Talk:Ferguson Municipal Public Library

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My changes and edits[edit]

I've reworded the article a bit as it was poorly written and did not have proper encyclopedic tone (not unusual on WP given the free for all editing and creation style of most articles). I removed the undue weight being given to its community support role in the wake of the Fergusen thing. I also removed undue detail about library services and changed lists to prose per WP:MOS. I also removed off topic info about the members of the library association etc. I also removed a generic photo and took the photo out of the infobox for proper formatting etc. I'm happy to discuss my edits and work together with others to further develop the article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've removed much of my sourced work, I'll be happy to work with you also (after the fact). Hmlarson (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reinstated some of the content. Hmlarson (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the reply. I appreciate your work on the article and your input here. My feeling is that there is undue weight being given to the Brown incident. We can discuss each item one by one and come to a decision together. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting room usage[edit]

The library has often been used a as a meeting place for community resources, leaders, and business owners. Hu, Elise (November 27, 2014). "A Nationwide Outpouring Of Support For Tiny Ferguson Library". National Public Radio. Retrieved 4 December 2014.

  • I was wondering about this sentence (above): a) it doesn't specify how it relates to the Brown incident b) it doesn't seem to be notable (ie significant coverage in reliable sources) or important information c) I don't see anything in the source that's cited to this sentence about meeting room usage. What am I missing? Can you shed any light on this? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested corrections[edit]

I cannot make corrections, since I am the library director. 1) The sentence "The library received over $300,000 in donations in the weeks following the unrest in Ferguson in November 2014 - over $270,000 more than its average amount of annual donations and over half of its annual budget." implies that we normally get 30K in donations per year. No, it's closer to 3K. Plus, the latest tally is over 350K. It would be more accurate to say the library received over $350,000 in donations in the weeks following the unrest in Ferguson in November 2014 - far more than its usual annual donations of around $3,000, and approaching it's annual budget of approximately $400,000.

The only public source for $350,000 in donations so far is a news story that is supposed to come out in the St. Louis Post Dispatch tomorrow (only reporter I've given the latest figures to). I've said in multiple interviews that the budget is 400K, and that normal donations are around 3K, and the library's budget is open record. 400K is referred to in [1] which is ref 2 in the current article. Have not yet found reporting for the 3K amount, despite repeating it in interviews lots of times. Done

2) In the administration section: the city council does not approve the mayor's appointments. Not sure where someone got that -- not in linked source.  Done

3) The admin section does not mention the most important point, which is that the library is independent. It does not share monies with the City of Ferguson, having its own taxing district, and no one in the library answers to the city administration or vice-versa. The only connection is the appointment of the board by the Mayor. This is important partly because it is more independent than most libraries, and partly because this status allowed the library to make independent decisions about how to respond to unrest in Ferguson. Not to mention that I don't want people getting the wrong impression, just presuming that our library works like most do, or that we answer to the city or get our money from them. Relevant in the current context! I've mentioned this relationship in multiple interviews. Independent tax levy is noted here: [2] Done

4) at the end of the first paragraph is services, it says "events for children and adulate," -- should be adults, I presume.  Done

Hope that helps! Sgbonner (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Glad you made it to the talk page - thank you for the suggestions. Others will be along soon to help out. I've taken care of #2 and #4 at least and will lend a hand in the morning on the rest! Missvain (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sgbonner, Thanks for your suggestions. Please keep in mind that according to WPs policies and guidelines a)WP is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. It doesn't change day to day with the daily news. b) We summarize notable information that appears in reliable sources. We value verifiability over first person truth. So as the claimed librarian (we have no idea who you are and vica versa) you say you have personal knowledge of XYZ. That's nice but its not a foundation for changes in a WP article. We need a reliable third party sources. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He IS the librarian. We have been talking off of Wikipedia and I told him to come here and leave comments here. Missvain (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, as someone who writes extensively about museums and cultural institutions - including libraries - we can use select documentation that is primary to state things like financials and staffing. It's absolutely acceptable, like any primary source, it is used within reason. And anyone can look up their tax information on guidestar and see their annual budget. Missvain (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Alright, these are all done now. Let me know if there are any other concerns. Missvain (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2014/11/public-services/ferguson-library-provides-calm-refuge-for-a-torn-community/#_
  2. ^ http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/books-and-literature/book-blog/ferguson-library-stays-open-attracts-over-in-grassroot-support/article_2ef8a4eb-fe0c-5390-87b7-bb471d6f06a3.html

Additional suggestion[edit]

Further correction. In the sentence mentioned in point one above, it should say "in the months following the unrest...", not in the weeks following. Something like 13K came in late August/early September. The rest, the vast majority, have actually come since the grand jury announcement in November, in response to us staying open, hosting the school activities again, and other services. Again, hope that helps! Sgbonner (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done let me know if all is OK and if I can help with anything else! Missvain (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "since November 24" so that is weeks. We need to stick with what the sources say. As I mentioned previously we can't make changes to articles based on anonymous first person input from editor's when their input contradicts the citation. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS source says: "Donations of money and new books have poured in since Nov. 24"  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's fine. For there record - once more - he IS who he says he is. I have been working with the library - and Scott - on Twitter teaching them how to make suggestions (instead of editing the article themselves). So trust me, it's him :) He's not a random anonymous person. Pretty cool - and one of those moments when free knowledge is so damn important :) Missvain (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases people are who they say they are (including you) but we are also all well aware that WP has imposters and manipulators (Essjay is an infamous one). In any case, the real point is WP doesn't change or add or remove content based on personal knowledge, no matter who someone is or isn't, no matter their first hand knowledge is of an event or organization. It's all about the sources. That's the main point I was trying to convey to our friend Sgbonner. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donations[edit]

The donations are significant and should be reported in the article. However the analysis of that donation amount ie how the donation amount compares to the annual budget, other donations received, prior years, amount other libraries get etc. does not appear to be notable. We should remember that WP is a summary of sources and does not contain every detail of every source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is not important to you might be important to others. As a person who works in cultural institutions - it does interest me. But, I'm not going to go round robin about it :) thanks for contributing to the article. Missvain (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct its about notability and due weight, not anyone's personal interest (mine or yours). Thanks for your contributions. I look forward to working together. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ferguson Municipal Public Library. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ferguson_Municipal_Public_Library&oldid=1207206672"