ALA WAC[ky Web Advisory Committee]

Not an agenda post this time, link & minor synthesis instead.

WAC reviewed some Challenged Content Guidelines for discussion and possible adoption by Divisions
History: This is a response to a challenge to program write-up of a Program in 2003

Lots of cool stuff being done by ITTS, see the Agenda for the updates. We had wide ranging discussions about much of it (which I was too involved in to remember to take notes)

ALA ITTS Reports

  • Sympa — All lists are now on Sympa
  • I Love Libraries — added to ALA homepage in place of “Libraries & You” link (with no loss of links to content)
  • Google (appliance) — Branding mostly changed to ALA from Google; search crawler was hammering web server, services moved to different server, all is better now; Searches should get more relevant responses rates as appliance continues to scan server
  • Moodle — the Moodle test environment is much more flexible and well supported. WebCT will be evaluated against Moodle and the better option should win
  • Collage Implementation — Rough (optimistic) guess is all units (except a few legacy programs) will be onto Collage by September

Action Items for 2008

  • Now
    • Archives resolution
    • Chal Cont surv, results + what to do w/it
    • Onsite CMS training at future conferences — trainees will need to bring their own laptops
    • Posting Council Transcripts (resolution will be forthcoming to Council at this conference)
  • Future
    • Access to conference content by non-conference attendees (notes will go out to WEBADV list)
      • This idea will be discussed by Division Boards at this conference

WAC Agenda

Guidelines for Challenged Content Memo


  1. Peter Murray

    Aaron —

    I’m not sure what the phrase “challenged content” refers to — are we talking about DMCA safe harbor provisions? banning political speech? content written by/for disabled individuals?

    It sounds like it was a WACky time for sure.

  2. Aaron the Librarian

    “Challenged Content” as in “Challenged Books.” An ALA Divisional blog posted content about a product (mentioned or demonstrated in a session) that was… um… shall we say “less than complimentary” about said product. The product vendor demanded the removal of either the offending phrase or post (I didn’t catch which as fingers didn’t want to be pointed) think they said ALA did so, but later reinstated it.

    Long story short, there are now suggested guidelines about that sort of thing for the myriad pieces-parts of ALA.

Comments are closed.