User:KevMask/sandbox

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources. Option 1

Article title Library Bill of Rights: Article Evaluation Expansion Needed-Lacking Content on History/Development and Social Impact: Sources 1.) https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lls&AN=142414705&site=ehost-live   (Wiegand, W. A. (2020). Sanitizing American Library History: Reflections of a Library Historian. Library Quarterly, 90(2), 108–120. https://doi-org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/10.1086/707669)::2.) https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lls&AN=502855040&site=ehost-live:Frické, M., Mathiesen, K., & Fallis, D. (2000). The ethical presuppositions behind the Library bill of rights. Library Quarterly, 70(4), 468–491. https://doi-org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/10.1086/603218: 3.) https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lls&AN=502881980&site=ehost-live

Doyle, T. C. (2002). A critical discussion of the “The ethical presuppositions behind the Library bill of rights.” Library Quarterly, 72(3), 275–293.

4.) https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lls&AN=99021469&site=ehost-live

Campbell, D. (2014). Reexamining the Origins of the Adoption of the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights. Library Trends, 63(1), 42–56. https://doi-org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/10.1353/lib.2014.0023


 * personal note: Above are two articles of scholarship with multiple citations as well as two responses articles. The Wiegand article is already summarized on the page well, but saving here for reference against responses as it seems to be an important piece of scholarship in relation to the library bill of rights based on the databases I have access to.KevMask (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC) KevMask (talk ) 14:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)~ Draft
 * Plan here is to add relatively cited portions of scholarship respond to Wiegand in the years since the publication of "reality bites," as well as the Woolwine response of note as well. Above are two articles that, within the database, are cited by dozens of other articles, making them notable additions to the conversation about the limits of the Library Bill of Rights as a theoretical framework of practice. Article________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Criticism
Shirley Wiegand, professor emeritus of law at Marquette University, asserts that the Library Bill of Rights uses rhetoric disconnected from the legal understanding of "rights." "Bills of Rights", and "rights" themselves, are in this understanding legally enforceable and backed by well-developed arguments. The Library Bill of Rights has no such force or backing, because it is simply a statement of principles. Wiegand argues that the Library Bill of Rights (and the accompanying rhetoric) needs to be supplanted by a code well-grounded in the case law and language of the First Amendment and its accompanying legal principles. Something similar to the Library Bill of Rights could be retained as an accompanying "aspirational creed", such as a revised form of the ALA Code of Ethics, but it would need to provide more practical guidance.

David Woolwine of Hofstra University has criticized the philosophical underpinnings of the Library Bill of Rights, specifically objecting to the use of utilitarianism and "rights discourse" in defense of the principles. The "moral calculus" of the utilitarian argument that free access of information produces the greatest good for the greatest number can also be used to argue in support of restrictions for the purposes of safety and national security. Rights discourse relies on the assertion of rights with minimal referencing, while neglecting detailed argumentation. Woolwine asserts that utilitarianism and rights discourse need to be replaced by a synthesis of modern and post-modern philosophy to coherently and soundly justify the principles of the Library Bill of Rights.