Previous by DateNext by Date Date Index
Previous by ThreadNext by Thread Thread Index
LM_NET Archive



Well said Bob; I think you're right on...

Frankly, I think the dissatisfaction surrounding Dewey comes primarily
from those who don't really get it. And few seem to. I noticed, for
example, that SLJ recently included a blurb suggesting that tagging
would inevitably replace the Dewey Decimal System because young people
are more comfortable with it. The article totally missed the distinction
between cataloging and classification. And again, that was SLJ, for Gosh
sake. Are we surprised that the general public is confused and attacks
an old-reliable that, these days, amounts to little more than a scheme
that helps determine reasonably logical shelf order? Heck: It's
CATALOGING practice that deserves ongoing scrutiny, not classification.
Hell-o!

I mean, if you want to get all revolutionary on us, concentrate on
making catalog records better with richer, more vernacular-friendly
metadata and stop honking misdirected spittle at poor Melvil's grave
already!

I'm sorry, I'm getting riled. Pardon me while I take my heart meds. 

There.

But, I mean, really: isn't this whole Dewey dust-up the result of a
canard--a Dewey Duck, if you will? 

Can someone give me an Amen?

Last thing--and this cuts right to the heart of the matter: The word
'Dewey.' There's no escaping it: it's a funny word. Couple it with the
anachronistic 'Decimal System' and you've got the undergirdings of an
entire stand-up routine. Doubt that? Say it in front of a bunch of
thirteen year olds and watch the ensuing snickerfest. Kids pee their
pants when you say Dewey Decimal System.

What we need to do to kill this debate (which I maintain is completely
counterfeit) once and for all, is to simple agree in private to change
the name of the classification scheme forever and never speak of it
again. That'd do it. Expunge the word 'Dewey' and the controversy
evaporates. We simply need to come up with a name that doesn't scream
'Forest Gump.' The system itself works well and need only be tweaked now
and then. 

Any ideas for the neo-nomenclature?

I propose something equally stupid-sounding, but smacking of the high
tech; people are suckers for that crap. How about 'MyDDCv.22?' 

Think about it. When you're Principal asks derisively how you arrange
the collection, you squint a bit, adjust your geek-glasses, and sagely
say "We've migrated to MyDDCv.22 and so far its consistently
benchmarking for us," or some swill like that. You do the same thing
with kids: "If you want to succeed in the 21st century global economy,"
you tell them, "you'll need to demonstrate some familiarity with
MyDDCv.22. The times demand it."

All it needs is a makeover.

Okay, wise guy: Think you can rename the Dewey Decimal System better
than I can? Got something with more panache than MyDDCv.22? Let's hear
it. We'll make a game out of it.

Send your neologisms--or any other gisms--to hastingj@howellschools.com 

I'll announce the winner of the Rename Dewey Contest on Friday!

We'll bounce our ideas of OCLC a bit later.

Jeffrey Hastings
School Librarian,
Highlander Way Middle School Library, a Licensed MyDDCv.22 Shop. 




 

-----Original Message-----
From: School Library Media & Network Communications
[mailto:LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Hassett, Bob E.
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 12:52 PM
To: LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [LM_NET] To Dewey or Not to Dewey[Spam score: 8%]

I'll weigh in, since I seem to be riding the DDC hobby horse anyway.

Dewey does have a peculiar bias toward certain classifications and
Christianity is certainly one of them. But it's a very flexible and
extensible system that individual catalogers can use as they see fit to
best serve their users. To speak to your second issue, you could put
American Indian creation stories in 213, which is "Creation," or in 299,
"Other Religions." If you wanted to, you could take over 256, which is
"not assigned or no longer used," and say that in your library that's
"American Indian Creation Stories." It would be non-standard and you'd
create some confusion if you're in a union catalog, but nothing inherent
in the system stops you from doing it.

As to the first issue, all classification is essentially faceted. I
cannot imagine a book that could only be given one classification. It
would surely be a very boring book. But even in a card catalog, you can
have multiple "see also" cards. The automated catalog makes this much
more efficient. The call number was conceived and now endures mostly so
that librarians and users can find out where in the library the book is
located (or should be). They also make for a certain degree of shelf
browsing. But that's no excuse for avoiding a proper subject search.

User tagging will add another level of findability and will
geometrically increase the complexity of subject classification. But
call numbers still are the best way we have of locating discrete
physical resources. They are reductive, but I'm not aware of any way
around that.

I'm certain that somebody could come up with a much better
classification system which is not as broad and unwieldy as LC. Dewey
was developed in the late 19th century and reflects that time in
intellectual history in many ways. But reinventing the wheel is a tall
order and there are very few institutions with the will and the
resources to do it. In addition, so many aspects of librarianship are in
flux right now, it might not be advisable. For now and the immediate
future, I vote for keeping DDC as is, while adapting it to local needs,
accepting that some big changes are doubtless on the way.

---Bob.

/************************************************/
/* Bob Hassett, Head Librarian                */
/* Luther Jackson Middle School             */
/* 3020 Gallows Road                            */
/* Falls Church, Virginia  22042              */
/* (703) 204-8133                                  */
/* Bob.Hassett@fcps.edu                      */
/************************************************/

See you in the Library!

-----Original Message-----
From: School Library Media & Network Communications
[mailto:LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Judi Moreillon
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:00 AM
To: LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: To Dewey or Not to Dewey


 
Dear Colleagues,
Yesterday, I took a road trip with a teacher-librarian colleague. We
talked about the new Arizona Dewey-less library. After our conversation,
I thought more about two Dewey problems that have been nagging me for
years. These issues make me wonder if it wouldn't be so bad to let the
Dewey system of classification die - a natural or unnatural - death.
 
To be sure, I am a (real) librarian. I do believe that information must
be organized to be accessible. However, my questions are about Dewey's
classifications. Here goes:
 
1.      There is a proliferation of informational books for children
than
the Library of Congress classifies as fiction. This is frustrating when
we explain the Dewey system to young students. Although it is shelved
with fiction, there is no way that Sandra Markle and Alan Marks' book A
Mother's Journey is a "made-up" story. This "story" is scientific facts
about Emperor penguins told in a narrative format. These penguins are
not in any way anthropomorphized.  Is this book classified as fiction
because the illustrations are paintings rather than photographs? 
 
The proliferation of multigenre books adds to the dilemma of accurately
classifying books. Joyce Sidman and Becky Prange's book Song of the
Water Boatman and Other Pond Poems is clearly poetry, but the addition
of factual information about the topic or theme of each poem complicates
the waters.
 
You may or may not know that publishers have NO input into the
classification of their books. The Library of Congress assigns the
numbers, and there is NO debate.
 
2.      The Judeo-Christian bias of Dewey has always bothered me.
Creation
and other spiritual stories by American Indians and other people are
found in the 398.2 folklore section while Judeo-Christian stories are
classified in religion when they are found in the non-fiction section of
the library.
 
Perhaps, savvy librarians will develop a new classification system that
better represents the books and other resources and the sensibilities of
21st-century society and library collections.
 
What do you think?
 
Best,
Judi
 
Judi Moreillon, M.L.S., Ph.D.
Literacies and Libraries Consultant
Author:  <http://tinyurl.com/yzvy5g> Collaborative Strategies for
Teaching Reading Comprehension: Maximizing Your Impact
<http://storytrail.com/> http://storytrail.com
 
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
  You can prevent most e-mail filters from deleting LM_NET postings
  by adding LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU to your e-mail address book.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu In
the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET  2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL  4) SET LM_NET DIGEST  * Allow for confirmation.
 * LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
 * LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
 * EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/sub/
 * LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
  You can prevent most e-mail filters from deleting LM_NET postings
  by adding LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU to your e-mail address book.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET  2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL  4) SET LM_NET DIGEST  * Allow for confirmation.
 * LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
 * LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
 * EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/sub/
 * LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------


LEGAL NOTICE:

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for
the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action
in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note: All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
  You can prevent most e-mail filters from deleting LM_NET postings
  by adding LM_NET@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU to your e-mail address book.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET  2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL  4) SET LM_NET DIGEST  * Allow for confirmation.
 * LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
 * LM_NET Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
 * EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/sub/
 * LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------


LM_NET Mailing List Home