concrete linkages," I will admit to you that I have no further evidence other than the national media as I explained. I will further say that, just as I said with getting a wiki login, I do not have and likely never will have the time myself to conduct scientifically accurate and unbiased research. And I will never likely afford the money to commission one. Right now I have only anecdotal evidence. But I think if such a study were conducted, it would show a statistically significant likelihood that the ALA might be linked to harm to children. Now here's the interesting part. I believe it is only a matter of time before some family somewhere brings suit against various parties including the ALA because their child as been harmed in a library that would have been filtered but for the library's adherence to the ALA age discrimination policy. I am aware of a number of cases nationwide that fit this pattern that are egregious enough to make people seek redress from the ALA. It's only a matter of time. There's only so long the ALA can do what it's doing before the poison apple cart tips over. Then, when that happens, when someone sues, there will then be the time and the money to conduct the proper study to prove one way or another the truth of my assertions. Until that time we will both have to wait and see. Now on another issue you say "I don't think that anyone honestly thinks that ALA is in favor of children accessing pornography...." There are many, many librarians, perhaps almost all librarians, apparently even including yourself, who are not in favor of that. So to that extent I agree with you. Unfortunately, there are a few librarians who do believe this. Judith Krug is one. Now before you get annoyed at me for saying this, consider first what she has said. She has said, according to 9/97 Citizen, and I'm quoting her now, "Parents who care give their children Playboy." Further, the lists the ALA produces of books for children of different ages include inappropriate books because, I guess, if they did not include such books, that might be age discrimination. My own kindergartner was given a book that the principal, not me, removed from the library for being sexually inappropriate. I asked her why the book was given to my kid. Because, she told me, it was on an ALA list of approved books for kindergartners. So, sadly, the vast majority of really excellent librarians are led by a person who makes outrageous statements, enforces outrageous policies, and has significant influence in local libraries nationwide. The ALA's enemy is not me or various groups for what we are saying, rather it is itself for making its own extreme statements and extreme policies. 24.149.135.182 14:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I saw the changes you made and I think they're a good start. I think we do need to focus on the concept of "following the law" in this case. Local libraries in almost all cases that I know of ARE following the law which says "get filters or forego funding". It's an IF-THEN statement. Nowhere does CIPA say "filters are the law" Examples to illustrate this are
          
          1) A library that never got funding from the government, and didn't filter before CIPA and still does not filter after CIPA. This library is following the law.
          2) A library that gets government funding and decides to forego funding after CIPA instead of having to use filters. This library is following the law.
          3) A library that filters pre and post CIPA. This library is following the law.
          
          Note that in the first two cases, the libraries would be more in line with ALAs guidelines regarding filtering BUT there is nothing making the library in example number three follow ALA's guidelines except for their own ideas of how closely they feel like they want to adhere to the ALA Bill of Rights. There are no sanctions and in most cases that I know of, there is no pressure. There are many large library systems in the United States that use filtering and they are still members in good standing of the American Library Association. I'm sure there are at least a few libraries who have decided to not retain membership in the American Library Association because of ALA's positions on filtering, access issues concerning children, or a host of other reasons. Judith Krug is not the leader of librarians. She is a highly-placed and influential member of ALA, but she is not the president or the director. She is not on ALA Council. She has strong opinions and many people agree with her, myself included, but critique of her positions rightfully belong on her page, where you have put them, and not on ALA's page. Critiques of CIPA belong on the CIPA page.
          
          I sympathize with your concern that this is an accident waiting to happen. However Wikipedia is not supposed to be a crystal ball and we do not add things to these pages based on what might happen, we can only describe what has happened and what is happening and even then, only that which is verifiable. Jessamyn 22:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Jessamyn. Boy would it be nice to discuss this via a conversation with you. But in this wiki format, others can see what we have written and benefit thereby. Thanks for noticing my changes. I do try to be as accurate as possible and where I am wrong, well I admit it and resolve the problem. Pobody's nerfect.
            
            And you are right, libraries are not required to filter. Even if libraries that do filter were in violation of CIPA for one reason or another, the worst that would happen under that law is, as I understand it, the federal funding will be cut off. So libraries are either not covered by the law, or they are complaint with the law, or they are not and the federal funding will be cut off. With regard to CIPA, there's not much that would happen to a library for failure to comply.
            
            But CIPA changes the landscape in more significant ways than just funding. Before CIPA, the ALA’s position on age discrimination was, well, one opinion of how things should be. After CIPA, after the Court even in dicta talked about how it is perfectly legitimate to, well, discriminate when it comes to children, the ALA’s age discrimination position, its opinion, no longer holds water. On the one hand, SCOTUS says it is perfectly appropriate to protect children from inappropriate material. On the other hand, the ALA says it is inappropriate, claiming only the parents should do that. So, even though CIPA only applies to federal funding issues, is still decided very important constitutional issues that just don’t get thrown out because a library is not funded. SCOTUS's dicta far outweighs the ALA's "Library Bill of Rights." Children should be protected from inappropriate material. In the light of CIPA, the ALA shrivels from mere opinion to just being plain wrong. The ALA should adjust its Rights according.
            
            Now once again there is no law that the ALA do this. But there are parents who prefer to consider SCOTUS authoritative and not the ALA. There are parents whose children are being raped and molested in public libraries that had no filters or had an inadequate filtering system, such as filtering only the computers intended for children. After medical and psychiatric attention is trained on the children who will be negatively impacted for life, the parents attention may turn elsewhere for answers. One of those places may be the public library. And if those parents find out the library might have been filtered, the filters might have prevented the criminal activity, and the ALA prevented the library from filtering, well, law or no, those parents may sue the ALA. And a judge may decide the ALA is liable for the child’s damages even if no particular law was broken. You have to admit this is possible. As the trail of blood continues unabated despite CIPA in libraries that refuse to filter, someone somewhere will eventually sue the ALA. Then some judge somewhere will eventually find the ALA liable. That will be the beginning of the end of the stranglehold the ALA holds over local libraries.
            
            Oh I know you say the ALA has no such control, but that’s an argument meant for people persuaded by mere assertions and not facts. Facts like local libraries by the thousands explicitly following ALA guidelines including the Library Bill of Rights. Facts like admissions by libraries that they would have filtered but for the ALA’s pressure. "Librarians opposed because of American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights tenet 'Free and Equal Access to Information,'" and that’s from an ACLU report! You see, Jessamyn, truth is stranger than fiction. I am not smart enough to make this stuff up by myself. Facts like libraries comply with ALA directives until one of their own patrons gets molested, and only then do they finally install filters. Facts like libraries decide to remove "age" from their policies, only to have the ALA come down hard and fast to get out huge amounts of librarians to overwhelm local officials and essentially force them to reverse their policies. With facts like these and others, it really makes the argument that the ALA has no real control over local libraries a little silly. What matters is what a judge will believe, not what the ALA wants to portray.
            
            And let's not kid ourselves about Judith Krug. The ALA's greatest influence in local libraries is the age discrimination thing that, in my view, results in molested children nationwide. Now that's a lasting influence. Krug is the greatest influence on the organization that enforces the age discrimination policy. So what if she’s not on the ALA Council. You are on the Council. Forgive me but there is no way your influence even comes near Mrs. Krug’s influence. The same goes for the yearly parade of presidents. Mrs. Krug, like it or not, is the decades-long steady star of the ALA. Since we are on wiki, her wiki page may be longer than President Gorman's and the ALA's page combined! And while her positions belong on her page, her positions are the ALA's position and belong on the ALA’s page as well.
            
            Hey Jessamyn, you are really bright. Clearly you are a valuable asset to the ALA, the mostly good parts of the ALA that have nothing to do with allowing children access to pornography. Creative (librarian.net) and intelligent. I really like the ALA, except for mainly the age discrimination policy that I contend results in serious problems that, in light of US v. ALA, is really egregious. And someday a court might agree. 24.149.135.182 04:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
            • I, for one, am very grateful this conversation is going on here; it's quite useful. I think the point of wikiworthiness is that none of our particular opinions (whether we think all porn is the devil or children should get Playboy for first birthday presents) is relevant. Nor are our personal interpretations of the law and whether ALA follows it or violates it. What's relevant is encyclopedic information. So a list of lawsuits brought against the ALA, or in which the ALA or SafeLibraries offered Amicus curiae briefs would be wiki-worthy; a description of court decisions, a timeline which involves the ALA Bill of Rights and CIPA both, these would all be relevant. Additionally a list of library professional organisations which explicitly oppose the ALA's political stances. As for safelibraries.org, it appears to be a site representing the views of one man [3] and not, as far as I can tell, a group that's actually doing anything in the world (filing lawsuits, promoting activism, or any other activity which would involve a large number of people or be likely to have an effect on the ALA). If I'm correct about that, it's not a wikiworthy reference, and should be replaced with an anti-ALA group that's actually, well, real. If I'm incorrect, please correct me, and perhaps update the article with what safelibraries does to make it worthwhile as a reference. I have no objection to opposition to the ALA being listed on the ALA page, but a single man's site about his critiques is not the opposition to list. Deborah-jl 16:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Funny, I read the response the whole time thinking is was Jessamyn and at the end it was Deborah-jl. Well, welcome to the discussion. I'm happy you see the value in this. I'll say I agree with you about how to build this page, but obviously I'm not the one who should be doing that. You mention "library professional organisations which explicitly oppose the ALA's political stances." Do you know of any?
                
                As to SafeLibraries, I'll have to so to speak investigate further, but he/they have accomplished some things others have not. In an effort to remove Playboy from a public library he/they have several interesting facts that makes him/them worth watching. 1) The library's director is an ALA Councilor and the Illinois ILA Librarian of the Year. 2) The director thinks Playboy gets very little play while the Board thinks it gets a lot of play. One would think the director who is there day to day would know better. Plus Naperville library, a bigger library nearby, does not have Playboy because there has been no demand for it after it had been dropped in the past due to its constant theft. Could the library directors know more about circulation than part-time board members? 3) Michael Gorman is directly involved in that he sent a thank you note about the would-be censor and self-appointed arbiter, or some other such language showing he is not in touch with reality. 4) Judith Krug is directly involved because she made another of her patented ridiculous statements about it not being a librarian's job to protect children, or something like that. 5) He/they actually somehow commissioned his own independent research, and it shows I think 83% of the public does not want tax money used to buy Playboy. Further, 97% of the people do not want children to access porn, and as we all know now that is diametrically opposed to the ALA's positions and assertions. 6) As the director has admitted, he never in 30+ years has seen a local government board request that a library reconsider a decision to keep Playboy. Even the ALA reported this online. 7) He reveals that the library refuses to act on behalf of the citizens, although they have all these months-long hurdles to jump through to waste your time, because they have a policy that they will not remove anything unless a court so orders. He/they ask how could a local library be under local control if the library refuses to follow community standards and expressly follows ALA directives. So, when you add all this together, I'd say Mr. Decker has himself a pretty interesting web site. He's just a dad who got tired of porn in the public library and actually did something about it. But he'll never write amicus briefs or be famous like that. I think it would be a little unfair to exclude him just because his group is small. Someone somewhere will eventually break through the ALA's wall of protection around criminals (that includes other issues besides this age thing, like the USA PATRIOT Act defiance and associated policies that do not seem to be part of his web site), and Mr. Decker's web site shows he is in the early stages of being exactly on that trajectory. 24.149.135.182 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
                • Hi -- this is deborah again. Thanks for the info about SafeLibraries. My concern with SafeLibraries as a fitting example of opposition to the ALA's positions on intellectual freedom is that, while he's gathered some interesting resources, he hasn't accomplished much except:
                  • Build a website that is linked to by a pathetically small total of 101 hits on Google, all linked from the same location, which leads me to believe he's had minimal effect outside one small town.
                  • Commission an independent survey of his town residents.
                • So even if we were to consider one man's fight against Playboy in his town library to have much to say about the ALA, this site is too small to have encyclopedic value. It may be interesting, but wiki-worthiness has to be determined by how much of a dent it's made on the world. Much more wikiworthy would be some links to the opposition in the Hillsborough County / Tampa, FL Gay Pride display, because that fight made national news for quite some time. [4] So I see why you admire the SafeLibraries gentleman but until he makes a dent on the world (either by taking his fight to a larger group of libraries and thus making news, or by making news in some other way) I don't see how his site is encyclopedic. (I'm not arguing you without the ALA's stance on CIPA and whether it's right or wrong; I happen to disagree with you personally, but that's neither here nor there, as neither your opinion nor mine is relevant to the page construction. I think you're correct that the ALA's political stances are controversial, and that needs to be reflected in the page. I just don't think SafeLibraries is the correct link to reflect that controversy; there are other groups which have made news as they've gotten in arguments with libraries backed by the ALA. Deborah-jl 04:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Since I believe we agree that arguments against the ALA's stance should be included here, and that we can't find any evidence that SafeLibraries is encyclopedic, I'm going to remove the link and replace it with another that is wikiworthy. Tampa libraries, probably. I hope that's good with everyone here. Deborah-jl 05:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The work you have added to the page has really improved it, in my opinion. I'm just going to make some minor grammar edits now. By the why, you say Nat Hentoff "lashed out" at the ALA. In my view, based on references I could provide, the ALA "lashes out" at any parent who tries to remove the ALA's influence from their local public library. That is in part why the ALA has been so successful in enforcing its extreme views -- by intimidating parents, patrons, and town governments. 24.149.135.182 13:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The ALA's demands that only large or googleable groups can oppose it are just as elitist as the ALA is. Ridiculous. Previously unsigned post by 12.40.61.12 01:19, 27 November 2005

• If you're talking about me, I am neither the ALA nor an ALA member, although I confess I am a former member. And I'm not insisting only large or Googleable groups be listed (although the Google test is a widely accepted wikipedia heuristic); rather, according to wikipedia site-wide guidelines, I'm insisting that the groups be encyclopedic in some fashion. That is, that they have wide membership, famous membership, wide effect ... hell, any effect. The fact is that safelibraries.org appears to have a membership of one (according to its own website), have had minimal effect (also according to its own site), and has had no dent on the Internet (according to Google). If you have an issue with denying the propogation of vanity links, take it up with wikipedia, not with the ALA. Deborah-jl 23:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

New topic: Hello all. After the sentence "Some parent groups express anger over ALA's Library Bill of Rights because they believe the rights it supports are sometimes in conflict with more recent legislation such as the Children's Internet Protection Act" I would like to add the following, or something substantially similar: "for example, SafeLibraries.org." Any problems? I know small sites can be iffy, but SafeLibraries, according to the NetCraft AntiPhising Toolbar, is ranked in the 36,000th most visited site range (and i expect it to keep improving as it has), as compared with the ALA itself ranked in the 23,000th most visited site range. I would say that means SafeLibraries.org is no small site. Even LibraryJournal.com is ranked at 122,000th. So, any problems adding the relatively highly trafficed link? --SafeLibraries 16:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that people can find that information and it seems like unecessary self-promotion. I assume by your username, that it's your site or one that you're affiliated with. This article is about the American Library Association and unless you think the current description does not do a good job at explaining the concerns of groups mentioned about the ALA, there is no need to promote one above the others. I don't really recognize the anti-phishing toolbar as any sort of authority in page ranking analysis, why don't you just use Google or A9 if that's the case you want to make here? Just my opinion, but it seems like an unecessary and self-promoting addition. Does Safe Libraries have their own web site? Jessamyn (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jessamyn, I'm so happy you responded as you were my intended recipient as I view you as a sort of authority here. The Netcraft Anti-Phishing Toolbar comes from a reputable company whose toolbar gives various information about web sites, including rank, so that people can decide if there might be a danger from a phishing attack, you know, where they fool you into thinking they are, say, PayPal, then they get personal info from you that they use for their benefit or for espionage. Actually, I recommend it highly, as do many others, for the security features it provides. As to Google, it's the king, but I never figured out how to use Google to figure out a site's rank. If it's easy for you and you don't mind, what URL should I check out? And A9, well I never heard of that, but that doesn't mean much. So please if you can tell me the URL for that.

Now, on another issue, you say there's no need to promote one over another. First, there's no promotion of any right now. There are only generalized statements worded in a way to cast doubt on the need for people to even check out opposition sites. Second, SafeLibraries, yes, that's my organization's site, is bigger than other sites, at least according to NetCraft, so if one was to be picked, it might as well be mine. Third, we have a links page that goes to many other of these types of web sites so we are fair in linking to others, and readers of the ALA wiki page may appreciate that.

Fourth, SafeLibraries has indeed have national effect and broken national news. For example, the Iowa legislature wanted brought a state CIPA law to the floor for the first time because of a little girl raped in an Iowa public library by a repeat library p*rn viewer on unfiltered computers. When the story first came out, all it said was that a girl was molested in a public library restroom. I personally called the reporters and the police and informed them that there may be a link to the p*rn on public library computers, something the original story left out totally. A month later the reporter called me back to say further investigation based on my phone call resulted in the direct link between the molestation and the unfiltered computers. It was this very incident that the Iowa legislators used for the push for the Iowa state CIPA law. It would not have happened without the direct intervention of SafeLibraries.org. I view that as a major success for children.

Another example of news breaking is where I personally got John Green, author of "Looking For Alaska," to admit he would not give his book to his own 12 year old while the ALA gave it the highest award for 2006 for 12 year olds and up. I see that as further proof of the ALA's crossing the line since the book contains oral sex. Nothing wrong with that, but not for 12 year olds, and even the author admits that, courtesy of SafeLibraries.org.

In yet another case, a librarian went to a library association lawyer with a subpeona instead of the city's attorney, or so the story reported, but I also learned directly from her she also contacted an ACLU attorney. So ACLU attorney's are more important than city attorneys, and libraries claim they are under local control when in reality they are not. Again, I view this as a success.

And we have received a letter where we were credited for convincing an entire town's government to filter computers. And we are receiving more letters not made public yet until I dot the i's and cross the t's. We have even shown the ALA itself, the so-called "Office for Intellectual Freedom," censors out information it does not want the public to know. And we made this information public.

There is simply no way to argue SafeLibraries has had little or no effect, especially where the ALA itself ignores our direct letters in part to minimize the stories about us just so people like you could argue SafeLibraries? Who's that? Huh? Well that's just not true any more. A while back it may have been, but times have changed, we have grown, and our influence is becoming noticable.

Now regarding self promotion, please. Stop it. The ALA wiki is not self promoting? The whole page is totally slanted to the ALA's position on everything, barring a few vague references and a few specifics. Be honest. (I'm not saying you are not.) SafeLibraries.org does not self promote. The goal is to provide people with information about the ALA's efforts to sexualize children and to propagandise adults. To say any group compared to the ALA is self promoting and too small to be of consequence is just plain unfair on its face. No group will ever grow to the size of the ALA behemoth that has grips on almost all public libraries. At some point some group has to be considered an example of ALA opposition. I think SafeLibraries, given what I have said above, is now that group.

Jessamyn, how about if you put in something suitable in line with this discussion. That would be extra fair. And as always, I thank you for this discussion. --SafeLibraries 21:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is, all the information you are looking for is already in the Wikipedia page except for a link to an organization that you are invovled with. I'll defer to other people if they think this is appropriate, but you asked and I answered. I didn't say that SafeLibraries wasn't effective or anything else. I mostly think that as a representative of that organization you shouldn't just be injecting it into any article about library topics. This article is about ALA so it's supposed to explain what ALA believes in. I think it's pretty neutral as far as point of view because it's just supposed to describe, not judge. I think talking about ALA having "efforts to sexualize children", for example, is not neutral point of view.

As I said, find the Google page rank for safelibraries with Google, or Alexa or let someone else a little more removed from the organizations chime in here. Here are the numbers that I get from Alexa.com which is one of the main site ranking pages that I know about.

ALA.org rank: 13,948 Libraryjournal.com rank: 73,935 family friendly libraries fflibraries.org: 4,154,511 SafeLibraries.org rank: 5,325,276

So, the safelibraries page is even outranked by other groups that oppose ALA. Perhaps there should be a list of them? I think what's on the page is fine as is, personally. Wikipedia pages usually don't have a list of "groups who are against this group" Why don't you start a Wikipedia page about SafeLibraries and link to that page from this page on ALA? That way you could guarantee some level of neutral point of view and have a place to talk about the organization as a whole, not just as a group that opposes ALA. In any case, I guess I'd suggest waiting to see if anyone else has an opinion because yours and mine cancel each other out. I'm currently at the ALA conference, so I don't feel like I have a ton of time to check in here, at least for a bit. Jessamyn (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Jess, have fun in New Orleans. Let's see what others say. And I would not say anything on the wiki page as I am suggesting that you do the actual inclusion to ensure it is as it could/should be. Now my rank in Netcraft has improved to the 35,000 th most viewed site range. Alexa_Internet, on the other hand, is known spyware that spyware removers remove -- could a spyware company's ranking be considered authoritative? Might they have something they might be pushing themselves as they promote their ranking system to the commercial community? I'm sure SafeLibraries is of no use to them. And as to Google rankings, I could not get it to give an answer as it claimed some error existed. So I tried ala.org and got the same error blockage. As to Netcraft, it is "Internet monitoring company based in Bath, England (recently having relocated from Bradford on Avon). They monitor uptimes and provide server operating system detection as their most notable services. They also provide security testing and publish news about the state of various networks that make up the Internet." They sound more authoritative than a spyware company. In any case, I know you are in N.O. so no need to respond. Talk to you in the future.

Hey, I just looked at the Alexa page I link to above. According to Alexa itself, it is NOT authoritative!! Quoting now, "Alexa ranks sites based on visits from users of the Alexa Toolbar which is only available for Internet Explorer and must be manually installed. There is some controversy over how representative Alexa's user base is of typical internet behavior. If Alexa's user base were a fair statistical sample of the internet user population (e.g. a random sample of sufficient size), Alexa's ranking would be quite accurate (see Sampling). In reality, the sample is not random and has many sources of bias. Alexa itself notes several...."

Besides, with SafeLibraries getting as many as 6000 viewers per DAY, I doubt the low ranking Alexa gives us, and now I seem to be on firm ground for doubting Alexa since they doubt themselves. --SafeLibraries 12:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In the scheme of things, I think "critical responses" section doesn't have anything significant enough in it to warrant being on the page. I think this whole section is a soapbox and should be replaced with a single brief sentence elsewhere. Rlitwin

In the scheme of things, Rlitwin does not make for an authoritative voice. Did he not say "Instead of picketing and protesting Obama and the occupation of Iraq, why not picket and protest (and pursue as an issue in Council) the Bush administrations policies of disinformation, propaganda and secrecy which maintain the possibility for the occupation's continuance? Those policies and practices are directly related to libraries and library values as well as to everything that is wrong with the current scene. I think that set of issues should be our focus - the Bush administration's practices of disinformation, propaganda and secrecy"?

Did he not say, "It goes without saying that we're opposed to the war, but what I think it's most useful for us to protest and agitate about - as librarians and ALA members - are the Bush administration's practices of propaganda, disinformation and secrecy, which are what enable such a sick mess to continue with the American people's blessing. Those practices are specifically our business as librarians. There is something to be said, strategically, for recognizing that an ignorant public will respond to an anti-war message from ALA by saying, "When did a bunch of bookshelvers become experts on international affairs?" That same public, though, will acknowledge - to an extent - that ALA has some authority when it comes to the issues of information policy and practice concerning the Bush administration's propaganda, disinformation and secrecy, of which all of us are well aware at this point"?

Is not Rlitwin's suggestion to eviserate the "critical responses" section not the very "policy of disinformation, propaganda and secrecy" that he claims about "the Bush administration"?

By the way, he says, "There is something to be said, strategically, for recognizing that an ignorant public will respond to an anti-war message from ALA by saying, 'When did a bunch of bookshelvers become experts on international affairs?'" So if anyone should question the ALA, they are labelled as "ignorant." Not good. Now we see another reason why he wants to remove the contributions of those opposed to the ALA: they are ignorant!

In sum, I do not see rlitwin as an authoritative source for truthful information.

I don't think that's really an argument. Some would feel the way you do about the statements I have made, but others would consider them to lend greater authority to my arguments about the ALA article. For the record, I am an elected Councilor of the American Library Association, elected by the membership. Rlitwin 20:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Free Speech Rights of the Library?

I find the statement that "Although such protests are between the members of a community and the community's library, the ALA usually issues a statement supporting the library's free speech rights during such controversies" to be misleading. ALA supports the free speech (and free access to information) rights of the public, which is a very different thing from the free speech of the library, if a library can even be said to have rights. The former is in the public interest; the latter implies that ALA is fighting for an agenda being advanced by the library. Andreaj 15:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, that section of the article was the result of many compromises already, as you can probably see from the above comments. If you can find a way to say the same thing, feel free to amend it. I think the point the author was trying to get across was that ALA tends to support libraries in challenge situations, which is the same (to me) as supporting more open access for most people (obviously not the challengers of the material) so I'd agree, it's not just that they support the libraries and they definitely don't support the libraries in a free speech sense, more like they support their ability to continue to provide wide access to information. Jessamyn 04:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Soapbox

I think the Critical Responses section here mostly reads like a soapbox at present, and I think in fact it is. I think it would be good if a more neutral party attempted a rewrite, with an eye to wikiworthiness. I don't think I am a neutral-enough party to do it. What I kind of feel like doing is deleting that section and adding a sentence or two to the end of the first paragraph in the "Polical Stances" section simply stating that not all librarians agree with ALA's positions and that some members of the public activily oppose them. I think that's all that needs to be said from an encyclopedic standpoint. But I don't want to make the edit myself - I'm too close to the issue. Rlitwin 15:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Rlitwin: I reversed your wholesale censorship of the "Critical Responses" section based on an impeccable authority in your opinion. You. You said, "I think it would be good if a more neutral party attempted a rewrite [of Critical Responses], with an eye to wikiworthiness. I don't think I am a neutral-enough party to do it."

Thank you for admitting you are not "a neutral-enough party." Using your own words as my authority, I have restored the material you did not want the public to see about the ALA, yet another at the ALA to censor negative information about the ALA.

The ALA arrogates to itself the role of national censorship police. It is really galling, honestly, to see a top member of that organization perform the very act it itself decries loudly and forcefully and uses as one of the reasons to ensure children have continued access to sexually inappropriate material. The reason why SafeLibraries.org is as good as it is is that we merely need to gather together the statements people like you make and point out the actions that people like you take to push your agenda into every American community possible. In short, you hang yourselves, SafeLibraries.org is merely the messenger. No wonder you try to censor such information. --SafeLibraries 22:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments here and even your username show that you are trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Rlitwin 01:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You are joking, right? Exactly why is the ALA here in the first place and why is it modified by mainly ALA people and why are the comments of non-ALA people frequently censored out by members of the ALA? You're not suggesting there's a double standard for the ALA, are you? --SafeLibraries 02:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested Comment

I came here through the RFC. I'm not in the ALA, I'm not a librarian. I don't even have a valid library card right now. On wikipedia, I've been accused of being both a liberal atheist and a conservative warhawk in the same week. I think the current situation involves two different questions: a content issue and a behavior issues. I'm talk about content first:

It seems to me that the criticism section was a little excessive-- I've scaled it back. I think it gave disproportionate weight to the critics-- for example, one not-particularly-famous editorialist was given a full bullet point for an article he wrote. Another author is given a full bullet point-- his creditials are fully listed, but he and his argument is hardly notable. Some random protest of a single local library gets listed because the ALA sided with the library, so now, therefore, the people who opposed the library muts also oppose the ALA. These specific instances just aren't notable. If there's a major trend, we should summarize it--- not scour the net for every specific instance and then detail them all.

Based on how big the "Anti-ALA movement" seems to me to be after reading the criticism section, I kinda feel that a short two-sentence paragraph acknowledging the existence of critics pretty much covers it. Obviously, if the groups specifically protesting ALA itself become bigger and get more press, then we'll have to give it some more space, but based on the information that was in the criticism section, it's seems like just a few random people who managed to get themselves a blog.

I've certainly never heard of anyone specifically opposed to ALA. Of course, there will be people who oppose some of the stances they hold. But that's not a criticism of the ALA per se, that's criticism of a position on the issue. For example-- some people want flag burning to be illegal, and they oppose the people who voted against a flag burning ban. But we don't then go to the articles on every sentator who voted that way and proceed to add to their page "Some people criticize Senator X for his stance on flag burning" and then list five blogs that mention his name. Instead, we make a page on flag burning, and include both sides of the argument there. So, the opposition of the ALA's stance on censorship should be discussed at a Censorship article. Opposition to the ALA's stance on the Internet Protection act should be on that article, etc.

When a huge protest outside ALA headquarters is covered on CNN, obviously, then it's a whole different ballgame. But so long as the main issues are the focus of the debate, not ALA itself, I think we're safe in merely stating that some people disagree with the ALA because of its stance on such issues.

--

Now, let me move on to the behavior issue. SafeLibraries, I think you've inadvertantly violated a couple of Wikipedia "No-No"s so far in your brief Wikipedia career. But that's alright, that okay-- you're new here, and we were all new once, and it takes time to get accustomed to how Wikipedia works.

One of Wikipedia's biggest rules is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. What this means is that Wikipedia feels it's important that you not try to use Wikipedia to promote any sort of personal agenda, personal beliefs, etc. If you come to Wikipedia and try to change its articles just to promote your own points of view, you're really not getting into the spirit of things, and other editors will look upon your contributions with suspicion, and they will be more likely to be reverted.

Now, we all have our own agendas and our own biases. So, the trick is not to edit things that you feel strongly about or our personally connected with. This is why you've seen some of the editors here talk about they're "too close" to this issue and so they want someone else to make this decision about this article. There's a saying: if you're doing it right, no one should be able to look at your edits and correctly guess what your own bias is. You should resist the temptation to edit in ways that agree with your own agenda. So, something you might want to do is to make a list of the top five issues you care most strongly about-- and then work hard to never try to edit in a way to promote those beliefs. If you care too strongly about an issue, you can start to become an advocate, rather than an editor. I know I have a list of articles, in the back of my mind,that I could never touch, because I care so strongly about them, that I know I would be biased and would inadvertantly wind up promoting my own beliefs.

It's not a hard and fast rule that you can't ever edit such articles-- it's up to each editor to decide whether they can be fair on an article or not. No one's going to tell you "YOU CAN'T EVER EDIT THIS PAGE AGAIN" just because they know you have strong feelings about it-- but if your edits appear to be an attempt to promote a particular agenda, they will be looked upon with suspicion, and will be more likely to be reverted.

But it's okay-- you didn't know. If you had known, you wouldn't have chosen a username that exposes your personal agenda to everyone.

The other rule you may have violated is what are called Vanity links-- creating links and references to organizations you are personally involved with. Generally, it's a bad idea for you to try to create links to organizations you personally run, or to pages about yourself. People do this all the time in an attempt to let their websites get more visitors, but it results in Wikipedia having links to pages that aren't noteworthy. Generally, the thinking is-- if your organization is really big enough to be worthy of a link, then someone else aside from you will add it. If, on the other hand, no one adds the link and you have to add it yourself, then the organization probably isn't big enough yet to actually deserve one.

I suggest you try this:

1. Edit Wikipedia on random hobbies you have, subjects you're knowledgable about, and interests you have. I recently took up cross-stich: that's a great example of a subject where it's very easy to be neutral and unbiased. On the other hand, I know a lot about the bible-- that's a subject where it's a lot harder to be neutral and unbiased. Try to focus on the easier subjects at first. When you move on to harder subjects, avoid the ones that you care MOST about, wait until you're 100% positive you can edit without trying to promote an agenda or be biased.

2. Meanwhile, devote all your advocacy energy into making your SafeLibraries site the very best it can be. There, you can express your opinion without other people editing your arguments all around. There, you can promote your beliefs about ALA much more easily-- no one will be able to censor you, to revise you, or to rebut you. There, you won't need to try to hide your opinions or have to promise not to promote your beliefs: on your site, and elsewhere on the internet, you can do exactly what you should be doing-- trying to change the world for the better as you see it. Wikipedia isn't a very good way to change the world-- it's better at reflecting how the world is right now. Here, every word you write will be edited by people who disagree with your ideas. If you come up with a really great original idea that would convince a lot of people that your position is right-- you can't use it here, because we don't allow original research-- only research that has been published and gained support already. If you try to use Wikipedia to advance an agenda, it's just a waste of time that could be spent actually promoting that agenda successfully. If you try to promote an agenda on Wikipedia, it will just be a frustrating experience for you, and in the end, you'll wind up convincing less people than if you had spent time promoting your agenda in a place where you can be free to express your own thoughts without other people getting in the way.

If Wikipedia's stance on an issue is going to change, here's how it will happen. Not by you coming here and changing it yourself-- people will just change it back. The way to get it changed is to work hard on your website and your organization. Educate people about what you feel ALA is doing. Organize. Stage protests, send out press releases, write books. Write letters to the editor and hand out flyers.

And then, when things start to change, when people start to see the truth, you won't even have to come to Wikipedia to change things. Other people, who went to your site, saw your protest, read your letters to the editor-- they will say "Hey-- that's a good point". Newspapers will write articles about your and your stance. And pretty soon, people who aren't even connected to your organization will have added it to Wikipedia. Soon, whenever the ALA comes up in conversation, someone will say "oh, I don't approve of that group."

Encyclopedias are like history books-- when things are changing, they're one of the last places to change, not the first step. If you make a scientific discovery, you don't go tell Britannica-- you tell the newspapers. And soon-- britannica changes all by itself to reflect your new discovery.

Anyway, I hope this helps solve this dispute. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you stay, and become a great contributor :).

--Alecmconroy 17:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything Alecmconroy wrote. I also think the "Critical responses" section is fine as it stands now, although it needs a citation. It currently reads "Because the ALA holds policy positions on number of controversial current issues, the ALA has been criticized by those who disagree with the ALA's stance. For example, conservative groups have criticized the ALA for it's stance on Children's Internet Protection Act or for its opposition to any form of censorship within libraries." DejahThoris 22:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This continued censorship of truthful and counterbalancing information from the wiki page of the very organization that arrogates to itself the role of censorship police is getting tiring. Alecmconroy I'm sure is a lovely person, but after admitting having no affiliation with the ALA, goes on to censor out information that an ALA Councilor himself (Rlitwin) censored out, only to have it reversed by me with explanation sufficient enough so it was not recensored. Until Alecmconroy, that is.

Alecmconroy's statements are often misleading, sometimes plain wrong. Censorship should not be based on the personal feeling of a single person who also happens to be wrong. Let's address his statements, shall we?

First he argues the section was "a little excessive." His response was to cut out all examples leaving only a short, useless generalization that is a given and could apply to any organization, even Mother Theresa.

Then his sole example talks about "censorship" in the library. That word again. Used to frighten people into saying no, no we don't want censorship, the ALA must be right. The truth is, and I have the US Supreme Court as the source for this, there is no legal censorship in public libraries, and especially not under CIPA, the only example allowed by this particular revisionist, Alecmconroy. Actually, the censorship done, if any, is by the librarians themselves in the book selection process where, by only a coincidence I'm sure, conservative books get very short shrift.

Based on these arguments alone, I will be restoring Alecmconroy's "contributions" to this page. But there's more to consider.

He says, "Another author is given a full bullet point-- his creditials are fully listed, but he and his argument is hardly notable." What? People are doings back flips and having conniptions about how this guy Steve Baldwin, is so well connected to the evil government of the USA, in their opinion, and they are constantly writing hit pieces about him and his organization, and we're all supposed to buy from you that he is "hardly notable"? Right, he's "hardly notable" when it suits your purpose, then he's the devil incarnate when it suits different purposes. That particular author and his organization are extremely authoritative, have a lot of input into the American way of life, and you just brush it off. I am not impressed and I'm glad that article was added to this page. It provides information in perfect wikiworthy fashion besides. You have to stretch very hard to say he's "hardly notable." That's like saying Vince Foster was hardly notable.

Then you say,"just a few random people who managed to get themselves a blog"? What arrogance [see book of that title by Bernard Goldberg]! What, um, chutzpah! My one web site alone is Netcraft ranked in the range of the 35,000th most visited web site and the ALA's is in the 23,000th range. And all the others speaking out against the ALA, Nat Hentoff, Andre Codrecu, Steve Crampton, etc, we're all just a "few random people"? I think not.

You say, "the opposition of the ALA's stance on censorship should be discussed at a Censorship article." That's like saying contraindications on a medicine bottle should be placed instead in the Physicians' Desk Reference, PDR. Think even harder about this. The opposition to the ALA's stance on censorship is chiefly the US Supreme Court itself. Shall we shove the US Supreme Court off the ALA's page, even US v. ALA itself?

You then say, "When a huge protest outside ALA headquarters is covered on CNN, obviously, then it's a whole different ballgame." Wow! The ALA purposefully ignores such activities where it can! The media, especially CNN, purposely portray certain stories they want people to see or they spike ones they don't want people to see. Eason Jordon anyone? And CNN is supposed to be the barometer to satisfy wikiworthiness? Are people, in your mind, really so ignorant as to believe it's only encyclopedic if it's on CNN?

Now as to the "behavioral" issues, you say I should "not try to use Wikipedia to promote any sort of personal agenda, personal beliefs, etc." Excuse me? The ALA agenda to sexualize children as shown in my opinion by numerous factors, including maintaining despite US v. ALA that it is age discrimination to keep children from any material whatsoever, is okay to promote on this page, but a counterbalancing assertion is viewed by you to be a personal agenda and not wikiworthy? You are kidding right? You think I'm dazzled by your eloquence, right? I am placing on this page links to US Supreme Court cases and other top sources of information and that's a personal agenda? Do not confuse my taking an interest in this matter and attempting to protect children from the ALA's agenda and providing balance on this ALA wiki page that used to be totally one sided but for me with having some personal agenda that automatically disqualifies me. Providing balance on a page does not suddenly become a personal agenda just because you disagree with the material used to provide the balance. And use of the word agenda often implies something nefarious. Sexualizing children is nefarious, in my opinion, but apparently not in yours since you excised information regarding this issue. Attempting to prevent the sexualization of children by adhering to US Supreme Court decisions is not an "agenda," it's following the rule of law. Are you going to argue next that the US Supreme Court has an "agenda" to stop the ALA as well?

You say, "But it's okay-- you didn't know. If you had known, you wouldn't have chosen a username that exposes your personal agenda to everyone." Are you suggesting that I choose a name that obscures who I am so that I will be more effective about fooling people? You have the wrong person for that. That is obviously in your mind, not mine. Are you suggesting because of my name I cannot possibly make unbiased edits? Well exactly who did provide the balance on the ALA page before me? No one. If you exclude me, you exclude people like me, then you create a world where only the elites get to have a say about themselves. Us little guys are too much into our own personal agendas to be worthy. No, no wiki additions from us little guys.

You "suggest [I] try this: 1. Edit Wikipedia on random hobbies [I] have...." Well aren't you generous. I'll just neuter myself for you. I'll self censor. You not only cut things out you don't want people to see, you want to reach into my mind and make me ineffective. You know you talked about my newness here at Wikipedia, and you are right. But now I see you are attempting to take advantage of my newness, trying to get me to think that I should self censor on issues I care about and instead talk about my hobbies. Really, this is really bad. You really have done a very bad thing here. I am not impressed with you in the slightest. I would never take advantage of people in the fashion you are trying to do with me. The rest of your comments suggest further that I ignore this very wiki page. You are totally out of line.

Having said all that, at least you made a show of being polite. Thanks for that.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SafeLibraries.org (talk • contribs)

Well, I'm sorry that my words didn't reach you. Thank you for acknowledging my attempt to be polite. It's obvious that this is an issue you are very devoted to and very knowledgable about. I can only reiterate to you that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and if you try to use it as one, you will find the experience frustrating and ultimately futile. When that happens, you can choose to look at it as the result of a nefarious pro-ALA cabal if you want to, but in reality, it's just a sort of natural immune system Wikipedia has that try to fend off attempts by small groups of people to intentionally bias the content of the encyclopedia. I'm not trying to censor criticism of the ALA-- but it doesn't seem like the anti-ALA sources you cite are notable enough to be mentioned-- I just don't think they would ever have found their way onto the article if you hadn't come here in an attempt to promote your own organization.

You ask me "Are you suggesting because of my name I cannot possibly make unbiased edits?". I tend to try to assume the best, and if you honestly say you aren't trying to promote your own bias and agenda at all, then obviously, I should try to give you the benefit of the doubt until your actions prove otherwise. My concern, however, is that if I'm hearing you correctly, I don't think you're saying that you're trying to be unbiased-- I think you're very unabashedly admitting that you have come to Wikipedia to promote your own bias on this issue. Certainly, almost all of your edits to wikipedia have been on subjects directly linked to your own political POV. I don't think you really understand that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox and don't agree with its reasoning.

Let me try another way to explain it. Being a Wikipedia editor is a responsibility not unlike being a judge. A Wikipedia editor has to make judgement calls about what is "Neutal", "Balanced", "Notable", etc. Just as a judge's first duty is to the justice system, so a Wikipedia editor's first duty should be to Wikipedia. If you filed a lawsuit against your neighbor, and when you got to court, you found out the judge for your case was the neighbor's best friend-- you might feel a little disturbed by that, because the judge might not be able to be unbiased. At the very least, you would want a promise from the judge that he was at least going to try his very best to be unbiased and that's he's confident he won't let his own bias conflict with his duties as a judge.

Here, I don't feel like you're saying that you intend to try your best not to promote your own agenda-- I think you're being upfront about that you are going to try to promote your own agenda. It's true that there are librarians editing this article, and they undoubtedly have their own bias-- but as best I can tell, they're trying their best not to let that bias interfere with their edits. Similarly, they stated their opinion on the talk page, but also sort of recused themselves from making the final decision on the ground that they were too close to it-- instead they posted a Request for Comment and asked for someone not involved in the debate to come offer their opinion. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox is not an outright ban on editing articles you care about-- but it does ask that you promise to try to your hardest not to promote your own bias-- and I don't think that's a promise you're making, ya know?

--

Although the appearance of your attempt to use Wikipedia as a soap box causes your edits be viewed with suspicion, I do firmly believe that the content issues exist somewhat apart from whatever your motivation is. A good idea is a good idea, a bad idea is a bad idea, regardless of who thought of it or why. I stand by my decision that your edits afforded disproportionally large weight to non-notable people, and I feel the short criticism summary I wrote is a better one.

On the other hand-- as to your objection of my characterizing the critic as opposing the ALA's stance on censorship-- point taken. It didn't occur to me that the critics of ALA would dispute being called "pro-censorship", but now that you mention it, sure-- I can see that. So I've changed "censorship" to "content filtering". To me, it's a "You say 'potato', I say 'potäto'" situation-- but if the ALA critics prefer "content filtering" to describe what they're in favor of, we should probably go with that.

With that change, I've restored my version of the critics section. I believe I'm correct in saying that DejahThoris, Rlitwin, Jessamyn, Deborah-jl, and I have all expressed disagreement with your versions of this section, and I therefore think there's a consensus here that the old Criticism section was inappropriate. If you disagree with that consensus-- please continue to discuss it on the talk page and try to change people's minds, convince new people, or explain why you think it should be changed. Do not, however, continue to just edit war over it-- merely changing it back repeatedly. --Alecmconroy 07:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You go on with the misinformation like what I said is not even there. When you finally do agree with me you say its potatoe or potato and make some snied remark. You say things that are totally incorrect then ascribe them to me then cast your doubt on me then gather together the others and as a group you all cast your doubt on me. Your techniques at manipulation are extremely effective but, again, wrong. However, you are so good at picking and choosing only what you want to hear that I would be interested in knowing more about your background, as in what is your career, where were you trained, what are your affiliations, etc.

So I will return to this page to make changes in the future but I don't have the time right this moment. For example, the Steve Baldwin article will go back in -- you just repeated your argument about him and totally ignored what I said. And you apparently do not realize that I personally did not write that "Critical Responses" section because you call it "my version" of the section. It may be there because of me but I did not write it. I'll have to dig into the history to see who wrote it, but you are just wholesale chopping out things you don't want people to see then claiming it's my agenda to restore the Critical Responses section that someone else wrote that you keep cutting out. All this censorship by you on the page for America's censorship police. Really you are in an alternate universe. --SafeLibraries 12:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

SafeLibraries, good morning! I've been looking at your posts here and on ACLU, and I want to suggest something. You have used the term "censorship" in reference to almost every time that you added text that was then removed by another use. But modifying text is the entire mechanism by which wikipedia improves. We don't just add stuff, we change things. Sometimes we reorganize things, sometimes we delete things that don't seem germane, or move them to a different page. It is true that this can become censorious, but for the most part it isn't: it is an editorial process of people trying, in good faith, to make the articles better. But if you feel personally and politically attacked whenever your text gets edited, then this is not a good forum for you, since everyone's text get edited. Ethan Mitchell 13:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

SafeLibraries, wait, am I to understand that you aren't affliated with 24.149.135.182? I had assumed the two of you were one in the same, or at least close associates. --Alecmconroy 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I confirm I was 24.149.135.182 before I got a name. (Great Jim Croce song.) Notice the same style, language, arguments, etc. But SafeLibraries.org has grown significantly since then. The largest part of the growth comes from the challenges I face from people like you. So, Ethan Mitchell, I do not "feel personally and policitcally attacked." Instead I absorb your comments and make mine stronger. For example, here is Actual Hate Mail From a University Librarian Student and my response.

In fairness, I will admit that my use of the word censorship is somewhat loose -- for example the removal of negative info on a public web page about the ALA by the ALA is not strictly speaking censorship. But there is, at a very minimum, an appearance of impropriety. This is especially interesting where the ALA makes itself the national censorship police and makes up propaganda campaigns out of whole cloth and calls them things like "Banned Books Week" when banning books is illegal so it could not possible happen. And it is worse when "Banned Books Week" is used to ensure children have unfettered access to sexually inappropriate "information," as the ALA puts it.

Now that Baldwin article added recently is really well written and covers quite a lot. And the source is quite advanced. So I learn things from time to time by doing this work.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by SafeLibraries.org (talk • contribs)

Safe, first off, before I forget, you should try to remember to sign your name at the end of your posts, so people know who said what. You can automatically sign your name by adding four tildes to the end of your post, like this ~~~~. Tilde is the little character to the immediate left of the "1" key on the keyboard (you'll have to hold shift).

Regarding your comment above, if you didn't write the current criticism section, who did?

I think you're making a couple other mistakes about wikipedia that cause you to think you're being censored. For one thing, Wikipedia isn't a message board, and it's not public in the same since a message board or discussion group is. It's collaborative writing. Imagine you and 20 other knowledgable experts all had to a report or an article. You can throw out a suggestion, saying "I think we should do it this way"-- but the other 20 people, who also have to put their names on the finish product, aren't going to feel compelled to have to accept your suggest if they disagree that it's a good suggestion on how to improve the article. Wikipedia is like that-- you can make suggestions by editing the article-- but if everyone else disagress that your suggestion is a good one, your suggestions will be rejected and they won't appear in the finished product. It's not ALA's censorship, or even "information suppression" or even "content filtering"-- it's just the way every article works. Edits people agree with get kept, edits people think are bad edits get removed. Happens _incessantly_. That's how brainstorming works. This is why Wikipedia isn't a soapbox and isn't a good place to try to promote an agenda to change how people thing: if people have a consensus that your edits aren't useful, they'll just be removed over and over and over again until you get blocked or get tired of adding them.

The other think I think you misunderstand is that, by and large, we don't debate the actual issues here. Instead, we debate about how to write the best article. You've made a lot of arguments about why you think the ALA is evil, but by and large, we're not even responding to them. Earlier you accused me totally ignoring some of the arguments you made, and to the extent that we're debating the actually issue of whether the ALA is good or evil, you're right. I'm not here to have that debate-- maybe I think it's good, maybe I think it's bad, maybe I'm undecided. I'm not saying. What I personally think and feel about the ALA should be irrevalant and shouldn't affect my edits-- and what I'd give anything for you to be able to see is that your personally feelings on the issue should be irrelevant and shouldn't affect YOUR edits either.

The questions that we debate on these talk pages absolutely is not "Is the ALA good or evil?". The real question is "How notable and how prevalent is criticism of the ALA right now?". And the answer I find is that right now, it's not very prevalent at all. As far as I can tell, it's less than five human beings involved in the Anti-ALA movement-- you and another blogger and maybe another writer or two. Admittedly, there's probably others, but right now, it's a very small group. That's just not notable enough to have such a huge section. As it was in your version, the CRITICISM of the political stances was larger than the dicussion of the stances themselves. Makes it look like there's a huge movement of people who hate the ALA, when in reality, it's just a few very dedicated people who came to wikipedia to make it look that way.

So, there's the notability and undue weight reasons your criticism section was rejected. Plus there's the rule enshrined in Wikipedia is not a soapbox: if you're clearly trying to use it as such, that's grounds to revert you right there. Plus there's the vanity links issue-- it's generally frowned upon to insert links to your own websites, etc.

So, you can't really debate this by trying to prove to me or others that the ALA is bad-- even if you could convince me, it wouldn't help you any. I'd still be just as bound by the rules, and wouldn't let myself interject my own beliefs into the article, ya know? It's not notable right now-- the Anti-ALA movement is too small, and mainly exists just in the blogosphere. Even if I agreed with your views 100%, I stillcouldn't help you any regarding how the Wikipedia article is written. If anything, if I came to strongly agree with you, I'd have to stop editing the article entirely, not edit it in our favor.

It's a weird concept, I know. It's like being a journalist or a judge-- I need to report how the world is seeing things-- not how _I_ am seeing things.

--Alecmconroy 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove the ALA is bad here. I'm not pushing my agenda. I'm not a lot of ways you have mischaracterized me. Actually, I'm irrelevant to the ALA article. And there are Good Librarians.

The point is the ALA article was, until I got involved as 24.149.135.182, a total puff piece for the ALA. Now I'm 100% sure encyclopedias are not a series of puff pieces. So I added some balance that, in wiki style, ebbed and flowed here and there. Even if it were true that I had an "agenda," the addition of balancing information to a puff piece is right down wikipedia's alley. My "agenda" or "soap box" that you keep harping on to marginalize my comments is totally irrelevant to a puff piece's need to be given balance to make it more encyclopedic. Everyone involved at that time agreed with at least that simple principle so the "Critical Responses" section stayed in. Now you come along and the effort to make the ALA page more like a puff piece is back in full force. Thanks to you, here we go again. --SafeLibraries 19:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I just realized something. I predict the next response from Alecmconroy will repeat that this is not a soap box for my agenda and I should update the wiki pages of some of my hobbies to get practice adding my signature at the end of my posts. He will then maintain that the ALA puff piece is perfect if people are practically precluded from providing prominent positions perfecting the page's position as a practically perfect wiki page. Personally, when precluded from providing balance by beyond belief blokes, I believe the balance is blown and the blurb is not longer believable. --SafeLibraries 19:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no matter what else I could say, I have to start off by admitting that I admire alliteration. And I do apologize for how the advice on the hobbies and signing was taken, in the sense that, it's not meant to be lecturey, just helpful. And you're predicted me correctly-- it's a soapbox issue for me. I don't meant to be quite so harsh as to say you want to "PUSH" your agenda-- but aren't you coming here to wikipedia exclusively to promote your organization and it's political views? Currently, you're what's known as a Single purpose account-- that is, all your edits on this and your old account are directly related to the specific agenda of your website. Obviously, you're new around here, so maybe that will change with time, but so far, it ain't looking good. :)

I admit, I get a little nervous whenever we don't go in-depth into a controversy-- but we at Wikipedia have got to set the bar at least a _little_ high for what we can reasonably consider a genuine controversy. The standard for "a controversy give in-depth coverage of " can't just be a couple people who got a website, can it? Suppose you also wanted to add text stating your criticism to the articles for every single congressman or senator that voted against CIPA. Suppose every single individual with a website who disagreed with anything could add three paragraphs to the page of any person or organization that disagreed with them. Ya know? Wouldn't make for a very good encyclopedia.

But in the end, if you think this is a puff piece or think we should include a very in-depth discussion of your criticisms and a pro-ALA reply, then all you have to do is convince people. Convince a substantial chunk of the editors here on this page that the article needs changing. Write a request for comment and convince a substantial group of other Wikipedia editors. If you really want and other people here are willing, go through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to convince a mediator or the Arbitration Committee that the page should be changed. Or Convince enough other people to join your organization and stage a protest large enough to be nationally notable.Or convince a major US news organization (CNN, NY Times, Fox News, Daily Show, etc) to do a whole story on your organization. Get your organization's name mentioned on CNN and I'll personally write a whole article on your organization myself, and that's a promise. --Alecmconroy 21:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Alecmconroy -- what, you and I have nothing better to do than write back and forth to each other?

You said, "aren't you coming here to wikipedia exclusively to promote your organization and it's political views?" Answer, no. I'm attempted to stop the ALA from promoting its organization and its political views. How? Not by making up a new theory out of the head of the folks at SafeLibraries.org, and not by standing on that soap box I correctly predicted you would say. Rather, by pointing out the specific guidance of the US Supreme Court and the specific ways that the ALA defies this guidance. You don't think an organization's defiance of a US Supreme Court case is NOT wiki worthy, especially where it may endanger children nationwide? Does it matter who adds that info to the wiki page?

Lastly you said, "Get your organization's name mentioned on CNN and I'll personally write a whole article on your organization myself, and that's a promise." Great! --SafeLibraries 22:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You say you're not coming to promote a POV-- but in the same breath you say "I'm attempted to stop the ALA from promoting its organization and its political views."-- that certainly sounds like you're attempting to promote your own viewpoint or achieve political ends through your edits. You justify it by saying that your viewpoints are correct-- but the crux of the issue is that the policy doesn't say "Wikipedia isn't a soapbox-- unless of course your views are the correct ones". It's just "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". The whole point is you shouldn't TRY to promote your own political views-- no matter how right you think they are. --Alecmconroy 05:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Depuffification and Dr. Laura

I went through the whole text, SL, looking for anything that resembled a puff piece. I added one or two modifiers. I don't see the puff. Could you tell us what passages you are referring to?

I also added the Dr. Laura thing in 1999, which was probably the most publicity the ALA has ever gotten, so it really ought to be in there. Ethan Mitchell 03:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Dr. Laura is a good addition-- she's definitely a notable critic. Good job! --Alecmconroy 03:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Depuffification! Funny! I don't have that answer now as I'm going on memory, but just imagine the piece without the Critical Responses, now Controversy section. And I made some minor edits to your work, Ethan Mitchell. --SafeLibraries 03:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, another major controvery is the Cuban librarian ignorification, since we are making up words here, and that involves Nat Hentoff and Andre Codrescu in a particularly public battle with Michael Gorman where Gorman claims Codrescu sandbagged the ALA. I'd say that's major. And the ALA's defiance of the USA Patriot Act is major too. Heck Judith Krug even made up a "radical, militant librarian" button that the ALA actually sells online! That's an ALA response to controversy -- laugh it off! You want citations for this? I have some. --SafeLibraries 04:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I did take the liberty of removing the sentence "The Teen Hoopla web site has since been replaced." It's true, the site may have been-- but in context, the implication is the the site was removed in response to the criticism. But is this true? It's been seven years-- I would expect them to have removed the site by now just as a matter of course. Obviously, if they have said they removed it in response to the controversy, I withdraw my objection. --Alecmconroy 04:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The ALA and the Adult Entertainment Industry

And let's be honest. No where in here is it discussed the strong ties the ALA has with the adult entertainment industry. That may actually rise above controversy into the level of scandal. For example, why has the ALA taken on cases that support the adult entertainment industry that have nothing to do whatsoever with libraries or librarianship, such as whether computer-generated images of child porn can be considered child porn if no child was actually photographed. I say we need a section on that. That has a significant negative effect on America's children and goes to motivations why the ALA has the agenda it has. --SafeLibraries 04:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind including some citations to this from legal or news sources, or even ALA itself? I find it very hard to believe that this is having a "significant effect" on America's children. ALA has a Washington office that files "friend of the court" briefs on many different types of complicated court cases. It's a stretch to say that it has strong ties with the adult entertainment industry, instead of the more prosaic fact that ALA is a supporter of intellectual freedom in general and sometimes the adult entertainment industry is involved in lawsuits where intellectual freedom is at issue. Jessamyn (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Aarrrgg. I don't have all my ducks in order on this. That's why SafeLibraries.org does not make such statements more forcefully, or more often. Other than opinion on conclusions I draw from the facts, I really do not publish anything unless and until I find evidence I can link to. You'll notice SafeLibraries.org is filled with links, mainly to ALA sources.

By my bringing this up here, I was not implying that I had all the evidence. Rather I was inviting others to bring such evidence.

In my writings with you, I have noticed you to be a strong, articulate advocate for the ALA while at the same time keeping an open mind that can be swayed with the proper kind of evidence. I am hoping that someone, perhaps me, will gather together in one stop the evidence needed to get right-minded people like yourself to start thinking where there's smoke, there's fire. I'd like someone, perhaps me, to connect the dots regarding the ALA's support for the adult entertainment industry, then to connect the dots on the effects of such support on America's children.

That's a tall order to produce right here, right now. Almost a doctoral thesis. But I am working on it, and I encourage others to assist. In particular, much evidence may only be available to those working within the ALA. Now it is clear the New York Times has no problem publishing our nation's methods of stopping terrorists, so I do not think it should be any problem for a person within the ALA to provide me with the smoking guns needed to further evidence the ALA's ties to the adult entertainment industry. I therefore issue this CALL FOR ALA EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS TO PROVIDE SAFELIBRARIES.ORG WITH EVIDENCE OF THE ALA'S SUPPORT FOR AND FROM THE ADULT ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, SUCH AS PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES. And let me be clear that pornography and/or the adult entertainment industry is NOT my target. --SafeLibraries 13:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Postulating here about a link that you aren't even certain exists seems a little misleading. I have been involved with ALA for a decade and have a strong feeling that no such link exists, but it's rather difficult to prove a negative. You've made your feelings on ALA clear and you've supported some of those feelings with material on your own website, but support from other sources that indicate both an activity of ALA combined with an intention on ALA's part to do many of the things you are alleging is absent and does not belong on the ALA Wikipedia entry. We can certainly debate it here on the talk page, but I think we've been finding that the discussion is going primarily one direction.

As you probably know, Wikipedia is not for original research. I'd suggest that this particular line of inquiry belongs someplace else rather than Wikipedia, at least for the time being. What I have to say here is in addition to what I think was a very astute set of points by Alecmconroy above. This space is not a soapbox, it's not for people who aren't comfortable having their work mercilessly edited and it's not a vehicle for self-promotion. It IS a place for neutral point of view, for collaborative writing, and general civility. While I appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues with me civilly, and I welcome your general participation on Wikipedia, I would also suggest trying to keep some of your less-formed and less-supported allegations about ALA on your own website or elsewhere while you work them out and determine their merit. I know this is an important issue to you, and I hope you achieve some level of comfort with the way the ALA page goes eventually, but I feel like for now we've arrived at a fairly consensual version of the page that should perhaps be left alone on this topic in the absence of citable source material or anything other than speculation Jessamyn (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

SL, as an ACLU critic, you are no doubt aware that the question of who is linked to who is a very malleable one. For example, lawyers who are members of the American Bar Association have defended pornographers, drug dealers, and even murders. I do have my ducks in order on this. But it isn't news. We expect them to, in the context of their work. Similarly, we expect that librarians, or anyone else in the business of defending free speech, will sometimes be defending speech that upsets people. That in itself isn't newsworthy. What would be newsworthy is if you could show that the ALA (or the ACLU, or whoever) was giving undue favor to a particular kind of speech. For example, if you can show that the ALA has advocated selectively retaining obscene materials while discarding non-obscene, then that's interesting. Dog bites man. But if they are simply advocating that libraries should have inclusive collections, that isn't news. You may find it distasteful, but it is within the scope of their already-stated agenda. Ethan Mitchell 19:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Ethan Mitchell says, "Similarly, we expect that librarians, or anyone else in the business of defending free speech, will sometimes be defending speech that upsets people." It's interesting, don't you think, librarians defending pornography? In an effort to prove librarians, those limited few in positions of power at the ALA, are intentionally sexualizing children, might it be relevant that those same librarians are defending pornographers? Oh I'm not yet sure that's what is happening. That's why we're here in the first place. But an argument that the ALA leadership is sexualizing children and is defending pornographers, now you don't see how those two possibilities might be relevant? Quack, quack. --SafeLibraries 21:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Jessamyn. Thanks. --SafeLibraries 21:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you quacking at me? I just provided a referenced example of a noted public person criticizing the ALA for sexualizing children--something that you, SL, have not bothered to do despite your extensive discourse here on the talk page. Ethan Mitchell 01:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethan Mitchell, this is the problem with this format. A problem of the difficulty in communicating compared with speaking face to face. I was "quacking" merely as a joke. I said I did not have my ducks in order. You responded you did. So I wrote quack, quack. Maybe I'm a quack, and maybe I'm quacking up the wrong tree, but I'm actually beginning to enjoy corresponding with you all.

And yes, your example is a really good one. Dr. Laura is a strong critic of the ALA. I heard her on the radio (pre 9/11) talking about how the ALA was sexualizing children by promoting highly sexualized books in public schools by claiming it would be age discrimination to do otherwise. Ridiculous, I thought. Just another talking head looking to make headlines by saying something sensational. Then, months later, my kindergartner got a sexualized book in public school. Dr. Laura leaped to mind. Could what she said be true? I asked the principal why, why my kid, why that book? She said, after four days to investigate, because it was multicultural and because it was on the ALA's list of books for kindergartners and the librarian was an ALA member.

Whoops, there it is! Dr. Laura was right! The principal added that she felt the book was twice as bad as what I reported and she, not me, had it removed from the library. Banned! A sexualized book for kindergartners on an ALA list of books for kindergartners banned! No more skinney dipping with three guys at the same time! No more "Oh la la, she said in a lusty voice" for kindergarters! Banned! (It's not really banning to keep children from sexually inappropriate books and it's perfectly legal under Board of Education v. Pico but that's one of the propaganda words the ALA uses to convince people not to remove sexually inappropriate books from before the eyes and the brains of children, and sshhhh, don't let people know about Bd of Educ v. Pico or about US v. ALA.)

But given all that, what caused me to take the book into the principal's office for examination in the first place was, you guessed it, that impossible radio broadcast I heard about the ALA sexualizing books for children. Now I realize I have the same struggle -- how to get people who think what I'm saying is impossible to start believing it is possible, only I want them to be aware of this BEFORE their kid is sexualized by the ALA so they will have a fighting chance to do something to protect their kid from the ALA's agenda.

In short, Dr. Laura is the reason why SafeLibraries.org now gets as many hits as the Johns Hopkins University web site. But I really have the ALA and the ACLU to thank. None of this would be happening, no Dr. Laura radio shows, no SafeLibraries.org, if it weren't for the self-created, ACLU-like change in librarian practice that now views it to be age discrimination for anyone other than a parent to keep children from sexually inappropriate material.

Quack, quack! --SafeLibraries 03:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to misinterpret your waterfowl noises. Ethan Mitchell 03:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Pobody's nerfect. --SafeLibraries 03:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

SL, People have been fighting about what is and is not harmful to children since the dawn of time. Socrates was executed on the charge that he was harmful to minors. The Hiter Youth was seen as the most wholesome educational program there'd ever been for children. Which one is the ALA? a wise teacher that educates the young or a nefarious group that is harming children. Everyone's got their own opinion. The important thing is to "Take it outside". There's a whole internet to have this debate on. Soapboxes are the cornerstone of our democracy-- but Wikipedia ain't one. :)--Alecmconroy 09:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, that was perfect propaganda, perfectly repeated, though you are probably not aware of it. You are essentially saying that since everyone's opinion differs, who's to judge what material should be kept from children, and you are implying certainly not the ALA. I do not blame you for falling for decades and decades of propaganda, much of it from the ALA itself that you defend. However, that is no longer the issue. That has been asked and answered by all three branches of state and federal governments, including the US Supreme Court. There's no soap box here that you keep repeating in an attempt to cut off debate on the true issues. The US Supreme Court in US v. ALA has said, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." No one here is rearguing whether it's legitimate, even compelling, to protect minors from inappropriate material. It just is. Now move on. --SafeLibraries 13:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

SL-- you can say I'm spouting propaganda, but I'm really not. You misunderstand me completely-- I'm not saying ANYTHING at all about whether the ALA should restrict children's reading or not. I'm not debating that issue, I'm not gonna debate that issue, I'm not even gonna comment on it.

I'm not saying anything about what the ALA is or isn't. What I'm saying is this:"Everyone's got their own opinion on whether the ALA is good or evil, so maybe they should all go down to the pub where everyone can debate about it till kingdom come, rather than try to insert their own personal opinions into the encyclopedia in order to advance their social agendas".

If you can help in good faith, then we need your help with the encyclopedia. We need always need good editors who are smart and passionate. But we don't need to be part of SafeLibraries' public education campaign. The roles of Activist and Editor are a conflict of interest on this subject.

--Alecmconroy 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Listen. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the ALA is sexualizing children and everyone knows it and it is no longer controversial to say so. It's not true now but let's assume it. This being the ALA page, adding information to the page that reflects that hypothetical reality would be perfectly acceptable to all, would it not?

Now at this point in time that hypothetical is not true, but in reality there exist a series of facts that are trending in that direction. Facts, mind you, not opinions. At some point some of those facts would be appropriate for the ALA page, would they not?

So the question is what is the tipping point where the ALA page begins to reflect truthful information that tends to show that the ALA is sexualizing children?

Let me ask you personal questions. Do you feel a general recommendation should be made that 12 year olds should read a book using fowl (quack, quack) language on almost every page including this: "Lillian unbuttoned my pants and pulled down my underwear, then grabbed my penis. Then she snaked her hand around it and put it into her mouth." Hypothetically now, if it were true that the ALA was recommending 12 year olds read that kind of a book, is there no acceptable way to place that information on the ALA wiki page? Should people not be advised, hypothetically now, that the ALA recommends children read sexually inappropriate books? Is not the recommendation of such books, hypothetically now, something that should appear on the ALA wiki page precisely because the ALA is the nation's number one book recommender? Who cares if my dentist tells me to eat candy, but if the ADA [American Dental Association] recommended all children eat candy early and often, would that not be wiki worthy? If the ADA approved only those toothpastes containing cane sugar and no fluoride, would that not be wiki worthy? --SafeLibraries 14:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

SL, I don't think the personal feelings of any of us here about an appropriate syllabus for 12-year olds is germane. The question is whether or not the ALA is proposing a syllabus which has created significant controvery. The answer, obviously, is yes, and the page should reflect that controversy to the degree that it is significant. The page does not to present the elaborated arguments for either side of that dispute, unless the controversy is so significant, and so complex, that readers are coming to wikipedia and looking up "ALA" in order to understand the nuances of it. That is manifestly not the case here. This is a relatively straightforward issue of free speech vs. innocent children, and neither side is making any novel arguments. If readers want to engage the issue, they can follow the provided links.

Also, I note that you are familiar with the ALA vs. The United States SCOTUS case. Perhaps you would like to create a seperate page for it? All the supreme court cases should have one. Ethan Mitchell 16:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

SL, you said "Let us assume for the sake of argument that the ALA is sexualizing children and everyone knows it and it is no longer controversial to say so. It's not true now but let's assume it. This being the ALA page, adding information to the page that reflects that hypothetical reality would be perfectly acceptable to all, would it not?" I would like to make the argument that no, not necessarily would information like that be on the Wikipedia page for the organization. For that to be true there is another thing that would need to happen, as Ethan Mitchell says above, the issue would have to be somewhat central to the idea of the organization either as a very important thing to know about what they do, or a very central part of what they are. I would also argue that this would have to be something that would set the organization apart from other like organizations who do similar things.

So, as a counter-example, let's say that you found out that ALA doesn't recycle. They throw out their cans and newspapers and compost with their regular garbage. Someone feels that this is an outrage! They go on a single-minded campaign to tell everyone about the evils of ALA's non-recycling, the harm that it does to the planet and the bad people that they are in the face of all the good things they claim to be doing. I guess my next question would be "Well, how does this make them different from lots of other organizations who are probably doing similar things?" and why does this particular issue -- very important to a small group of people but at the end of the day something with an impact that can't be proven or even really seen, just hypothesized about -- need to be part of an encyclopedic record of the organization?

You keep bringing out one-liners, quotes from Rlitwin, or books for children with passages that seem racy, but they're pulled out of context, isolated instances that you're trying to use to leverage your postitions. The editors here are looking for trends and trends that are identifiable, citeable and noteworthy enough to make a short encyclopedia article take note of them. The whole notion of sexualizing children is certainly a hot button topic in the US lately and people feel strongly about it. However, I think it would be very difficult to claim that the ALA is in some way a) intentionally participating in this and b) doing so more than every other company that trades on sex and desire as means of promoting their own ends. I would even argue -- again as something of an expert on how ALA functions -- that the only thing they are doing is NOT deliberately scouring every book that goes on one of their booklists for a hint of controversy and thus self-censoring. I'd like to second Ethan Mitchell's suggestion above that you either delve into other Wikipedia areas or spend some time becoming more familiar about the sociological conditions that you are concerned with. People are doing real research and studies about children and how books and movies and culture affect them, but a few isolated incidents blown out of proportion don't make any sort of trend that is recognizeable as encyclopedically noteworthy. Jessamyn (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

SL, let me answer your query. Suppose I find out that the ALA is doing something evil-- killing puppies, sexualizing children, sexualizing puppies, or killing children. What should I do in regards to editing their article? I should do NOTHING to their article. I should pick up the phone and call the police. I should pick up the phone and call the newspapers, and my congressman, and CNN. Then I should let other editors, who aren't as close to this case edit the ALA article, take over. I should let THEM put in the "ALA found to be puppy-killers" stories CNN just ran into the article. I am now too close to the case to edit it-- I let people who aren't advocates but only editors take over. --Alecmconroy 17:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay Jessamyn, and you are correct. But note that I did mention that the ALA is the nation's chief book recommender. To be exact, I said, "Is not the recommendation of such books, hypothetically now, something that should appear on the ALA wiki page precisely because the ALA is the nation's number one book recommender?" And I gave an example of the ADA as the nation's chief dental recommender. In other words I implicitly anticipated your argument where you said, "the issue would have to be somewhat central to the idea of the organization either as a very important thing to know about what they do, or a very central part of what they are. I would also argue that this would have to be something that would set the organization apart from other like organizations who do similar things." I think we can all agree that the ALA's book recommendations is a central part of what they do. Further, I think we can all agree that the ALA is the nation's top book recommender. Heck the ALA even awards awards that get constant media attention and draw a steady stream of readers. No? I think I have met and exceeded your threshold. --SafeLibraries 18:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Alecmconroy. I am actually starting to follow you here. But there are already such stories, like the Steve Balwin story that was excised again and again. But okay, maybe I'll just wait for the mainstream media to do stories on this. With stories and video like Carl Monday's reporting in Cleveland, I guess there's hope that the mainstream media will start reporting what I have been saying merely because I watch the news everyday and connect the dots. --SafeLibraries 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Inside Alec's Head

The way I interpret "how central an issue is to the organization" is this. The "issue" in question isn't ALA's book recommending activities, the "issue" is the controversy surrounding the organization. Right now, for better or for worse, there's practically no controversy surrounding the ALA in the mainstream medi. Not that that mean's there SHOULDN'T, but right now, there isn't. I watch the news all the time, and honest and truly, I've heard more controversy surrounding the Red Cross than I have about the ALA.

Wikipedia is a tertiary source (see here)-- as a tertiary source, we have to look to mainstream media and similar such sources for our cues. If you come wikipedia on ANY subject and want to change it in a controversial way, and don't have CNN, BBC, or even Fox cites to back you up, you're facing an uphill battle.

When it comes out that you're an advocate FOR the cause, rather than just a standard non-biased editor, your battle instantly jumps from uphill to practically insurmountable. Some wikipedians take this advocacy thing very, very seriously. I've even met some who feel that once they find out you're an advocate, you are soapboxing not actually contributing, and whenever you in any way edit an article related to the issue you're an advocate for, your edits should automatically be reverted on sight, regardless of their content. Now, I very much opposed to that idea (as I think is everyone else who's been in this discussion)-- in so far as possible, I try to separate WHO made a suggestion from the SUGGESTION itself.

Let's assume that I have no pre-existing opinions for or against ALA. Someone comes to the article and makes a controversial change. Now, it's my job to determine whether that opinion is just that of one lone individual, a small group of individuals, or a much largeer movement that's part of society's overall discourse and should therefore be discussed in the article.

This is a very difficult decision. I can't spend a lot of time on it-- there are hundred, thousands of controversial edits-- I have to make twenty of these decisions every day, I don't have time to spend hours and hours research every issue myself. Furthermore, in trying to decide whether your opinions are larger issues or just lone opinions, I absolutely, positively can NOT use my own personal opinions about the issue. I can't just ask "Do I agree with this edit or not"-- then I would be the soapboxer. So not only do I not have time to investigate all of your claims and form my own opinion, but even if I came to my own opinion, I couldn't use it!

One form of evidence I CAN use in figuring out how prevalent the opinion is the status of the editor who contributed the opinion. If the editor who added it ISN'T an advocate of that opinion, then there's a good chance the opinion is prevalent one-- because the editor had to find out about that opinion somehow, and probably lots of other people know about that opinion. But, it the editor IS an advocate or makes edits that make me think he's an advocate, then that makes me think the opinion is NOT prevalent at all. If it were prevalent, someone else would have added it. Instead, the people ADVOCATING the idea had to come here and do it themselves. This points strongly to the opinion not being held by very many people right now.

In any case, usually it comes down to mainstream media. If you don't have a CNN/Fox/Whatever, it's hard to believe that that opinion is prevalent enough to merit a full debate. If they've covered it in any substantial depth or with any substantial frequency, then boom, it's in. If it is prevalent right now-- how come nobody's done a story on it-- not even those news organizations with a similar ideological slant? But keep in mind in doing this analysis, it's got NOTHING to do with the actual issue. I swear to you, it's not a pro-ALA thing, or a pro-anything thing. The "Does This Belong In Wikipedia" decision has nothing to do with the actual issue involved-- I promise.

So, now that I've described the thought process as it applies to your specific case:

1. You show up, make controversial edits, and others object. I find the case through the Request for Comments.
2. I now have to decide "How Big Is The Anti-ALA Movement?" Is it a small, grassroots, still getting started thing, or is it a full blown national debate.
3. Immediately, I notice you are an advocate for this opinion you're editing. Right away, this points strongly towards the Anti-ALA being a small thing with just a few passionate people. If it was a prevalent opinion, one of Wikipedia's many dedicated editors should have added you before now.
4. Next, I look at your references. You cite your own website, which doesn't count because it's Original Research, and in fact, just makes your case look even worse-- if your movement was big, you shouldn't have to cite your own website, you should have plenty of journalistic cites.
5. You also cite the Steve Baldwin blog-- but Steve doesn't seem to be particularly notable. He runs some sort of politically-related center-- but centers are a dime a dozen and all you need to have a "center" are some opinions and some stationary with your letterhead on the top. He was a former member state assembly-- but there have got to be like 5,000 state assembly members, so including former members, we're looking at a very very large population-- certainly in the tens of thousands. It helps a little, because it shows at least one other human being besides you has an anti-ALA opinion.. but it's still nowhere near the bar we need to do in-depth coverage of the debate.
6. Failing everythign else, I do a quick gooogle search of "American Library Association" and look through the first 30 hits or so: none seem to be Anti-ALA sites.
7. I conclude that, for the time being, the Anti-ALA debate hasn't hit national consciousness yet, and therefore, we don't need to cover it yet.

Now, with Dr. Laura, we're starting to approach the border of the very beginnnings of national consciousness. Sure, she's no CNN-- but she's no Steven Baldwin either. Everyone's heard of her, she has a very large audience. If she had made it her #1 issue, then I think we'd have a full blown debate on our hands. As it is, it sounds like she just mentioned it once on the show in 1999... so... it's still not national consciousness level yet. But, it's a start. For now, however, we really can't cover it indepth. If the new media doesn't yet feel it's noteworthy, neither can we, ya know?

But I honestly expect this will only be a temporary setback to you. I wouldn't be at all surprised to turn on my tv someday and hear this being debated by the talking heads. Dr. Laura's mentioning of it already shows this has the stuff to go prime time. Get Bill O'Reilly, some others on this, and you'll probably have more journalistic discussions than you can know what to do with. :)

Anyway, now that we're getting to the end of this whole debate-- and what I hope will be my last ultra-verbose posting on this (as I'm sure you hope too), let me take a moment to take my hat off too you.

You're what makes democracy great. A dad who wants to make the world a better place for his children, and for their children. A guy who sees something he disagrees with, and doesn't just turn a blind eye or say he's too busy or too apathetic. I came across a quote today that made me think of you: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Just keep chugging along, and whether your side wins or loses, we'll all be better because of your effort.

Some people would say I'm idealistic-- that one side in a debate is good and one side in a debate is evil. Maybe you're a repressive paranoid fanatic or maybe Jessamyn is a raving nymphomanical librarian. But I'm inclined to believe that everyone's a good person, trying to push the world toward Goodness as best they can, and whichever side is right, truth will win out in the end.

So please know how much I hope, and expect, that you will become a vital part of the Wikipedia community. Know that for all my anti-soapbox on wikipedia talk, I never doubt for a second how important soapboxes are outside of wikipedia world. But please... try to change Wikipedia by attempting to change SOCIETY. Don't try to change Society by attemping to change Wikipedia. The latter way doesn't work, and it just makes other people spend their time undoing your edits.  :)

--Alecmconroy 02:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Alec, may I call you Alec? you say, "Right now, for better or for worse, there's practically no controversy surrounding the ALA in the mainstream medi." And previously we are all talking about the MSM [mainstream media]. But the MSM does not or rarely publishes negative info about the ALA. The MSM is, can we all agree, not unbiased? Why does the MSM write hundreds of stories on Abu Garaib but maybe 2 about soldiers building schools for children. Why does the MSM fail to publish even just this week about the WMD found by the hundreds in Iraq? Bet you never even heard of that. Why does the MSM publish story after story, year after year, about the supposed failures of the current administration and hardly ever a positive story. Why did the NYT 2 years ago write that the government is doing nothing to track terrorists by following the financial trails and connecting the dots only to write now that tracking terrorists by following the financial trails and connecting the dots is being done in secrecy. It seems no matter what the administration does, it's always wrong. We all know this is true. Dan Rather anyone? Haditha? The Guantanamo holy book incident that never happened but TIME reported? On and on. Years of nothing but negative doom and gloom from the MSM about the evil Americans.

I say the MSM is definitely stacked in favor of one side, coincidentally the same side as the ALA. No negative news will ever appear in the MSM about the ALA, and if it does, it will be spun to make it look completely different. So, if we were all honest, we all know darn well that the MSM will never truthfully report these things, and we will never have met your requirement that the news must appear in the MSM. The MSM never publishes it so it doesn't exist so it doesn't get into wiki.

Therefore I move to overrule the requirement of the need for the MSM. More to follow as I read more of your work. You ought to get this published! --SafeLibraries 03:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point here: "When it comes out that you're an advocate FOR the cause, rather than just a standard non-biased editor, your battle instantly jumps from uphill to practically insurmountable." --SafeLibraries 03:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I just finished reading the whole thing. I have to say I agree with you. Barring the MSM thing of course. So I learned that I better improve my message by essentially citing numerous sources for my message. (I don't make this stuff up.) Like you said you haven't even heard the conservatives talk about this. (It's not really a left/right issue, but be that as it may.) Well I have. Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Eileen Byrne, and many, many others, I just don't have those ducks in order yet, quack quack, like a list of links where such issues are being discussed. And I'll have to say that given the wiki world, I should. And there are many, many people nationwide working together to stop the ALA from sexualizing children, but again I don't blame you for not seeing that by doing a search on the ALA. So many wikis, so little time. So I really need to get the facts more together and more organized.

Actually, thanks in part to you, and Jessamyn, and Ethan, I am trying to work within these wiki guidelines. Like I just brought up a subject but I said essentially I might be too close so I asked what others thought, I provided numerous links, and most of the links were from the MSM, like the NYT. And I did this on the Talk page to build consensus before making any edits, if at all. Further, I provided some text so wiki editors can get a flavor for where the article is headed. See if you agree: Talk:Children's literature. Specifically, Trends in Children's Literature. Is that a good start? --SafeLibraries 03:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, uh, thanks for saying those nice things about my efforts. In an effort to protect my kid from this I realized you could not protect just one. Hence my scope expanded. I'm not in this to have people say nice things about me, I'm in this to protect children in a way already allowed under existing law.

For example, there simply is no good reason why the ALA has to create lists of recommended books for children that contain sexually inappropriate material. Yes, at one time that was the ALA's point of view, but since US v. ALA in 2003, the point of view has been shown to be inconsistent with the rule of law and common sense; yet the ALA persists. Why?

And why should I have to accept the sexualization of children by an organization acting in a way inconsistent with the rule of law? Am I supposed to be intimidated by the massize size of the ALA and the hundreds and hundreds of lawyers they are training to ensure children have continued access to sexually inappropriate material despite US Supreme Court rulings? Just because thousands and thousands of people (and the MSM) have given up on trying to stem the tide of political correctness, does that mean I have to?

The US Supreme Court says it is legitimate, even compelling, to keep children from inappropriate material. The ALA says children need that material because they are going to learn it anyway and they need to become an educated electorate. That doesn't make sense; educated about what, anal rape?

So just why does the ALA do what it is doing even in the face of US v. ALA, a case it lost and lost big?

You should read that case. All of you. --SafeLibraries 04:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

SL, I think you have mis-read Alec when he uses the term 'main-stream media.' Wikipedia needs to be referenced with by established, credible sources, in this case news sources. It is true that those sources might be biased, and we can reflect that occasionally in the way we cite them. "A says B, but X says Y." But you seem to be saying that there is a single bias (liberalism) that affects all news outlets, so we should discard the need for citing established sources.

I hope you'll rethink that position, which seems kind of nihilistic. Remember, we are not saying that the putative anti-ALA movement, to be cited, needs to have favorable coverage in The Nation. We are just saying that it needs to be mentioned at all, in any publication that has some history of journalistic standards. If you don't think that any such publication would allow the story to get printed, then you are basically advocating a global conspiracy theory, and we have a whole other discussion. But I don't think you are. Ethan Mitchell 12:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Abu Garaib but maybe 2 about soldiers building schools for children <-- one of my sentences got loose - don't know how.

Now, since this section is named after your head, let me get inside Alec's head a little more. Based on all the above, the tome you wrote last night, I have some what ifs.

What if an article is already sitting there, for years, having been created and maintained almost exclusively by those directly involved in the subject matter of the page? What is supposed to happen then? Now I am not talking about this ALA page. I have no idea who created it, why, etc. So that's not where I'm going on this ALA page. But in general, what if?

What if the page just described has the exact same words and graphics as a web page privately maintained by the people who wrote the wiki page? Does this prove anything?

Assuming for the sake of argument such an article exists, an article created solely by the person with the direct interest and POV, then someone else comes along. Here's another what if. What if someone comes along with an opposite interest but is not otherwise connected. Is it fair to claim that second person is biased when indeed the page was created with the polar opposite bias in the first place by a person directly connected to the subject matter?

And assuming that, what does that really mean? What are the consequences? I've seen pages listed as "POV disputed" or the like with a big blurb right on the page. Is that because of this problem? The exact text is "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page."

Hmmm. Interesting stuff. Looking forward to your answer. And by mainstream media I mean the big names. So you are correct I misinterpreted what MSM means to Wikipedia which appears to be broader. Thanks. --SafeLibraries 23:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is getting into murky waters, but I am (seperately) arguing that wikipedia pages created and maintained by core organizers of a group are a violation of WP:AUTO. However, it is no real problem if people involved with a group create and add the page. I would imagine that United States of America is mostly edited by U.S. citizens. The question of POV is not a question of who is doing the editing, it is a question of what information is being presented. Again, SL, you see this page as ALA "puffery," but you have yet to cite any specific example of the puffin. Ethan Mitchell 01:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Love the puffin joke! Actually, I had another page in mind. Not this one. But a real page -- so this is not just an idle question. --SafeLibraries 02:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

SL, yeah, Ethan is correct that when I said "Main-stream media", i'm casting the net VERY widly. Mainstream just meant "widely-viewed". Fox news is fine. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, or any other widely-seen source. For the question of "Is this big enough to be discussed?", we just need to know lots of people are talking about the issue. When the Anti-ALA controversy is big enough that, oh 5% of the people who talk about ALA are saying something negative-- big enough that the controversy is central to the organization, then we've got to cover it, maybe even give the controversy its own page. (Now, of course, once the controversy is big enough to have a full discussion on Wikipedia, we will present BOTH sides, not just Fox New's side or just the ALA side.)

About your hypothetical: I don't think someone can justify using Wikipedia as a soapbox by trying to claim other people are ALSO using it as a soapbox. You have to just let neutral editors with no agenda handle other soapboxers-- and by and large, Wikipedia's quite good at doing this. If you believe other editors are explicitly trying to advance an agenda on an issue very close to your heart, you should ask for help from more neutral editors, not just try to edit it towards your own agenda.

It's not a hard and fast rule that "We do not allow members of the organization to edit pages about that debate"-- but it's more of a subjective "You shouldn't be TRYING to change things in controversial ways because of your own personal beliefs". When your edits and your comments make people believe you're trying to do that, it will start to become very hard to get anything done and people will begin to doubt that your edits are being made "in good faith". (in the sense that "in good faith" means "not trying to soapbox"). The easiest way to avoid this is to simply try to avoid editing articles related to subjects that you care very passionately about-- we have 1,239,521 articles, and every one of them can use help. You can do the most good by editing the ones in which it's easiest not to become an advocate.

Since you asked me to look over your other recent edits, let me give you huge congratulations in two ways:

1. 1. I think you're doing a great job of trying to build consensus before editing articles. If you post on talk pages about ways you think the article should change, and then let other editors, if they're convinced, make the changes then you have a MUCH better chance of having those changes survive. If you talk about it on the talk pages instead of just editing it, like you've been doing at Children's lit, then people will understand where you're coming from, and if there's a consensus that agrees with you, they'll help you write it, instead of you putting a lot of work into writing something only to see it reverted when other editors don't agree with you.

1. 2. I think you've done a great job of branching out and editing pages of all sorts of different pages. I doubt that you have any strong political beliefs about the Irish Travellers or the Question Mark butterfly. These edits are GREAT! Wikipedia is a wonderful project-- an encyclopedia anyone can read. When I was a kid, my family was too poor to have a set of encyclopedia, and I was always jealous of the kids who could just walk into their study and read about any subject in the world instead of having to take a bus all the way across town and sit in a crowded library. We're making an encyclopedia that's better than any of the old ones, that covers more topics than any of the old ones, that soon ANY kid in the entire english speaking world will be able to access from any computer absolutely for free. It's a fabulous and exciting project, and it needs MORE information about Irish travelling peoples and interesting butterflies and the blood of deep sea invertebrates! Wikipiedia has a whole list of requested articles that need to be written, or articles that need to be expanded.

My minor note of constructive criticism would be to try to say away from topics related to your library advocacy. Right now, the majority of your edits still relate to this issue. But because you care about it so strongly, it's going to be very, very diffcult for you to write as if you had a neutral point of view. If you want to educate the world about the libraries issue, write on your site where people can't delete your comments. Or got to sites like [debatepolitics.com, where you don't have to pretend you're neutral on this issue but instead are allowed to openly advocate and educate people. Altenatively, if you want to help the Wikipedia project, edit non-political articles where you can do the most good and where it will be easy for you to be neutral.

--Alecmconroy 07:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Alec, you said, "I doubt that you have any strong political beliefs about the Irish Travellers or the Question Mark butterfly." Are you questioning my questionable caution for the Question Mark? ??? Are you querulous that I could care quite conservatively when questioned concerning the Question Mark? ??? It's quite crude and cantankerous that you carry no credence for my concerns. Quell yourself quickly! Quack, quack! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SafeLibraries.org (talk • contribs).

No-- I was sincerely applauding your contributions. --Alecmconroy 13:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I know. I was just making another alliteration attempt actually, alright? (Don't answer - just another joke.) --SafeLibraries 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

ALA Supports Political Causes Like Abortion - Is That Trivial?

Here is history:

1. (cur) (last) 18:57, 11 August 2006 Rlitwin (Talk | contribs) (rv trivia)
2. (cur) (last) 16:37, 11 August 2006 SafeLibraries.org (Talk | contribs) (Add public records of political donations by leading ALA members)

Now adding public records of political donations is characterized as "trivia" according to Rlitwin's comment. Further, Rlitwin removed the material without first discussing it here.

The donations themselves are not point of view because everyone equally benefits by the inclusion, just in different ways. So let's set aside issues of POV and go to the "trivia" issue.

In my opinion, and I'd like to hear from Rlitwin and others, top ALA leadership giving major money to causes that have nothing to do with librarians or librarianship is not trivia where the funds were 1) given as members of the ALA and not privately, 2) not trivial in amount, 3) may be given on behalf of the ALA but may have been done so against the interests of some ALA members, and 4) have been given year after year after year.

For example, while I have not seen all records, the records I have seen show that the largest beneficiary of ALA largess was EMILY's List. It got $5,000. Is that a significant amount? Was that from Krug personally? As a member of the ALA? On behalf of other members? All members? Do all members agree to this? Do any disagree?

EMILY's List's main objective is abortion on demand. It is not trivia, in my opinion, that the abortion lobby gets the most political donations of any other recipient, and that the support for abortions on demand have absolutely nothing to do with the ALA's stated goals of supporting libraries and librarianship.

In short, it is not trivial that the ALA's largest political donee is the abortion lobby that otherwise has nothing to do with libraries. That is just not trivial. Whether you agree with it or not, whether you are for abortion or not is not relevant to the issue of triviality.

Now instead of making this statement on the ALA page, I merely added links to the data so people can make up their own minds. But it sure is not trivial that the ALA gives thousands and thousands to various political causes.

Indeed, if it was trivial, OpenSecrets.org is entirely trivial and is wasting its time posting this information online. Clearly that is not the case. Clearly OpenSecrets.org is not trivial. It even won a 2006 Webby Award.

I suggest the paragraph be restored, perhaps with some language modifications, although I wrote it NPOV.

Here is the paragraph Rlitwin claims is "trivial" but I argue it is not:

Leading ALA members make regular, sizeable political donations to politicians like John Kerry and organizations like EMILY's List and the Democratic National Committee. See donation records for political cycles 2002, 2004, 2006; 1998, 2000; 1996, 1994, and 1992, 1990.

So small, so NPOV. Can it really be that bad that Rlitwin used the "trivia" excuse to nix it? These were public donations; doesn't the ALA want people to know who it supports?

Thanks. --SafeLibraries 19:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is trivia, because what you are talking about is not ALA support for causes but ALA members support for causes. ALA members can do anything they want as individuals without ALA deciding anything. I'm sure ALA members support Republican causes as well - it's a big organization and it has a large leadership group as well. When ALA decides to file an amicus brief, or to send a political message, it's a decision that's made according to a pretty arduous democratic process, so in the end it really means something - it really means that "ALA has decided this." When ALA members, even a large number of them, take political positions independently it has nothing to do with ALA. Stating you are an ALA member doesn't commit ALA to taking that position in any sense. Giving money to a political cause is a personal donation. Now if ALA makes corporate donations to specific causes - and perhaps they do - it would still have to pass a test for being encyclopedic before it could be included - that is, it would have to be significant enough to be a part of the article. But this isn't even about ALA, it's about ALA members, so it's just trivia. Rlitwin 22:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point and want to hear from others. You said, "ALA members can do anything they want as individuals without ALA deciding anything." Correct, and I so stated where I said "not privately." But the records show the donations were given by individuals of an organization called "American Library Association." The ALA can't jsut send out money -- it needs the people who run it to do so -- and you wrote them off by saying "this isn't even about ALA, it's about ALA members." Essentially, you are doing two things. 1) Playing a sematic game, and 2) ignoring that the donations were made by people specifically identifying the ALA as their organization. Indeed, one "Judith F Krug" gave money individually AND on behalf of the ALA. See the 1990, 1992 link for proof. --SafeLibraries 22:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say Krug gave the funds on behalf of the ALA - it just says ALA is her employer. It was her donation as an individual - she wasn't directed to do it by ALA and she wasn't "speaking for" ALA. And you are not correct in saying that the ALA cannot just send out money. There is such a thing as a charitable donation - corporations, non-profit and otherwise, make them all the time. I am not playing a semantic game. These were simply not ALA donations. Rlitwin 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I see your point. But sometimes she lists the ALA and sometimes she doesn't. I'll have to know more about the donations to see if they were made on behalf of the ALA. You are on the Council. Why not ask? In any case, the de facto leader of the ALA giving such long term, huge support to the top abortion PAC is definately NOT trivial. If she gave the same amount to, say, the Laura Bush Foundation for America's Libraries, well that would be understandable and trivial. But abortion? What has that got to do with libraries? That's why it's not trivial, that and the person who gave it having the top of the pecking order placement that she has in a organization of librarians, by librarians, and for librarians, among other things. Further, when she sometimes says ALA is her "occupation" and sometimes says nothing is her occupation, well that raises questions, and here's an example chart:

Contributor	Occupation	Date	Amount	Recipient
KRUG, JUDITH EVANSTON,IL 60201	AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION	6/23/1992	$300	Braun, Carol Moseley
KRUG, JUDITH ,		11/13/1992	$200	Boxer, Barbara
KRUG, JUDITH F EVANSTON,IL 60201		10/24/1990	$250	Simon, Paul
KRUG, JUDITH F EVANSTON,IL 60201		4/3/1992	$250	Emily's List

SL,

Krug is not the ALA-- her personal donations to mainstream american poltical causes are probably not notable on this page. If she were found to have funded Al-Qaeda, you might have a chance, but, roughly one out of every two americans would support these political candidates, and her private mainstream political beliefs aren't relevant to the ALA.

I don't know why some of the entries don't list her occupation, but obviously, they are not required to, as doing other searches can produce results of plenty of other donars with blank occupations. The allegation that Krug's donatiosn were somehow made at the behest of the ALA is groundless at the moment and that would, if I'm not mistaken, constitute a crime for them to do that. Organizations like the ALA can make their own soft money contributions-- according to that site, they have not done so.

--Alecmconroy 06:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, all. That makes sense to me. I'll drop this issue here, but I'll be investigating it in other ways and getting it published somewhere if anything nefarious turns up. I doubt it, but who knows. --SafeLibraries 18:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

True Vandalism

Someone just vandalized the page. Here is what was added, and, honestly, it looks to be true. Honestly now, doesn't it? I shall consider what was said to see if it could be made encyclopedic and NPOV and left in. Like the ALA being for the law to keep parents from knowing what their own children are borrowing, such as R rated films that stores like Blockbuster are not allowed to rent to them. Very interesting! --SafeLibraries 03:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The American Library Association (ALA) is a group that promotes an extreme social and political agenda through propaganda in colleges of library science and through library education programs in the United States and internationally.

The American Library Association (ALA) is an association that has insinuated itself into many public libraries and public school libraries. The American Library Association, by the policies and propaganda in public libraries, promotes division between parents and their children. Special reading rooms are now being provided for teens to freely explore erotica type literature without parental interference. Many books in the children's collections fail to warn children that homosexual male sex is even more dangerous than other promiscuous sex; they do not tell them of even one measure of that danger. For example, it is so dangerous, that most blood banks will not accept blood from men who have had sex even once with another man, or from women who have had sex even once with a man who has had sex even once with another man. If people realized many facts about the ALA, including how they override criminal laws protecting children from obscenity, claiming "intellectual freedom" to allow minors to borrow R-rated videos without parental knowledge and consent they would be concerned. More concerned, perhaps, if they also realized the ALA lobbied for the legislation which now makes it against the law for them to provide parents and law enforcement access to minor children's borrowing records, they would see that the American Library Association is, as a whole, very damaging to America. As it is, it is very difficult to bring charges against libraries for mentally raping young minds with literature dangled before them not only in public libraries but also in public school libraries. A reliable source discussing these problems in greater depth is http://www.ccv.org/Creating_Family_Friendly_Libraries.htm In order to see some of the books made available to minors in the youth reading rooms of many ALA public libraries, please see this link and compare it to the books in your library's collection. http://www.pabbis.com/ Thank you for your consideration of this edit.

Wow, that's some pretty bad vandalism. Needless to say much of it can't really be incorporated in an encyclopedic manner; that sidetrack into homosexuality was something else. Bias disclosure, I am a student in library school now. Considering that all of my fellow students are adults, most of them quite intelligent, I think it would be very difficult to "indoctrinate" library school students.--Benfergy 04:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

3:16, 5 September 2006 71.98.147.206 (Talk)

Ah! Rlitwin beat me to the reversion. I was about to do it myself. --SafeLibraries 03:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the above addition to the ALA page that appeared for only about 15 minutes before being reverted by Rlitwin, please contact me. Thank you. --SafeLibraries 03:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Should sections be reordered?

All, the article places political stances and controversies above other sections that are more descriptive of the ALA's structure. Shouldn't this article be reordered accordingly? Yes, I know that means stuff I like to see gets pushed down the page, but after all, as a wikipedian, I am supposed to try to improve things. --SafeLibraries 03:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd change it a little to: Conferences, Controversy, Political Stances and then the rest as is. It seems to make sense to keep the lists at the bottom. Do you think there is a way we can roll political stances and controversy together? They seemsimilar though not entirely the same. Jessamyn (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, remember I'm not the be all and end all. But my opinion is that while the political stances may be controversial, or the controversies may be political, they are, as you say, not entirely the same. Indeed the controversial stuff is not controversial from the ALA standpoint. Essentially the controversial stuff is what other's think of the ALA -- indeed it used to be called Critical Responses. Contrast that with the political stances. That's the stuff that the ALA thinks/endorses/promotes. From the ALA point of view, the political stances are not controversial. Am I saying this right? So I'd keep them separate, and I frankly think that benefits the ALA. And sometimes the controversies are not political -- like the age discrimination thing -- Republicans and Democrats - Liberals and Conservatives are often equally shocked at this policy. And I see what you mean about the lists at the bottom. --SafeLibraries 01:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)