Here’s the latest link round-up, featuring a couple from Twitter pals. (Library Twitter is what makes Twitter so fun! I don’t know if every profession connects via Twitter as much … Continue reading As of Late: I originally posted this without a subtitle. Whoops.
Happy Friday! Here’s a round-up of some things I’ve read online this week:
Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace If you haven’t read this already, you should. There’s already rebuttal articles here and here, but what caught my attention more than Amazon’s questionable management tactics was the fact that “the abandon point” of a Kindle book is measured. Readers are not obligated to finish books, but of course Amazon is out to make money, not to make readers. I foresee a future post exploring this in more detail!
Oxford University Press Plagiarized Wikipedia, Now Who the Hell Should I Believe? Facepalm and/or internal screaming. Note that I like Wikipedia and have donated to them, but seriously, Oxford? SERIOUSLY??? You’re supposed to be better than this!
How Dewey Do: Head-Scratching Library Categorizations I always have to brace myself when non-catalogers make attempts at understanding the complicated world that is classification (preferred term for categorization). The author details some pretty gross biases in Dewey; however, “fixing” them is a lot more complicated than rewriting schedules and slapping on new spine labels. I commented on this article, noting that so long as humans are flawed, their classification schemes are going to be flawed.
Stay tuned: I have a review in the works for Edna Ferber’s Giant AKA one of my favorite novels I’ve read this year!