Hello all. Like many of you, I'm familiar with and have signed petitions from websites such as change.org, MoveOn, and the White House petition site. Those of us who sign petitions posted on these sites feel compassion for the kind of change that people intend to bring about by exposing others to social and political issues. We all feel as though our signatures are used to help facilitate and spearhead action to help improve conditions for those who are underrepresented, mistreated, or unjustly accused.

However, as petition websites such as this one pick up speed, there has been a growing trend of people using these petition sites to forward their own special interests. I'll see emails asking me to sign for laws to be instilled, acts to be forgiven, or a variety of other actions that can have a substantial impact on society. This all is fine........ Depending on how valid and reliable the information on that petition is.

If I were to sign a petition asking for laws to be either written, revised, or rejected, what is my valid reference to know how it would really affect me and those I care about? If someone writes a petition asking me to free their son from prison, do I ever hear the other side or the circumstances of why that person went to prison in the first place? If I sign a petition asking that a person not be allowed to attend a public event, is there any explanation for what consequence that person's presence will cause other than that certain people might be upset by that person? Maybe whoever's writing one petition or another has a valid point. But how am I to know? Petitions are often written up in such a way that they trigger inspiration and emotions that can incite change, but not thought and criticism of what that change might bring. This concerns me........ Greatly.

I believe in using petitions to help serve the common good. I do not believe in ABUSING petitions to forward agendas that don't serve the public interest. I believe in using petitions to draw attention to an issue that might have been overlooked. I do not believe in using petitions to mislead people and cause them to take action against something that poses no harm or threat.

There NEEDS to be some kind of reform. Inaccurate information, lack of source or citation, and exclusion of information that might cause people to NOT sign a petition is something that's been occurring on petition sites like this. Yes, I feel that it's ultimately the responsibility of whoever signs a petition to be informed and knowledgeable before they do. However, when the only source for information is coming from the petition itself, there is a huge potential for people who don't understand the gravity or breadth that their signature carries to do an unintended harm that can be difficult to reverse.

What I ask is that if a person is to make a petition for something that has potential legal and/or socioeconomic effects, that they be required to provide a valid source of citation before they do. I also ask that if knowledgeable users find evidence that such citations are not valid, that if investigation of that claim shows a petition to be misleading that the petition be suspended and that those who have signed their names beforehand be informed and given the choice to retract their signatures.

There is too much rumor-mongering, hearsay, and story telling that goes into some petitions. It's wonderful and beautiful when a petition helps people for the better. It is quite the opposite when misinformed people help instigate change that has the potential to harm others. I ask that websites like change.org and others review policies and criteria that can help stop misuse of petitions. Thank you.