Troy

You all said a lot and I'll probably miss something but here is goes, addressing issues in no particular order: Webrings I liked the idea and was brainstorming a way to implement a modern day version of this with several other. The conversation petered out-- folks are in survival mode. A Portal for Writers This is a really good idea. I always thought it was a good idea. Here is my experience. Black people want to write for the HuffingtonPost. I know writers who scoffed at what say a QBR or BIBR would pay then to write an article, but then those same writers turn around and write for the HuffingtonPost for FREE. Many were disappointed when the property was sold netting millions for Ariana and zip for the writers. There are many websites that follow the examiner/huffpost model and some even pay writers a portion of the advertising revenue generated. There was one popular site (the name escapes me now) but Google killed it by pushing in down in search results -- I forgot the rational for the hit in ranking. I'll try to find the article. I will resurrect conversations around the idea. Thanks Chris. Zane Put on Blast Of course she should pay her taxes--I never disputed that. But that was not my point We live in a different world today public records can go viral quite easily. Perhaps this information should not be made public anymore. In reality, the information is only used by people interested in harming you or capitalizing off your hardship (as the Washington Post profited off the Zane information). When I first met Zane she allowed me to take her photo, but asked that I don't put it online and I had no problem respecting that. It was several years before she gave me permission to use her her photos. I didn't even know her full name until this week, it was not important to me. What is important was the words she put on paper--period. Today people share your personal problems as all over the internet and even updating our modern day World Book Encyclopedia in damn near real time with the info. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Yes I'm effected as an independent Yes I'm effected, we all are effected. Do you know, for example, most black children living in New York City have very little chance of getting a decent education? This is a really big deal, but since Black people have no voice the problem just festers. It is now generational--the parents don't appreciate what is happening to their children because it happened to them and their parents before them. They simply don't know any better. Big corporations have robbed us of our online voice right before our eyes . Younger folks or people with less experience online have no clue that the internet is getting jacked up, because they have nothing to compare it to. And older people have no platform to explain what is going on -- even if they did no one would care. In much the same way many Black students don't care they are not being educated. Chris and Cynique I appreciate your support over the years -- thank you.

Hey Demetrius (my middle name, I know Troy Demetrius, don't ask) You know I can;t let you get away by posting a link to Amazon without applying an affiliate code. Here is a much better link for you: http://amzn.to/darkhunger Check out this article, point #3 in particular, to learn why:

I know your question was rhetorical, but they have the awards shows to make money. People don't really protest anymore, they are still too comfortable or confused about who to level their complaints against.

Cynique, I was not clear. When I referenced "profile" I was really talking about of all one's contributions to Facebook, their posts, likes, group membership as well as the demographic information (age, marital status, education, profession, etc) they share. To further clarify, I think Facebook has a much better understanding of who were are that any person who has read everything you have ever posted on Facebook. You see, in addition to knowing what you have written, Facebook has the far more valuable information of what you ACTUAL DO on the platform, what you spend time reading, how long you spend on the platform and increasingly where you are physically when you do it. Again, I argue that a person can never know someone based up what they read on Facebook. I'd also argue than Facebook can't either, but they certainly have a MUCH better grasp of who you really are than any person can--and I'm sure much more than you would want revealed or made pubic. People so freely give up their privacy because they REALLY don't understand what is going on. Our government has abdicated their responsibility here, but the government serves due to the largess of corporations, so I guess they are doing what they are supposed to be doing...

Hey Chris can you post a direct link I can't find it. Man you are busy over there. I might check out the film Branded--I never even heard of it.

Look, this is not a fight about Zane. This is really a fight about the very nature of the web. When I first wrote about this, my article was titled, "What is Wrong with Goodreads and Wikipedia? Chris this IS the fight for "...promoting and fighting for literature and it's importance and relevance in society..." We have lost, and are losing, a great deal online--particularly as it pertains to Black books. Our voices have been almost completely squashed, what little we have is controlled by corporations who now decide what we see, who sees it and when. These corporations don't have our interest at heart and are increasingly hostile to us. Zane is just a recent, blatant, example. Of course these adverse changes extend across the entire media landscape, but the corporate control of the Web has just been so swift and complete. See ten years ago if you did a search on Zane you would easily find many sites with interviews, reviews of her books, discussion forums a talking about her work. AALBC.com, deservedly, would be in the top 3 of the search results. We'd reviewed several of Zane's books, had exclusive video of her, and she participated in these forums. Today the #1 result on a Google search on Zane is Wikipedia, where we learn more about her tax liability than her numerous literary accomplishments. As a result, websites, typically Black owned ones, who would have covered Zane, have disappeared unable to sufficiently monetize their websites because Google is busy propping up Wikipedia with scandalous content, multiple Amazon pages, and even their own content. AALBC.com is on the 2nd page today. Other websites, who are solely profit driven, then republish this scandalous information because they know it will drive traffic. As a result, we get less meaningful, uplifting content and more scandal. We all lose. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Part of what I've been trying to do is help people understand what is happening. But this is very difficult. The general public really does not understand Google's impact (driving traffic away from Black sites), people don't appreciate what is wrong with Wikipedia ), and of course everyone loves social media (controlling what we see to better sell of stuff) . I thought pointing out how all these massive corporations, from the Washington Post, to Google, Wikipedia and Amazon have piled on Zane in an aggressive and overt attempt to knock Zane down and diminish her brilliance. But it looks like I was wrong, I find it staggeringly outrageous that so few will advocate for our sister and even more will help tear her down. I think it is foolish to believe that just because someone is a celebrity means that their lives must now be an open book subject to the scrutiny and uninformed opinions of the masses -- when did this happen? Finally, and this is perhaps the biggest problem: We are so weak that we can't do anything about. We have too few conscious platforms.

DT, Zane is a regular person. I removed the tax information from Wikipedia and it was added back 28 minutes later. I looked at the editing history of the page and was very surprised by what I saw: Zane tax problems are going to stay on Zane's page if Wikipedia has anything to do with it. Look at the edit log: http://aalbc.it/wikifail2

Undeterred, a few hours later, DColeman added the information back to Zane's Wikpedia page, Also revealing Zane's real name in the process. JAllen removed the tax information again. Also posting the precaution: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zane (author). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted." Shortly after that Materialscientist, jumps into the fray reposting the tax information and chastizes JAllen for removing the tax information without providing an explanation. Again the reason for removing the information should be self evident, right? JAllen who is now being ganged up on by two people rips the tax information out for the 3rd time! OK so now it is three against one as a new person, Diiscool, puts the tax information back. Why do these folks feel so strongly that this information has to be on Wikipedia? JAllen, apparently feeling that no page for Zane is better than the overtly negative one the other Wikipedia editors obviously want launches the "nuclear option" and blanks out the entire page! Immediately, as if waiting around for a reaction from JAllen, ClueBot NG restored the blanked out page -- accusing JAllen of "possible vandalism"?! I suspect "ClueBot NG" is an automated process. So Now JAllen is not only combating several people hell bent on making sure that Tax info remains they also have to fight a automated processes as well. JAllen, after two days of trying makes no more attempts to rectify the problem. This afternoon, despite knowing "how they roll" at Wikipedia I also removed Zane's tax information using the following justification; "Zane's personal unresolved tax liability is irrelevant and does not belong in an encyclopedic reference of an author." I also added a link to my Zane Page IMDB is able to post a link to their website (Wikipedia link to IMDB) Less than 30 minutes later FRZE add the tax information back for the 5th time and removed my link to AALBC.com. Why is a link to IMDB OK, but not a link to AALBC.com again I welcome ideas? Well that is my latest dealing with Wikipedia. This is just one reason why I am not a fan. It looks like Zane tax info will remain. I find this outrageous. I also can not thing of a positive reason for the determination to keep the tax information on Wikipedia.

For a few years now I've had serious issues with the quality and the nature of information as it appears on Wikipedia. Most recently I took issue with Wikipedia's citation for the African-American author Zane. This is not just a mental exercise. I believe the nature of some of Wikipedia's entries, as in the example below, actually hurts Black people. Wikipedia also allows corporate sites to promote themselves while not extending the same benefit to independent sites. The real travesty however is the fact that Google has evaluated Wikipedia's website by, giving it disproportionate exposure and influence by ranking it at the top of countless search results, regardless of the relative quality of alternative websites or even other encyclopedias. I contend the following text does not belong on an encyclopedia citation for for Zane: In 2014, she was cited by Comptroller of Maryland Peter Franchot as one of Maryland's top tax cheats, owing the state $340,833.58. I believe the information is not relevant to Zane's work as an author. If some knows anything about editing an encyclopedia, or can otherwise justify revealing personal, and obviously sensitive, information about this author I would be really interested. I don't think similar information, for everyone else cited in else in Wikipedia is revealed. I would also be willing to bet that if we looked at amount of negative or scandalous information ascribed to people cited in Wikipedia one would find Black people are disproportionately represented with negative information. Well I tried to remove the irrelevant information. Here is what I experienced a history of what happened before I got there. Immediately after the story, about Zane's tax liability broke in the Washington Post someone named Dcoleman123 added to Wikipedia. A few days later someone named JAllen removed the Tax information

DT I agree. Unfortunately, the top Black site reporting on Zane's troubles often persue traffic (revenue) in the same manner corporations do buy posting information on Black troubles and dysfunction. It is very difficult to generate revenue with a platform that strives to uplift Black people. This is happening to Zane for two reasons; (1) People share the scandalous news about Black people to get traffic ($) and (2) There are people interested in hurting Zane. Unfortunately, in America, the goal of hurting Black people and generating profits are often perfectly aligned.

A Goodreads user, Rochelle D. Carter (the President/CEO of Ellechor Media LLC and the author of The 7-Step Guide To Authorpreneurship), after reading my story removed the tax information fro Zane's profile. This is the troll who updated Zane's page with her tax information. Needless to say, their identity is hidden under "Lobster Girl."

Chris, I agree taking the best characteristics of a discussion forum and better integrating it with the site's content be a good idea. But I have yet to see any website execute this. I think the strength of AALBC.com is the fact that it is not Wordpress based. I can maintain the website myself. I am free to implement any technology I want. The site is modular and standards based I'm not locked into a template, a design, or even a company. Now I like WordPress and have built a few sites using it (my blog is wordpress based, using the default template, but hosted on my website and heavily customized). You should be able to get email alerts from this fourm, but that is a feature don't use. I basically check on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and here using a new posts link. Again, if the real content providers, the 5% who generate 75% of the content (a Twitter statistic), had their own websites and could integrate them. Then all we would need to do is check out own platforms. Readers however would still go primarily to social, but they would HAVE to come to our platforms to actually see the content we provide, which would be most of the content that is generated! I'm not familiar with Buddy Press but I will look into it.

Mel consider the following thought experiment: I believe the success you are enjoying on Facebook is not as great as it would have been before social media, utilizing you own platform. Of course I can't prove this but I suspect it very strongly. If I knew how much time you spent on Facebook and how many book sales were generated as a result I would be better able to make an assessment. Many authors I find greatly underestimate the time and over estimate the resulting sales. One thing I know for certain is that your activity on Facebook enriches Facebook and that comes at your expense. See you don't own or control Facebook. Imagine if you controlled all of the information, conversations you created for Facebook. You could even use that information to generate advertising revenue. See Mel, you are attractive, vivacious, smart, passionate, personable, talented and articulate. There was a time you could more easily capitalize off of these gifts with your own platform. But those days are over. Today people feel compeled to use social media-- but that is because there are no other options. When they generate sales they are happy, but they don't they would have been much better off before social media took control. But my main thesis is that not only are the individual authors losing out, collectively, we are all losing.

Sorry for all the typos in my original messages. Of course Cynique, Facebook is simply a better website and easier to use; it really is a technical marvel. Ivy League schools are "better" than HBCUs. When given a choice our best and brightest will typically choose teach at and attend an Ivy league school. Meanwhile, the HBCU's languish with a lower quality student body and faculty. As result they are least able to delivery an education as well as in the past. We have to invest in those that will support us. You see Goodreads benefits from Amazons deep pockets and a very high ranking on search thanks to Google. They also benefit MOST from countless people who contribute free content to their website. The fact that AALBC.com's content on Zane is far superior to Goodreads makes no difference, I simply do not get nearly the same support. In reality, I and everyone else trying to do what I'm doing is operating in a hostile environment, and have been for a few years. We survive despite Google. I hear you regarding Facebook and technology in general. The pace of change has been frenetic over the past 20 years. The implication on us culturally are profound as Turkle describes in the video. Mobile is a big deal right now. Eventually you have to get off I never liked being accessible 24 x 7. I virtually never answer my cell phone. I figure if the message is not important enough to leave a voice mail then I don't need to talk to you. It is not uncommon for me to walk with it turned off, only turning it on when I need it. I consume social media the same way. I have still not become accustomed to people who are engaged with their cell phones in the company of other people--I pray that I never do. Marketers are driving us to be attached to technology 100% of the time, not to make our lives better, but sell us things. This is so sad, because it is working too well.

Kam will be interviewing the first Brother Mark Obama on Monday about his new book, Cultures: My Personal Odyssey of Self-discovery

Cynique, the controversy is probably helping Zane's sales. Zane is the victim of so much hate (did you see the comments on the Washington Post article?) I suspect she is immune to it, at least as far as any feeling person can be. The idea of the Washington Post hosting a platform to allow so much vitriol against Zane is problematic. I think the Washington Post should hold them selves to a higher standard that you run-of-the-mill gossip site. A far as Wikipedia is concerned. You probably know I have had problems with them for sometime now, partially because they are ranked so high by Google and many, if not most, consider it authoritative. In any event, Wikip[edia is on of the top 10 of websites visited on the web. For Christ's sake Google RANKS Wikipedia 1st with the bull-sh-t about Zane?! There is no justification for that when so many more sites providing more and better content on Zane. Sure, technically, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but have you ever tried to edit a Wikipedia page? I have and it is not exactly easy. Also your changes can be overwritten and rejected by one of Wikipedia editors. Many of my entries have been rejected for, in my opinion, very subjective reasons. Whatever rules Wikipedia have the are inconsistently applied and favor large companies. Further 85% of all Wikipedia updates are written by white men. Despite the pretense and Google's exultation Wikipedia does not represent the people.

"...it will take more people to actively comment on posts ON OUR SITES instead of commenting solely on social media platforms." This is true, but more importantly we have to STOP contributing to social media. And this will not require many to do it. The VAST majority of contributions, made on social media, are made by a small percentage of people, and we would not even need all of those folks to stop. Imagine if every Black author decided to post here on AALBC.com instead of Facebook for a week. I'd have to upgrade my servers hire developers to optimize the website, and I could use the extra revenue to review more books, shoot more videos, improve the site--imagine! Imagine if authors wrote on their own Blogs and we shared links and comments using our own virtual social network. Applications from companies like Disqus help make this easy. If you want to share selfies, play Zinga games and mess around with your friends fine, but independent business owners, authors and entrepreneurs can not benefit from social over the longer term. Our participation only benefits the social media platform, not the other way around.

Chris, the same holds true for lack of engagement on Facebook. Just because one does not engage another does not mean they do not support you. Similarly just because someone clicks a "like" button does not mean the are a true supporter. Just this morning someone who contracts for me asked if I'd been on their FB wall and noticed that they make an important accomplishment. I had not seen it. I only see what Facebook presents to me. Which, like search, is a problem, because they increasingly get it wrong, because the algorithm factors in revenue generation, and is driven by commerce. And even if Facebook were righteous and sincerely trying to present to us what we really want to see, they can't get it right because people never put their true selves online. The best Facebook reflect a fake you. I have also noticed that if you include a link to an external site, your engagement goes down. This was not always the case on Facebook, but it is true today. I have been able to get around this by paying for promotion on Facebook, but this does not usually make sense for me. As the Facebook ads cost more than the any commission on Book sales generated by an advertisement. One also buys an ad for branding, but my budget way too small to buy enough ads on Facebook to have any impact on branding. Large corporation might benefit, but the ads on the site are easily ignored and the ads embedded in the feed, photos,comments are irritating. I also have the ability to directly compare ads on AALBC.com versus ads on Facebook. AALBC.com out perform Facebook on engagement, consistently, by two order of magnitude. on the click through rates. The only difference is Facebook can deliver far more impressions than AALBC.com but if no one is clicking the advertisement, or merely liking it, where is the value? "Likes" have no value. They stroke your ego until you know better. There are solutions But they require a willingness of website owners to be truly independent of social and supportive of each other. The solutions require website owners to stop sending people to their social platform before their own websites. I've stopped telling people to go like me on Facebook, because once I send them their it is a wrap, because is really good at keeping people on their site--Not unlike a junkie in a crack house or opium den. I like the social share buttons, because they are up votes for a website and they also tend to send people from social rather than the other way around. We also have to go back to supporting each other, they way we did before their was search or social. Check out my article to find out what social media is doing for Zane.

The video above was done in jest, but it is funny and somewhat sad because it is so true. I was talking to someone the other day and was trying to explain that anyone who thinks they know me based upon my Facebook profile is a fool. I have actually stopped using Facebook for personal reasons because what originally started out as an ego stroke no longer works. I now recognize that Facebook is literally pimping me to make money with a complete using a complete false version of who I am. I'm also tired of reading everyone else false images of themselves. I prefer the flawed, imperfect and occasionally inspired people you encounter in the real world. Sherry Turkle authored a book called Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology And Less From Each Other. which explores how Twitter and Facebook and constant connectivity impact us.

A couple of people have asked me why don't get on the Washington Post for bringing of Zane's Tax issues. The Post's motivation is plain; they are using scandal to sell newspapers. The additional issue of hurting Zane at worse was a goal, at best was of no concern. Wikipedia and Goodread Badreads motivations are not as plain. Wikipedia asserts itself as a egalitarian, open, free, encyclopedia of the people. It constantly demonstrates that it is not. Despite this, Google has elevated Wikipedia above all other sources, while using Wikipedia's content for its book pages. The only rational explanation for Badreads behavior is malice. I'm all ears if someone can provide and alternative explanation. Again Google have also elevated this sites.

Yeah I heard about this before. In fact NPR spoke about it yesterday as well. Of course the inability to delay gratification is a problem. Some people can not lose weight with diet and exercise but rather fall prey to any gimmick promising fast effortless fast weight loss. Others rush to have children way too young rather than getting themselves established first. Some folks opt to spend money as soon as they get it rather than saving for the future. I'd imagine all of us are guilty of some form of this behavior in some aspect of our lives. Rich people, of course, are immune to the ill effects of this behavior, so we focus on the poor. Folks in the majority will bend over backwards looking for any reason, other than centuries of institutional racism, to explain differences in outcomes for Black people and themselves.

Zane used to be a contributor to this discussion forum during it hey day BSM (before social media). I was just running a simple query on her name and all this stuff about her owing the state of Maryland hundreds of thousands of dollars popped up quite prominently. I though to myself well that is messed up that a state like Maryland likes putting people personal problems stuff on blast. I guess they figured it would shame someone into paying up. That tactic would just piss me off and make me want to pay them that much less. Putting something on the World Wide Web is entirely different than putting it in a newspaper. Things spread quickly online and never really go away. At any rate, I was content to forget about what can't be a comfortable situation for Zane. And despite the extra traffic it would bring this site, I would never consider sharing the information. So I continued my search. Then i stumbled on Zane Goodreads entry-- which mentioned the tax liability. I really could not believe it. Knowing that Amazon now owns Goodreads, I decided to check Wikipedia -- low an behold Wikipedia mention Zane tax liability too! I was not only floored I was angry that some sanctimonious "free encyclopedia" of the people. Would feel it necessary to highlight Zane's tax issues. Neither Goodreads or Wikipedia made any attempt to relate Zane's many accomplishments. I wrote this article to call these two sites out for their insulting citations for one of America's most accomplished authors. Why are Goodreads & Wikipedia promoting Zane's tax liability rather than her literary accomplishments? So while I did not want to give Zane's tax liability any more attention, I thought it was more important to expose Goodreads and Wikipedia even more. Besides Zane tax story was now on the verge of going viral. I also wanted to use the opportunity to demonstrate how Google conspires in all of this and why the internet worse off as a result.

We welcome the books of Martha Kennerson, Terris McMahan Grimes, Orey Brockington III, and GG Renee Hill on AALBC.com. To join them visit http://aalbc.it/bookonhome

In partnership with MahoganyBooks, the official bookseller of the Power List we are offering autographed copies of Congressman and Civil Rights Icon John Lewis' new book, Across that Bridge at 20% off the retail price. The deal is not available anywhere else—including Amazon.com. Act now this offer ends on Sunday, February 8th or until we sell out. Although it has been decades since the historic social upheavals of the 1960s, Americans continue to look to the Civil Rights Movement as the apotheosis of political expression. With an engaged electorate once again confronting questions of social inequality, there's no better time to revisit the lessons of the '60s and no better leader to learn from than Congressman John Lewis. In Across That Bridge, Congressman Lewis draws from his experience as a leader of the Civil Rights Movement to offer timeless guidance to anyone seeking to live virtuously and transform the world. His wisdom, poignant recollections, and powerful ideas will inspire a new generation to usher in a freer, more peaceful society. The Civil Rights Movement gave rise to the protest culture we know today, and the experiences of leaders like Congressman Lewis have never been more relevant. Now, more than ever, this nation needs a strong and moral voice to guide an engaged population through visionary change. Congressman John Lewis was a leader in the American Civil Rights Movement. He was chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and played a key role in the struggle to end segregation. Despite more than forty arrests, physical attacks, and serious injuries, John Lewis remained a devoted advocate of the philosophy of nonviolence. He is the author of his autobiography, Walking with the Wind: A Memoir of a Movement, and is the recipient of numerous awards from national and international institutions, including the Lincoln Medal; the John F. Kennedy "Profile in Courage" Lifetime Achievement Award (the only one of its kind ever awarded); the NAACP Spingarn Medal; and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor, among many others. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia. "The most important lesson I have learned in the fifty years I have spent working toward the building of a better world is that the true work of social transformation starts within. It begins inside your own heart and mind, because the battleground of human transformation is really, more than any other thing, the struggle within the human consciousness to believe and accept what is true. Thus to truly revolutionize our society, we must first revolutionize ourselves. We must be the change we seek if we are to effectively demand transformation from others." ---from John Lewis's Across That Bridge

This is such a crazy story. It is hard to image people are still this crazy and evil http://www.texasobserver.org/old-wounds-missing-man-jasper/ Yeah Hacker activity is the bane of my role maintaining this website.