James H. Sweetland, North American Convenor

Articles in recent newspapers (Wall Street Journal, 18 Jan., 1999, p. b7; New York Times, 20 Jan., 1999, p. 29) confirms that one of the dangers described in such dystopian fiction as George Orwell's classic 1984 has come to pass. The articles note that the online version of the Merriam-Webster thesaurus (as mounted on America OnLine) has been removed for the time being, in response to political pressure. The issue? Terms related to homosexuality. Complaints from a number of gay rights groups, alerted by GAYBC, an internet-based audio service, apparently will convince the publisher to change the list of related terms to eliminate those felt to be offensive.

Ironically, last summer, Merriam-Webster received a complaint about the presence and the definition of the word "nigger" in their Collegiate Dictionary. It responded by agreeing to label the term (and about two hundred other words) as "derogatory" in the next printing, but refused to eliminate the words, or change the definitions.

This news brings up a couple of important issues:

First: The initial complaint was over a definition, felt to be racist. One could certainly make a case that such a definition was erroneous (not merely offensive), and thus should be changed anyway. The new complaint is over a list of related terms. In other words, the thesaurus is not saying that homosexuals are (fill in the offensive term), but that homosexuals are also called (offensive term). While in fact many of the terms would be defined as offensive by most people, it is also true that those offensive terms have been and are still being used. So, to change a thesaurus because of a complaint is to, in effect, try to ignore a form of bias, and also to, in effect, try to rewrite the language.

Second: Is the difference in response due to the format of the complaint? The African American concern was expressed by a small, identifiable group who followed traditional petition approaches (a few letters and phone calls). The Gay concern was broadcast over the Net, getting much more publicity, and presumably a much larger number of emails sent to the publisher.

Third: What is the role of a reference tool such as a dictionary or a thesaurus? Is it to reflect the language as it is (or was, in the case of etymological works) used, or to tell people how it should be used? These arguments have been going on for and will probably continue. In brief, current thinking seems to divide along professional lines: philologists, linguists and the like argue that any word-based reference book essentially must reflect the language as it is, while writers, editors and the like (in effect, the practitioners) want some semi-official authority telling what to do. It is likely that the vast majority of those using a Web-based dictionary or thesaurus will be doing so from the latter point of view.

The fourth point, of course, is that raised by 1984: what is the moral/ethical/scholarly effect of the ability to change an "authority" at will? Orwell, of course, addressed the issue in great detail, but as fiction. The present author has also addressed the practical issue, as far back as 1982 (in a letter to the editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education): Then, the issue was a suggestion that Medline remove all citations to articles which were later declared to be fraudulent. Medline did not do so.

Which brings up the questions:

Given the ease with which electronic resources can be revised, should they be revised in response to complaints? If so, what criteria for legitimacy of the complaint should be used? (numbers of complaints, the political power of the complainer, etc.).

And, in context of other discussions recently on Library Link Forums, what is the role of the library or archives in making offline copies of possibly controversial works, so that even if the producer does give in to such pressure, the historical record of the previous text will remain? Should we make multiple, hard-to-edit copies (e.g. on CD-ROM)? How many should be made? By whom?

And, possibly of even greater importance to the public at large�assuming such archival copies are made, and stored, how will they be indexed on the online/internet systems so that anyone will know they exist?

Back to Electronic Resources Viewpoints