Previous by Date | Next by Date | Date Index
Previous by Thread | Next 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------