This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1lorinhobenson
I realize that the overwhelming majority of people who use LT are not academics, but LT is used in the academic community, and its focus on bibliographic information and structure lends itself to academic use. In essence, academics are a prime market, where LT has a major competitive advantage, and with a few feature additions could be a major contribution. I wanted to open a discussion of features that would be very helpful within LT, in order to make it even more useful for scholars.
# Reviews
I would love to have a category for "Expert Reviewers" for non-fiction or academic books. Much like with Wikipedia which has verified experts, or Rotten Tomatoes with Top Reviewers. These experts would be externally verified as experts within their field, and users could view their reviews separately from non-experts. Experts would, of course, be limited to their field of expertise (being an expert in 19th Century labor practices implies no additional knowledge of quantum physics, nor vice versa).
This is not a question of elitism, but the different ways in which experts review non-fiction and academic books. My review of a fictional book is going to be about the story, my enjoyment of the book, the prose and so on. Casual readers will rightly review non-fiction books in a similar way. Sometimes they will allow whether or not they agree with the propositions in the book to color their ranking, and occasionally they will incorporate issues of comprehensibility—which is fair, but does not always mean the same thing to experts as casual readers. Sometimes I, and surely others, want a book evaluated by these criteria, but it muddies the water when looking for other kinds of books written by and for experts.
Experts want to know a few key things. Does this book answer an important outstanding question in the scientific literature? Does this book introduce novel data, theory or methodology? Does this book explain itself well, and stand alone *for a knowledgeable person in the field*? Notably, "Is this book right or wrong?" does not really enter into it, nor does "How well do I like it?" In fact, many non-fiction books are exactly right and easy to read but are trivial in their conclusions, and therefore are not important to experts, whereas some books pushed knowledge forward in a major and meaningful way, even if it proved wrong over time. The question is whether or not you need to read it as an expert. If it is right you need to read it because it will help you understand the world better, and even if it is wrong, you still need to read it because it makes a compelling argument that needs to be rebutted with new theory, empirics or methods. Importantly, only real experts can make these kind of assessments, because only they are aware of where knowledge stands at the time, and what would make a contribution.
# Academic "Work-to-Work" Relationships
The "Work-to-Work" Relationship is a great idea, but it is clearly focusing on questions that are primarily relevant to fiction and literature and not non-fiction. A number of options should be added, to include: "cites", "cited by", "responds to", "supports", "argues againsts" and so on. Interrelated citations are an important way to track which books are dialoging one with another, and—as the data build up over time—LT could be a very valuable resource for scholars and students to understand who is talking to whom.
# Links to Google Scholar etc.
Many services provide information about works, similar to what LT, but with a more academic bent. LT does not need to compete with them, and shouldn't. It is a tool for individuals to use for their own libraries. But just as university libraries have links to books at Google Scholar to help research, so too could LT and TinyCat. It would also be awesome if LT could be indexed by Google Scholar, or other academic services, so that when people search on those sites they could be brought the LT "Work" page for the book. It would serve as an advertisement LT.
#Meaningful permalinks for non-fiction books
Now, works are listed at a URL with an essentially random number. It would be great if there were also a permalink which is meaningful, such that—rather than an arbitrary number—there was some meaning in the link. (e.g. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations could be something like /Smith1776Wealth) The advantage of the meaningful link is that they are "human readable" and could conceivably sufficient on their own, without additional bibliographical data, under certain circumstances (e.g. when corresponding I could simply put a link to ".../Smith1776Wealth" and readers familiar with it, would know I'm talking about *The Wealth of Nations*, and people unfamiliar would just follow the link.) This is only necessary for non-fiction, and might be generated on an as needed basis. Such links could be useful for citations and publication on social media.
These are only my musings, but I would be interested if there are other ideas, or discussing these ideas further.
# Reviews
I would love to have a category for "Expert Reviewers" for non-fiction or academic books. Much like with Wikipedia which has verified experts, or Rotten Tomatoes with Top Reviewers. These experts would be externally verified as experts within their field, and users could view their reviews separately from non-experts. Experts would, of course, be limited to their field of expertise (being an expert in 19th Century labor practices implies no additional knowledge of quantum physics, nor vice versa).
This is not a question of elitism, but the different ways in which experts review non-fiction and academic books. My review of a fictional book is going to be about the story, my enjoyment of the book, the prose and so on. Casual readers will rightly review non-fiction books in a similar way. Sometimes they will allow whether or not they agree with the propositions in the book to color their ranking, and occasionally they will incorporate issues of comprehensibility—which is fair, but does not always mean the same thing to experts as casual readers. Sometimes I, and surely others, want a book evaluated by these criteria, but it muddies the water when looking for other kinds of books written by and for experts.
Experts want to know a few key things. Does this book answer an important outstanding question in the scientific literature? Does this book introduce novel data, theory or methodology? Does this book explain itself well, and stand alone *for a knowledgeable person in the field*? Notably, "Is this book right or wrong?" does not really enter into it, nor does "How well do I like it?" In fact, many non-fiction books are exactly right and easy to read but are trivial in their conclusions, and therefore are not important to experts, whereas some books pushed knowledge forward in a major and meaningful way, even if it proved wrong over time. The question is whether or not you need to read it as an expert. If it is right you need to read it because it will help you understand the world better, and even if it is wrong, you still need to read it because it makes a compelling argument that needs to be rebutted with new theory, empirics or methods. Importantly, only real experts can make these kind of assessments, because only they are aware of where knowledge stands at the time, and what would make a contribution.
# Academic "Work-to-Work" Relationships
The "Work-to-Work" Relationship is a great idea, but it is clearly focusing on questions that are primarily relevant to fiction and literature and not non-fiction. A number of options should be added, to include: "cites", "cited by", "responds to", "supports", "argues againsts" and so on. Interrelated citations are an important way to track which books are dialoging one with another, and—as the data build up over time—LT could be a very valuable resource for scholars and students to understand who is talking to whom.
# Links to Google Scholar etc.
Many services provide information about works, similar to what LT, but with a more academic bent. LT does not need to compete with them, and shouldn't. It is a tool for individuals to use for their own libraries. But just as university libraries have links to books at Google Scholar to help research, so too could LT and TinyCat. It would also be awesome if LT could be indexed by Google Scholar, or other academic services, so that when people search on those sites they could be brought the LT "Work" page for the book. It would serve as an advertisement LT.
#Meaningful permalinks for non-fiction books
Now, works are listed at a URL with an essentially random number. It would be great if there were also a permalink which is meaningful, such that—rather than an arbitrary number—there was some meaning in the link. (e.g. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations could be something like /Smith1776Wealth) The advantage of the meaningful link is that they are "human readable" and could conceivably sufficient on their own, without additional bibliographical data, under certain circumstances (e.g. when corresponding I could simply put a link to ".../Smith1776Wealth" and readers familiar with it, would know I'm talking about *The Wealth of Nations*, and people unfamiliar would just follow the link.) This is only necessary for non-fiction, and might be generated on an as needed basis. Such links could be useful for citations and publication on social media.
These are only my musings, but I would be interested if there are other ideas, or discussing these ideas further.
2elenchus
An interesting post.
I think the addition of serial publications would be crucial, and it's been discussed many times so I merely mention it here. A search on Talk should identify several of the relevant threads on that point and its obstacles.
I note that fiction has as much of an academic focus (by some scholars) as non-fiction, so the specifications for non-fiction in the OP perhaps are not as distinct as implied. There's also the issue that Fiction / Non-Fiction are not formally identified by LT, except in Tags (though that was also recently raised by LT recently). Perhaps the DDC / MDS or Library of Congress classifications are a useful data element to get around this.
I think the addition of serial publications would be crucial, and it's been discussed many times so I merely mention it here. A search on Talk should identify several of the relevant threads on that point and its obstacles.
I note that fiction has as much of an academic focus (by some scholars) as non-fiction, so the specifications for non-fiction in the OP perhaps are not as distinct as implied. There's also the issue that Fiction / Non-Fiction are not formally identified by LT, except in Tags (though that was also recently raised by LT recently). Perhaps the DDC / MDS or Library of Congress classifications are a useful data element to get around this.
3lilithcat
#1: I would love to have a category for "Expert Reviewers" for non-fiction or academic books.
It's an interesting idea, but I wonder how the determination that someone is an "expert" in a field would be made. You say they would be "externally verified", but how? And by whom?
#2: With regard to "cites", "cited by", and the like, you might want to check out this thread: http://www.librarything.com/topic/191801 The basic problem is that work-to-work relationships are automatically reciprocal, which means that frequently cited books (for instance, the Bible) would have incredibly lengthy and unwieldy pages.
It's an interesting idea, but I wonder how the determination that someone is an "expert" in a field would be made. You say they would be "externally verified", but how? And by whom?
#2: With regard to "cites", "cited by", and the like, you might want to check out this thread: http://www.librarything.com/topic/191801 The basic problem is that work-to-work relationships are automatically reciprocal, which means that frequently cited books (for instance, the Bible) would have incredibly lengthy and unwieldy pages.
4AnnieMod
About the links - your idea works until the first Japanese or Russian or Bulgarian book. Don't forget that LT is international.
5bluepiano
>4 AnnieMod: or until the first paywall, and it shouldn't take long to hit it: a lot of scholarly reviews are in academic journals available only to subscribers.
Unless OP is saying that the experts would be reviewers here on Library Thing, in which case I don't really see the point--it's easy enough to tell from content, tone, & jargon of a review whether the person who wrote it is knowledgeable about the subject. And if that is indeed what was meant I should imagine that those experts would be more slightly comfortable with 'specialist' than with 'expert', though the latter might lead to some wonderfully entertaining flame wars, like those you sometimes see on wiki talk pages--'I am *too* an expert in Chaldean, you Saussure-denier!' 'No you're not! You don't even accept Buehlinghausen's explanation of Chaldean's affinity with Aramaic, you idiot calling yourself an expert!'
Unless OP is saying that the experts would be reviewers here on Library Thing, in which case I don't really see the point--it's easy enough to tell from content, tone, & jargon of a review whether the person who wrote it is knowledgeable about the subject. And if that is indeed what was meant I should imagine that those experts would be more slightly comfortable with 'specialist' than with 'expert', though the latter might lead to some wonderfully entertaining flame wars, like those you sometimes see on wiki talk pages--'I am *too* an expert in Chaldean, you Saussure-denier!' 'No you're not! You don't even accept Buehlinghausen's explanation of Chaldean's affinity with Aramaic, you idiot calling yourself an expert!'
6AnnieMod
I meant the permanent links making idea for the books links.
But I agree with you on these links as well.
But I agree with you on these links as well.
7MarthaJeanne
>4 AnnieMod: Not to mention books that need to be combined.
8_Zoe_
What would be the benefit to the *experts* of writing these reviews on LibraryThing, versus in some more respected medium that could then be linked by a third party using the "external reviews" field?
9lorinhobenson
While it might be good to include links to academic reviews, I am talking about on LibraryThing itself.
The advantage of doing so is two fold: 1) it makes LT a content provider, which is important both for monetization and site expansion 2) native expert reviews can improve the reviewing system for expert users, or people who might want to use expert reviews, and can be incorporated into the recommendation algorithm.
It is on the second point especially, where designation of experts over subjective review is important. It turns out that people are terrible at assessing expertise in areas they are not expert in. In fact, there is an entire literature on this subject within economics, sociology and psychology. This is made even more problematic by the fact many trolls are particularly good at aping the verbiage of expertise. Yes, a deeply involved expert will be able to suss out the poseurs, but that expert would already know which books are central, anyway. When I approach a topic outside my core expertise, either because it is obliquely related to it or because I am trying to expand my core area, it would be very helpful if there were a tool aggregating these kinds of things.
While the idea of flame wars between aspiring "experts" sounds funny, this is not a problem in real life. Sure, academics can be petty, trivial and all around jerks, but in almost every case they recognize when someone has legitimate knowledge in the area. Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes, and Angie's List have all managed to sort this out, and they aren't website whose core competency revolves around an entire industry built on expert knowledge with institutions designed specifically to arbitrate between experts and charlatans. Furthermore, there are such things as expert reviews in other media, and they somehow manage to avoid the whole issue of "who is and is not an expert" just fine.
The advantage of doing so is two fold: 1) it makes LT a content provider, which is important both for monetization and site expansion 2) native expert reviews can improve the reviewing system for expert users, or people who might want to use expert reviews, and can be incorporated into the recommendation algorithm.
It is on the second point especially, where designation of experts over subjective review is important. It turns out that people are terrible at assessing expertise in areas they are not expert in. In fact, there is an entire literature on this subject within economics, sociology and psychology. This is made even more problematic by the fact many trolls are particularly good at aping the verbiage of expertise. Yes, a deeply involved expert will be able to suss out the poseurs, but that expert would already know which books are central, anyway. When I approach a topic outside my core expertise, either because it is obliquely related to it or because I am trying to expand my core area, it would be very helpful if there were a tool aggregating these kinds of things.
While the idea of flame wars between aspiring "experts" sounds funny, this is not a problem in real life. Sure, academics can be petty, trivial and all around jerks, but in almost every case they recognize when someone has legitimate knowledge in the area. Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes, and Angie's List have all managed to sort this out, and they aren't website whose core competency revolves around an entire industry built on expert knowledge with institutions designed specifically to arbitrate between experts and charlatans. Furthermore, there are such things as expert reviews in other media, and they somehow manage to avoid the whole issue of "who is and is not an expert" just fine.
10lorinhobenson
我没有忘了。Porquê você suponha que não considerei os idiomas estrangeiras?
Readable permalinks are a common feature in many sites. The solution is to use the language that the books are in. If you need to refer to the book, then you clearly already speak that language. I am not saying that all permalinks be converted to these readable links, either, only that such an option exists. One potential solution would be to have a LT link shortener along the lines of tiny.cc where the links are persistent, and readable.
Readable permalinks are a common feature in many sites. The solution is to use the language that the books are in. If you need to refer to the book, then you clearly already speak that language. I am not saying that all permalinks be converted to these readable links, either, only that such an option exists. One potential solution would be to have a LT link shortener along the lines of tiny.cc where the links are persistent, and readable.
11lorinhobenson
#1 One easy "bookish" way is through authorship. Are they an author of a book on this topic published at a reputable non-fiction press (e.g. university, Palgrave Academic, etc?) Another would be do they work in the real world in a position that would confer such expertise (e.g. professor, academic librarian)?
#2 That is a problem, and seems like a big design flaw, both for my purposes and for the purposes of the site. While some relationship might be automatically reciprocal, in many instances, including the examples I gave, there is no reason to assume reciprocity. Even when you definitionally create reciprocity (e.g. for everything that "inspires" other works, those other works can claim to be "inspired by") the relationship is trivial. As with the Bible example, how many works have been inspired by it, where looking at a list of "inspired by" would be meaningful or useful to anyone. A far better design for the database would be to allow both reciprocal and non-reciprocal links.
On the other hand, having a few works that have overwhelming number of links is a common problem (described under the "power law" distribution) with this type of relational database. In such circumstances, the tail of the distribution (with insane numbers of links) has a different analytic quality than the body. As such, you just accept that "inspired by the Bible" is sort of a meaningless link, but you have a lot more meaningful ones in other cases. In fact, having non-reciprocal links would not solve that problem.
#2 That is a problem, and seems like a big design flaw, both for my purposes and for the purposes of the site. While some relationship might be automatically reciprocal, in many instances, including the examples I gave, there is no reason to assume reciprocity. Even when you definitionally create reciprocity (e.g. for everything that "inspires" other works, those other works can claim to be "inspired by") the relationship is trivial. As with the Bible example, how many works have been inspired by it, where looking at a list of "inspired by" would be meaningful or useful to anyone. A far better design for the database would be to allow both reciprocal and non-reciprocal links.
On the other hand, having a few works that have overwhelming number of links is a common problem (described under the "power law" distribution) with this type of relational database. In such circumstances, the tail of the distribution (with insane numbers of links) has a different analytic quality than the body. As such, you just accept that "inspired by the Bible" is sort of a meaningless link, but you have a lot more meaningful ones in other cases. In fact, having non-reciprocal links would not solve that problem.
12reconditereader
I'm a recognized professional expert in a few narrow fields. Why would I write academic book reviews on this site I come to for fun rather than publishing them in a journal I could put on my CV?
Also I have no interest in "creating content" for a website by working for free, which they then can use to monetize. Double nope.
Also I have no interest in "creating content" for a website by working for free, which they then can use to monetize. Double nope.
13cpg
>12 reconditereader: "I'm a recognized professional expert in a few narrow fields. Why would I write academic book reviews on this site I come to for fun rather than publishing them in a journal I could put on my CV?"
In my professional field (mathematics), it is not at all unusual for recognized professional experts to produce items of considerable value (book reviews on Amazon and elsewhere, blogs, etc.) that don't go on their CVs. In part, that's a benefit of tenure, but I see junior faculty doing this, too.
The problem with this proposal as far as my discipline is concerned is that there seem to be relatively few mathematicians on LT.
In my professional field (mathematics), it is not at all unusual for recognized professional experts to produce items of considerable value (book reviews on Amazon and elsewhere, blogs, etc.) that don't go on their CVs. In part, that's a benefit of tenure, but I see junior faculty doing this, too.
The problem with this proposal as far as my discipline is concerned is that there seem to be relatively few mathematicians on LT.
14lilithcat
>11 lorinhobenson:
RE: #1
But that still doesn't answer the question of who would decide whether a particular member was an expert for purposes of labeling her reviews. Someone has to a) connect the member name to a real name, b) determine whether she wrote a book on the topic, c) decide whether the press publishing it was "reputable", d) find out where and in what capacity the person works or worked.
That's a lot of staff time.
And, quite frankly, not all university presses or professorships are created equal. I'm not sure I want reviews by an author of a "science text", published by a university press, who dismisses evolution called "expert" reviews. (And I'm not making that up.)
RE: #1
But that still doesn't answer the question of who would decide whether a particular member was an expert for purposes of labeling her reviews. Someone has to a) connect the member name to a real name, b) determine whether she wrote a book on the topic, c) decide whether the press publishing it was "reputable", d) find out where and in what capacity the person works or worked.
That's a lot of staff time.
And, quite frankly, not all university presses or professorships are created equal. I'm not sure I want reviews by an author of a "science text", published by a university press, who dismisses evolution called "expert" reviews. (And I'm not making that up.)
15ABVR
>12 reconditereader: Why would I write academic book reviews on this site I come to for fun rather than publishing them in a journal I could put on my CV?
Fair point, and I'd never argue with anyone who took that position.
Myself, I do it (time permitting, which lately it hasn't) because I enjoy the challenge of doing a decent analytical review in my self-imposed limit of 300-400 words (haiku for academics?), because I can review stuff here that I'd never get asked to do for a journal, and because -- like answering questions on Quora or editing articles on Wikipedia -- the "public service" side of it appeals to me.
It definitely falls, though, in the "only do it if it makes you happy" category. Life is too short . . .
Fair point, and I'd never argue with anyone who took that position.
Myself, I do it (time permitting, which lately it hasn't) because I enjoy the challenge of doing a decent analytical review in my self-imposed limit of 300-400 words (haiku for academics?), because I can review stuff here that I'd never get asked to do for a journal, and because -- like answering questions on Quora or editing articles on Wikipedia -- the "public service" side of it appeals to me.
It definitely falls, though, in the "only do it if it makes you happy" category. Life is too short . . .
16jjwilson61
I think having site-defined experts is contrary to the everyone-is-a-librarian ethos of this site, and so I don't see much of a chance of Tim going along with this.
17PhaedraB
The vetting process would have to built from the ground up, which may not be worth the developers' time.
Also, having to figure out which books the expert would be qualified to provide an "expert" review. What happens when a designated mathematics expert reviews a novel? How does the system recognize it's not in their field of expertise?
Also, having to figure out which books the expert would be qualified to provide an "expert" review. What happens when a designated mathematics expert reviews a novel? How does the system recognize it's not in their field of expertise?
19cpg
>18 Crypto-Willobie:
The vast majority of writing by professional mathematicians goes essentially unremunerated by the beneficiaries. When I write a book review for Mathematical Reviews, I get the equivalent of $12, plus I get to keep the book I review (whose potential resale value has been effectively negated by the AMS office when they scribble on it before sending it out for review). On a per-hour-spent basis, this is somewhere between chicken feed and peanuts. I'm assuming that the compensation for book reviews published in journals like Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society or Mathematical Intelligencer is the same as for research articles published in math journals, namely nada. (Unless you happen to publish in many of the open access journals in which the compensation is negative; i.e., you pay them for the privilege of writing for them.)
Sure, essentially all of these mathematicians are salaried faculty. We're not starving. But we're also not thinking about making money when we write. For us, "You'll be writing for free" is not an argument against the OP's proposal.
The vast majority of writing by professional mathematicians goes essentially unremunerated by the beneficiaries. When I write a book review for Mathematical Reviews, I get the equivalent of $12, plus I get to keep the book I review (whose potential resale value has been effectively negated by the AMS office when they scribble on it before sending it out for review). On a per-hour-spent basis, this is somewhere between chicken feed and peanuts. I'm assuming that the compensation for book reviews published in journals like Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society or Mathematical Intelligencer is the same as for research articles published in math journals, namely nada. (Unless you happen to publish in many of the open access journals in which the compensation is negative; i.e., you pay them for the privilege of writing for them.)
Sure, essentially all of these mathematicians are salaried faculty. We're not starving. But we're also not thinking about making money when we write. For us, "You'll be writing for free" is not an argument against the OP's proposal.
20krazy4katz
I guess the question I have is similar to >17 PhaedraB:. When professionals write for journals, their work is usually checked by at least one other professional and many times there is a back-and-forth before the article is accepted for publication (and yes, after all that you won't be paid!). Here on LT, there would not be a similar process, which means you might get a professional view, but not necessary an unbiased or fully informed view. With "unprofessional" reviewers, we don't make any assumptions about expertise so that is not a problem.
On the other hand, one could use the review section as it is now and begin with a statement of professional expertise so that people would know the background of the reviewer. That should work for textbooks, which probably don't get a lot of reviews anyway.
On the other hand, one could use the review section as it is now and begin with a statement of professional expertise so that people would know the background of the reviewer. That should work for textbooks, which probably don't get a lot of reviews anyway.
21reconditereader
I don't write for money. I write for professional recognition. Which, in my field, is defined by peer-reviewed scholarly publications, not websites.
I write plenty on this site about novels I find amusing. I write nothing about my professional field. Because if it's in my field but doesn't count towards tenure, it's a waste of my time.
I write plenty on this site about novels I find amusing. I write nothing about my professional field. Because if it's in my field but doesn't count towards tenure, it's a waste of my time.
22krazy4katz
>21 reconditereader: Makes sense.
23fredbacon
It would be nice if they would just expand the fields available for books to include enough to make them worthwhile for generating a bibliography. Right now, a book has a publisher field, but that generally includes the publisher, the date of publication and sometimes the edition and number of pages. I'd really like to see the Publisher field contain just the Publisher's name and add fields for edition and Publisher's location. Putting additional information in the publisher field makes it impossible (or at least difficult) to use for bibliographies.
Professional books are often published in series as well--such as Frontiers in Physics, or Cambridge Aerospace Series, etc.. Having a field for the series and series number would be nice.
Being able to then export a selection of books to a bibliography in a standard interchange format would be nice. Something like RefMan or EndNote would be good. Those are two of the most widely supported bibliographic interchange formats. They do provide a link to OttoBib on the Book Details page, but it's really inadequate. You have to do one book at a time, it requires an ISBN number (older books don't have ISBNs), and there are limited formats available.
It would be nice to import from a bibiliographic database as well.
Professional books are often published in series as well--such as Frontiers in Physics, or Cambridge Aerospace Series, etc.. Having a field for the series and series number would be nice.
Being able to then export a selection of books to a bibliography in a standard interchange format would be nice. Something like RefMan or EndNote would be good. Those are two of the most widely supported bibliographic interchange formats. They do provide a link to OttoBib on the Book Details page, but it's really inadequate. You have to do one book at a time, it requires an ISBN number (older books don't have ISBNs), and there are limited formats available.
It would be nice to import from a bibiliographic database as well.
24krazy4katz
>23 fredbacon: For EndNote there is a tab-delimited import. I don't know if that will work with an excel export from LT. Never tried it. I notice there is an Endnote XML import but that is probably not useful for this.
25PhaedraB
>23 fredbacon: The Publisher's Series field in CK allows you to enter the series and the number as well.
26reconditereader
LT isn't the right tool for academic research in most cases. It's not the place I would store an academic bibliography; that's what Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote, etc. are for. It's not the place I would look for expert reviews; those can be found in professional journals, google scholar, or in many libraries' catalogs. You could try to do these things in LT if you want, but it will probably fight you.
It's a fun place to catalog books and learn about new ones to read for fun.
The right tools for the right jobs. You *could* use a screwdriver to hammer in nails if you wanted to, but I'd get a hammer for that. Why try to make a screwdriver more hammerlike when hammers exist?
It's a fun place to catalog books and learn about new ones to read for fun.
The right tools for the right jobs. You *could* use a screwdriver to hammer in nails if you wanted to, but I'd get a hammer for that. Why try to make a screwdriver more hammerlike when hammers exist?
27lesmel
>26 reconditereader: Not that I (dis)agree about LT as the right/wrong tool; but LT already established themselves in the library market with LTFL (https://www.librarything.com/forlibraries). LT isn't just a fun place to hang out. They are trying to develop a product for libraries to use. You can see that with TinyCat, too.
28ABVR
>27 lesmel: They are trying to develop a product for libraries to use.
True, but the target market for LT-for-Libraries is (as I understand it) public libraries rather than academic ones. That means that the sweet spot for a hypothetical "expert reviews" feature -- in terms of genuine value-added for he hypothetical customer -- is "experts review trade-press books for the benefit of general readers" rather than "experts review academic-press books for the benefit of fellow experts."
I think that actually would be a valuable resource, at least in the abstract. The problem would be the implementation: Expertise on a given subject is distributed in weird patterns, and objective markers like advanced degrees or professorships typically aren't granular enough to reflect it.
The simple solution might be to let reviewers self-declare their expertise: Check a box that says, in effect, "I have substantial knowledge of this subject" and a symbol noting that appears on the review. The Dunning-Krueger Effect -- reviewers with delusions of competence -- could be an issue, obviously, but the LT community may be self-selected enough to keep that to tolerable levels.
I don't see LT assigning significant resources to this anytime soon, but it's an interesting idea, for sure.
True, but the target market for LT-for-Libraries is (as I understand it) public libraries rather than academic ones. That means that the sweet spot for a hypothetical "expert reviews" feature -- in terms of genuine value-added for he hypothetical customer -- is "experts review trade-press books for the benefit of general readers" rather than "experts review academic-press books for the benefit of fellow experts."
I think that actually would be a valuable resource, at least in the abstract. The problem would be the implementation: Expertise on a given subject is distributed in weird patterns, and objective markers like advanced degrees or professorships typically aren't granular enough to reflect it.
The simple solution might be to let reviewers self-declare their expertise: Check a box that says, in effect, "I have substantial knowledge of this subject" and a symbol noting that appears on the review. The Dunning-Krueger Effect -- reviewers with delusions of competence -- could be an issue, obviously, but the LT community may be self-selected enough to keep that to tolerable levels.
I don't see LT assigning significant resources to this anytime soon, but it's an interesting idea, for sure.
29fredbacon
I use Zotero constantly. But I already have a lot of data in LibraryThing. It would be nice to move data back and forth smoothly to keep information synchronized. Entering the same information twice is annoying. Three times actually. I also use a product on my Mac for tracking books. I'm not dissing LibraryThing. Frankly none of the tools that I use are adequate to my needs! :-)
Nothing can do everything. That's why data interchange is so important. I've just finished Selling Hitler and The 'Hitler Myth'. Both were entered into LibraryThing when they arrived. Both books now have dozens of PostIt flags marking interesting passages. Now I need to transcribe them over to some electronic medium. LibraryThing isn't the right tool for that. Neither is Zotero. Evernote is a possibility, but it doesn't handle bibliographic data. If I want to use it later, I need the information that's in LibraryThing imported over into Zotero. But I need it linked to the notes in Evernote. Now, instead of making my life easier, the disparate pieces of software that I'm using are needlessly making me duplicate work.
I could try and read everything on a Kindle. Marking passages is much simpler than placing PostIt flags and transcribing text by hand. But how do I access/export my notes? (Actually I know how to do that with my Kindle, but it's awkward. And there is still no bibliographic data associated.)
Nothing can do everything. That's why data interchange is so important. I've just finished Selling Hitler and The 'Hitler Myth'. Both were entered into LibraryThing when they arrived. Both books now have dozens of PostIt flags marking interesting passages. Now I need to transcribe them over to some electronic medium. LibraryThing isn't the right tool for that. Neither is Zotero. Evernote is a possibility, but it doesn't handle bibliographic data. If I want to use it later, I need the information that's in LibraryThing imported over into Zotero. But I need it linked to the notes in Evernote. Now, instead of making my life easier, the disparate pieces of software that I'm using are needlessly making me duplicate work.
I could try and read everything on a Kindle. Marking passages is much simpler than placing PostIt flags and transcribing text by hand. But how do I access/export my notes? (Actually I know how to do that with my Kindle, but it's awkward. And there is still no bibliographic data associated.)
30Petroglyph
As an academic myself (linguistics), I'm keen for LT to introduce/tweak a few features that would make the site more useful to me -- expansion of the work-to-work relationships, links to google scholar, ticking a box marked "I'm an expert in this field" for reviews, exporting bibliographic references (please, at the very least, make Publisher's location a separate field!), support for importing from a bibliographic database.
I agree that these features would not necessarily be useful to the majority of members here, but I don't see how most of these would interfere with users' experiences with LT, either. This is the case for many features of LT, such as (off the top of my head) custom call numbers, lending, "where from?", SantaThing, excel export, MARC import/export, music cataloguing, and so on. Some of these are useful to me, others not at all, but that's no skin off my back. I'm honestly glad to see LT catering to various cataloguing needs, and I would be glad to see a few features catering to the cataloguing needs of my profession.
I agree that these features would not necessarily be useful to the majority of members here, but I don't see how most of these would interfere with users' experiences with LT, either. This is the case for many features of LT, such as (off the top of my head) custom call numbers, lending, "where from?", SantaThing, excel export, MARC import/export, music cataloguing, and so on. Some of these are useful to me, others not at all, but that's no skin off my back. I'm honestly glad to see LT catering to various cataloguing needs, and I would be glad to see a few features catering to the cataloguing needs of my profession.
31Africansky1
I have read these posts with interest . I am an academic and write reviews in my areas of interest and for pleasure . I tried doing reviews for LT for fun and also for one of the review groups on LT , but I found the limited feedback made the exercise unrewarding . I switched to reviews for an online heritage site and a couple of printed publications . I enjoy writing reviews because it's a mind stretcher , I try to say something helpful for the reader and the author ( a balanced review ) . Writing for an on line special interest site has been very rewarding as I get feedback , there are a minimum of 200 plus readers who follow my reviews ,its led to some amazing connections , I have complete faith in the owner of the website and I find authors and publishers are now offering me books for review . it did not work that way for LT reviews . I can choose the books I review and can also review old books . I still need to post my reviews from the favored site to LT . perhaps what could happen is that those of us on LT with an academic bent could form a group for academic type reviews for LT with the intention to signal when it's an academic style of review and to give feedback on the review. I enjoy book conversations but only possible where people have similar interests .
32AndreasJ
Regarding a "cites" relationship, even if it were to be made unidirectional to save the Bible* from having a spaldillion relationships, academic works routinely cite dozens or hundreds of works. Even if many of those aren't in LT themselves, enough will be that many works will still have enormously long lists of relationships. The presentation of work-to-work relationships would have to be redone if something like this were implemented.
That is, if someone takes the trouble to enter all the references from the books in the first place. Does even LT have enough compulsive personalities for that to happen except sporadically?
* Which Bible, anyway? In LT world, the Bible is a host of different "works", and AFAIK citations of it generally doesn't specify which translation or edition was referred to. They just says things like "Gen. 6:4".
That is, if someone takes the trouble to enter all the references from the books in the first place. Does even LT have enough compulsive personalities for that to happen except sporadically?
* Which Bible, anyway? In LT world, the Bible is a host of different "works", and AFAIK citations of it generally doesn't specify which translation or edition was referred to. They just says things like "Gen. 6:4".
33lorinhobenson
i don't think the relationship list actually needs to be exhaustive, and I personally would be happy if I could curate my own list, so that I know how I think the works interact. It is nice to see what other people have to say, too, but the ability to maintain my little section of the database in a useful way to me (and for others to do the same with their section) would be a nice improvement.
Many of these comments are informative, but the solution doesn't need to be perfect to be an improvement.
Many of these comments are informative, but the solution doesn't need to be perfect to be an improvement.
34lorinhobenson
Even in libraries there are varied areas of expertise. Being a librarian doesn't mean that you are an expert in everything--usually somethings--and that you curate a collection of books. One need not abandon the equality regarding relationships to the "Library" in order to admit that there is a varying level of expertise related to each of the books therein.
35jjwilson61
These are work-to-work relationships, and works are common objects shared by everyone. I don't think it would be feasible for everyone to have their own private lists of relationships between public objects.
37Teacup_
Not sure I like that idea. I think for me personally what makes LT stand out in comparison to the other 'popular' book cataloging services is its consistent ability to remain non-commercialized. Although LT has far more advanced indexing features in comparison to the other services (especially if you're a librarian), overall it has more of an open-source attitude. I would really prefer to keep it that way.
Furthermore, let's think deeply about this. If I'm looking at reviews and the authors are filtered as academics/non-academics, then this will change the behavior of the information seeker. Eventually, people will begin to think an 'academic' review is more qualified and might not spend much time reading non-academic reviews.
Also, what determines an 'expert' in your opinion? That could be argued in many ways. I'm a masters degree holder and can verify my 'academic' status through my academic email, but a bright, well-read, intelligent high-schooler can write a better review. It's possible. I think once you try to draw a line there between what you establish as qualified as academic and what isn't, it becomes a problem more than an opportunity.
You used Wikipedia as an example, in my line of work, we consider Wikipedia the devil of academia. Someone else might differ.
LT does take initiatives in the academic field, such as initiating the TinyCat project. That might open doors eventually for further academic affiliations. 'Academic' reviews might be better suited to pop up there I suppose.
Furthermore, let's think deeply about this. If I'm looking at reviews and the authors are filtered as academics/non-academics, then this will change the behavior of the information seeker. Eventually, people will begin to think an 'academic' review is more qualified and might not spend much time reading non-academic reviews.
Also, what determines an 'expert' in your opinion? That could be argued in many ways. I'm a masters degree holder and can verify my 'academic' status through my academic email, but a bright, well-read, intelligent high-schooler can write a better review. It's possible. I think once you try to draw a line there between what you establish as qualified as academic and what isn't, it becomes a problem more than an opportunity.
You used Wikipedia as an example, in my line of work, we consider Wikipedia the devil of academia. Someone else might differ.
LT does take initiatives in the academic field, such as initiating the TinyCat project. That might open doors eventually for further academic affiliations. 'Academic' reviews might be better suited to pop up there I suppose.
38lorinhobenson
"If I'm looking at reviews and the authors are filtered as academics/non-academics, then this will change the behavior of the information seeker. Eventually, people will begin to think an 'academic' review is more qualified and might not spend much time reading non-academic reviews."
Yes, it will change behavior, but not necessarily in the way you claim. For example, I am an expert, but not in everything. When I am looking for books not on my field, or not for professional use, I look for different things in reviews. For example, a little while ago I read Salt: A World History, which is well outside my area of expertise. I don't need to know that it is a great book on culinary International Relations, but that it is fun to read (which it is). An expert is no more qualified to tell me the later than a non-expert, and in someways is unqualified to do so because they might be interested in dramatically different things than I am.
In contrast, I also read (and teach, incidentally) Linked : how everything is connected and what it means which is also *not* and academic book, but is written by an academic, and is in my area of expertise. I could, as an expert, tell you that this is a good introduction to Network Analysis for people who are unfamiliar with it, and that the author is very well respected in the community, but that it doesn't go very deep. I could say that the stories are engaging, and illustrative, but that the book is basically retreading issues no longer current within the field (as they have been solved, as described in the book itself.) Someone looking for a good read on networks would have no real reason to think differently about the book because of my review, and may in fact discount it, because of my background, or they may think "Oh, this is not fake, and is worth reading."
Perhaps one solution to the "who is an expert" problem, is self identification. There could even be categories "expert, fan, believer, skeptic, etc" and each person could ID themselves how they see fit. While vandalism is possible, there's not a high incentive for deception, especially if you are anonymous. Additionally, it might be interesting to see what user09834701238947 who is a fan of football thinks of John Madden's Heroes of Football as opposed to someone who is a skeptic, and so on. You wouldn't want infinite categories, and you wouldn't want to require "identification" but it would be an easy way to sort through a lot of different reviews, as it signals your relationship to the subject ex ante. It could also help refine the algorithm for predictions of books people like. (e.g. user1 tends to like books on cooking only when well reviewed by professionals, but not by fans).
I get the idea that LT is non-commercial, and the point I'm making isn't to try to "commercialize" it in the sense that it should become profit driven. However, LT is, does and should think of itself as providing a service and a good. The better service it can provide the more people who will use it. As with all social media, LT's main good is information, and the better it can collect and disseminate information the better it will be as a site. I certainly don't want LT to be bought out by Palgrave or some other company, but I do want it to continue to grow, and provide service, and the more that it can do for more people the better. Ideally, it could be everything to everyone, but the constraint is resources. Perhaps these suggestions take too many resources for the time being, but the cost is only something that the people allocating resources can decide, since only they know the costs.
Yes, it will change behavior, but not necessarily in the way you claim. For example, I am an expert, but not in everything. When I am looking for books not on my field, or not for professional use, I look for different things in reviews. For example, a little while ago I read Salt: A World History, which is well outside my area of expertise. I don't need to know that it is a great book on culinary International Relations, but that it is fun to read (which it is). An expert is no more qualified to tell me the later than a non-expert, and in someways is unqualified to do so because they might be interested in dramatically different things than I am.
In contrast, I also read (and teach, incidentally) Linked : how everything is connected and what it means which is also *not* and academic book, but is written by an academic, and is in my area of expertise. I could, as an expert, tell you that this is a good introduction to Network Analysis for people who are unfamiliar with it, and that the author is very well respected in the community, but that it doesn't go very deep. I could say that the stories are engaging, and illustrative, but that the book is basically retreading issues no longer current within the field (as they have been solved, as described in the book itself.) Someone looking for a good read on networks would have no real reason to think differently about the book because of my review, and may in fact discount it, because of my background, or they may think "Oh, this is not fake, and is worth reading."
Perhaps one solution to the "who is an expert" problem, is self identification. There could even be categories "expert, fan, believer, skeptic, etc" and each person could ID themselves how they see fit. While vandalism is possible, there's not a high incentive for deception, especially if you are anonymous. Additionally, it might be interesting to see what user09834701238947 who is a fan of football thinks of John Madden's Heroes of Football as opposed to someone who is a skeptic, and so on. You wouldn't want infinite categories, and you wouldn't want to require "identification" but it would be an easy way to sort through a lot of different reviews, as it signals your relationship to the subject ex ante. It could also help refine the algorithm for predictions of books people like. (e.g. user1 tends to like books on cooking only when well reviewed by professionals, but not by fans).
I get the idea that LT is non-commercial, and the point I'm making isn't to try to "commercialize" it in the sense that it should become profit driven. However, LT is, does and should think of itself as providing a service and a good. The better service it can provide the more people who will use it. As with all social media, LT's main good is information, and the better it can collect and disseminate information the better it will be as a site. I certainly don't want LT to be bought out by Palgrave or some other company, but I do want it to continue to grow, and provide service, and the more that it can do for more people the better. Ideally, it could be everything to everyone, but the constraint is resources. Perhaps these suggestions take too many resources for the time being, but the cost is only something that the people allocating resources can decide, since only they know the costs.
39lilithcat
>38 lorinhobenson:
Perhaps one solution to the "who is an expert" problem, is self identification.
What happened to "These experts would be externally verified as experts within their field"?
there's not a high incentive for deception, especially if you are anonymous.
I would think that being anonymous would increase the likelihood of deception, as it would be more difficult to rebut someone's claim of expertise.
Perhaps one solution to the "who is an expert" problem, is self identification.
What happened to "These experts would be externally verified as experts within their field"?
there's not a high incentive for deception, especially if you are anonymous.
I would think that being anonymous would increase the likelihood of deception, as it would be more difficult to rebut someone's claim of expertise.
40krazy4katz
I think self-identification would be sufficient. Just begin by saying what your expertise is and what aspect of the book it allows you to comment on more thoroughly than most readers. Again, for academic works, there probably wouldn't be that many reviews to wade through. Although some books with a historical material certainly would be an exception (now that I think about this more carefully).
41Teacup_
I don't see the point of self-identification to be honest. I feel it will be a mess. It's much better to just write a review under a regular handle and people can filter from the review whether you're a qualified reviewer from what you're basing your judgments on. It's common sense.
The other method I can think of is an official verification method through an academic email. Anyone affiliated with an academic institution, whether a faculty, researcher or scientist should have an email affiliated with the institution they belong to. A lot of services follow this method to provide educational discounts for example and it works.
The other method I can think of is an official verification method through an academic email. Anyone affiliated with an academic institution, whether a faculty, researcher or scientist should have an email affiliated with the institution they belong to. A lot of services follow this method to provide educational discounts for example and it works.
42AnnieMod
>41 Teacup_:
How me having an email from a University will tell you what field I am an expert in?
Educational discounts are not just for historians or mathematicians - they are for anyone in academia. Experts do not work like that.
PS: And even if it is an institution known for one field only, noone is an expert in the whole field usually.
By the way - how do you propose LT to validate an email from an institution in Serbia or Tajikistan? Do you expect LT to maintain a list of all institutions in all countries and monitor which ones go defunct and so on? Educational discounts work because publishers and sellers make it work and because they are not open to the world as a rule.
How me having an email from a University will tell you what field I am an expert in?
Educational discounts are not just for historians or mathematicians - they are for anyone in academia. Experts do not work like that.
PS: And even if it is an institution known for one field only, noone is an expert in the whole field usually.
By the way - how do you propose LT to validate an email from an institution in Serbia or Tajikistan? Do you expect LT to maintain a list of all institutions in all countries and monitor which ones go defunct and so on? Educational discounts work because publishers and sellers make it work and because they are not open to the world as a rule.
43Teacup_
>42 AnnieMod: I merely suggested it as a method and as an example, I never said it was conclusive. I'm not even convinced about the idea of self-verification in order to write more 'qualified' reviews to begin with.
44Keeline
The discussion of what qualifies an expert on a topic for the purposes of reviews here is interesting. The problems of identification of an expert is nontrivial. I have a problem with an assumption that a topic expert would have a current (employment) or former association with a university (e.g. degree). It might serve as a career milestone for people in that field but does nothing for the rest of the world's areas of interests.
Wikipedia has policies that favor citations from "published sources" over input from experts. The unintended consequence is that Wikipedia editors favor the content that can easily be found online (low hanging fruit) over published books, journal articles, and the like that may not be as easy to see for free outside of a visit to a library.
For example, I am an expert on the life and works of Edward Stratemeyer in particular and generally the field of juvenile series books. I am writing a Series Book Encyclopedia and a biography of Stratemeyer. I have written many dozens of printed articles, annual academic conference presentations, and other writings (online, etc.) about these topics. I do primary source material research on this topic as opposed to merely paraphrasing what others have said about the topic.
In my field I see an awful lot of repetition of certain myths and outright falsehoods connected with this field. This appears in statements online, blog articles, articles in mainstream and academic periodicals, and books. A lie repeated often enough takes on the semblance of truth. Something that seems like it should be true or something that can be said in a catchy rhyme that sounds like an old adage has greater weight sometimes than the facts or a reasonable and accurate assessment of facts in context with circumstances.
I know that Wikipedia is good for some topics but it is laughably wrong on others. It all depends on the rules set up for Wikipedia and how the application of those rules leads to certain behaviors and the discouragement of others. The Wikipedia entry on Edward Stratemeyer is laughably wrong on several points.
One of the Wikipedia controversies listed concerns a subject matter expert who was blocked from making edits on his topic because the other editors favored other published sources.
Other links (perhaps ironically on Wikipedia about itself) that are relevant to expert identification for Wikipedia and here are:
Expert Retention
Relationships with Academic Editors
Expert Editors
What this suggests to me is that there is no golden imprimatur that identifies an expert. Even when one is an expert, there can be differences of opinion from other experts.
These days it is very easy to get published online or even have books. Many struggle with critical thinking skills. It can be hard to define an easy test of whether someone is an "expert" aside from them saying so. Given the first sentence of this paragraph, it would be easy for someone to set themselves up as an expert and either be grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading for some purpose.
In short, it may not be possible to resolve this in the relatively small community of LT when it is not resolved in the larger Wikipedia editor sphere.
James
Wikipedia has policies that favor citations from "published sources" over input from experts. The unintended consequence is that Wikipedia editors favor the content that can easily be found online (low hanging fruit) over published books, journal articles, and the like that may not be as easy to see for free outside of a visit to a library.
For example, I am an expert on the life and works of Edward Stratemeyer in particular and generally the field of juvenile series books. I am writing a Series Book Encyclopedia and a biography of Stratemeyer. I have written many dozens of printed articles, annual academic conference presentations, and other writings (online, etc.) about these topics. I do primary source material research on this topic as opposed to merely paraphrasing what others have said about the topic.
In my field I see an awful lot of repetition of certain myths and outright falsehoods connected with this field. This appears in statements online, blog articles, articles in mainstream and academic periodicals, and books. A lie repeated often enough takes on the semblance of truth. Something that seems like it should be true or something that can be said in a catchy rhyme that sounds like an old adage has greater weight sometimes than the facts or a reasonable and accurate assessment of facts in context with circumstances.
I know that Wikipedia is good for some topics but it is laughably wrong on others. It all depends on the rules set up for Wikipedia and how the application of those rules leads to certain behaviors and the discouragement of others. The Wikipedia entry on Edward Stratemeyer is laughably wrong on several points.
One of the Wikipedia controversies listed concerns a subject matter expert who was blocked from making edits on his topic because the other editors favored other published sources.
Other links (perhaps ironically on Wikipedia about itself) that are relevant to expert identification for Wikipedia and here are:
Expert Retention
Relationships with Academic Editors
Expert Editors
What this suggests to me is that there is no golden imprimatur that identifies an expert. Even when one is an expert, there can be differences of opinion from other experts.
These days it is very easy to get published online or even have books. Many struggle with critical thinking skills. It can be hard to define an easy test of whether someone is an "expert" aside from them saying so. Given the first sentence of this paragraph, it would be easy for someone to set themselves up as an expert and either be grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading for some purpose.
In short, it may not be possible to resolve this in the relatively small community of LT when it is not resolved in the larger Wikipedia editor sphere.
James
45Teacup_
Since we're on the topic of Wiki, a colleague of mine once told his students to write a report about a subject. He then went back home and changed the facts written in Wikipedia (apparently he published something there), the next day in class he enjoyed the shocked expressions on his students faces when he told them. About half the class derived the information from that subject in Wikipedia.
Just for laughs.
Just for laughs.
46Keeline
The comedian news commentator Stephen Colbert poked fun at Wikipedia a few years ago when he had is Comedy Central show. He encouraged viewers to edit entries on things like elephants to include some absurd statistic. I think the idea was to question the level of trust many in his demographic had for the site. He also coined a term "truthiness" which was something that might not be but should be true.
These are all parts of the ongoing challenges with online research, particularly among young people who are still developing critical thinking skills.
Of course "Wikipedia" refers to the collaborative encyclopedia and some of the allied resources (dictionary, image collection, etc.). The phrase "Wiki" alone could be a shorthand for Wikipedia as used here but it is primarily a general collaborative editing system that could be used for software documentation or any topic of a community interest (e.g. Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, or Disney history).
James
These are all parts of the ongoing challenges with online research, particularly among young people who are still developing critical thinking skills.
Of course "Wikipedia" refers to the collaborative encyclopedia and some of the allied resources (dictionary, image collection, etc.). The phrase "Wiki" alone could be a shorthand for Wikipedia as used here but it is primarily a general collaborative editing system that could be used for software documentation or any topic of a community interest (e.g. Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, or Disney history).
James
47AnnieMod
As much as relying on wikipedia is a bad practice, encouraging people to destroy other people's work or edit data and introduce incorrect information is harmful and not at all funny. Wiki system can exist only if there is a level of trust - and such malicious edits (for whatever reasons) degrade that and shows that one can do that anywhere and at any time.
48Petroglyph
>45 Teacup_:, >46 Keeline:
The flipside of wikipedia vandalism and intentional misinformation is, of course, the small time intervals in which such edits are reverted and undone (sometimes minutes, generally hours to days; the article on Elephants is still semi-protected, ten years after Colbert's gag, because of persistent vandals), and the frankly astonishing degree with which articles are kept up-to-date (dead celebrities, new discoveries), which is unmatched (and unmatchable) by any traditional print resource. Wiki vandalism to make a point about comparing sources is common enough, but imho the discussion should not end there.
More on-topic: the point that generated most interest/comments is the one about expert reviews. Fair enough. Does that mean that people here are generally in favour of (or at least not actively opposed to) some of the other suggestions made upthread (some of the work-to-work combinations, upping the reference-friendliness, google scholar links)?
The flipside of wikipedia vandalism and intentional misinformation is, of course, the small time intervals in which such edits are reverted and undone (sometimes minutes, generally hours to days; the article on Elephants is still semi-protected, ten years after Colbert's gag, because of persistent vandals), and the frankly astonishing degree with which articles are kept up-to-date (dead celebrities, new discoveries), which is unmatched (and unmatchable) by any traditional print resource. Wiki vandalism to make a point about comparing sources is common enough, but imho the discussion should not end there.
More on-topic: the point that generated most interest/comments is the one about expert reviews. Fair enough. Does that mean that people here are generally in favour of (or at least not actively opposed to) some of the other suggestions made upthread (some of the work-to-work combinations, upping the reference-friendliness, google scholar links)?
49Keeline
Perhaps if a person has some credentials or reason to claim authority for their reviews, they should "sign" the review with their name and any abbreviations or links that help to back it up. Then those who are interested could follow the links to assess for themselves how much veracity the person and article deserves. It's not fool proof but nothing is.
For example, if I wrote a review of a book about series books and followed it with links to my Stratemeyer.org and a list of the articles I share online Keeline.com/articles then people could see if I had interesting and verifiable writings on the topic.
I am fairly well connected with the series book collecting and research communities and have been since 1988. It is a fairly small group. Not all of them have positions in universities connected with this field though some do. I chair a section in the Popular Culture Association devoted to dime novels and series books and have for many years. I've presented at the conference annually since 1992 (except 1993 and 1994 when I merely attended). Thus, most scholars who are writing on the topic come upon my work and ask questions sooner or later.
For this reason, I was pretty surprised to find a collection of essays on series book topics from an academic press in the book room at the PCA conference where only one of the names was familiar to me or any of my colleagues who also attended the conference. They could be grad students. The book was pricey enough (and no significant conference discount) that I didn't grab it there (plus I would have had to wait until the end of the conference to buy it and was leaving before then).
It shows that there is more out there in terms of scholarship than I am aware of, even for a fairly small community. There are not easy answers.
James
For example, if I wrote a review of a book about series books and followed it with links to my Stratemeyer.org and a list of the articles I share online Keeline.com/articles then people could see if I had interesting and verifiable writings on the topic.
I am fairly well connected with the series book collecting and research communities and have been since 1988. It is a fairly small group. Not all of them have positions in universities connected with this field though some do. I chair a section in the Popular Culture Association devoted to dime novels and series books and have for many years. I've presented at the conference annually since 1992 (except 1993 and 1994 when I merely attended). Thus, most scholars who are writing on the topic come upon my work and ask questions sooner or later.
For this reason, I was pretty surprised to find a collection of essays on series book topics from an academic press in the book room at the PCA conference where only one of the names was familiar to me or any of my colleagues who also attended the conference. They could be grad students. The book was pricey enough (and no significant conference discount) that I didn't grab it there (plus I would have had to wait until the end of the conference to buy it and was leaving before then).
It shows that there is more out there in terms of scholarship than I am aware of, even for a fairly small community. There are not easy answers.
James
50MarthaJeanne
>48 Petroglyph: People have already pointed out that the work-to-work suggestions are not reasonable.
We didn't go into it at length, but the permanent link part is also not workable. How do you think such a link would be assigned? What happens when someone combines things they shouldn't, and the two things have to be separated again? Currently the links are assigned by the computer. The computer is not going to come up with the example given. Not even if the original publication date has been entered.
We didn't go into it at length, but the permanent link part is also not workable. How do you think such a link would be assigned? What happens when someone combines things they shouldn't, and the two things have to be separated again? Currently the links are assigned by the computer. The computer is not going to come up with the example given. Not even if the original publication date has been entered.
51AndreasJ
>50 MarthaJeanne:
Re relationships, I think "cites / cited by" is the only one that people have raised issues with. "Responds to" already exists as "is a reply to". I see no particular problem with "argues against" or "supports", except that especially the first will be hard to distinguish from "is a reply to".
Re relationships, I think "cites / cited by" is the only one that people have raised issues with. "Responds to" already exists as "is a reply to". I see no particular problem with "argues against" or "supports", except that especially the first will be hard to distinguish from "is a reply to".
52MarthaJeanne
If the whole work is a reply (for or against), then the current set up already does it. If the suggestions were meant to allow a chapter or less mentioning the other work and arguing for or against it, then the same objections apply as for cites.
53lorinhobenson
I like the idea of a signature.
Another way of doing that would be something similar to the Twitter "verified" handle. People who choose to could request a verified handle, showing who they actually are, perhaps with a link to a webpage, or so on. That way, people could better assess the reviews in light of more information. Knowing a review comes from James Keeline means more to me than if it comes from user "Keeline" who could be James Keeline or could also be some illiterate who likes Key Lime pie, but doesn't know how it's spelled.
Another way of doing that would be something similar to the Twitter "verified" handle. People who choose to could request a verified handle, showing who they actually are, perhaps with a link to a webpage, or so on. That way, people could better assess the reviews in light of more information. Knowing a review comes from James Keeline means more to me than if it comes from user "Keeline" who could be James Keeline or could also be some illiterate who likes Key Lime pie, but doesn't know how it's spelled.
54Teacup_
>47 AnnieMod: You're taking this way too seriously. He was merely trying to show his students how unreliable it was to use Wikipedia for his assignment after several useless efforts to talk them out of using it. The entire class had a great laugh and no one was offended.
55AnnieMod
>54 Teacup_:
So you do that with a controlled wiki (easy enough to setup) inside of your network or create a page that the wiki admins will delete in a few days but in the meantime noone cares about... I understand what the idea was but what will happen if ever day a teacher (and a TV host - Colbert's was worse than one teacher doing it) start doing that (with the same idea)? :) And what happens when someone decides that that is a perfect prank for end of school? Wiki has enough issues with vandalizing even without ideas being put into people's heads.
Will it be ok for you if the teacher ripped a page from all copies of a paper encyclopaedia in the school library and glued inside a "changed" page to teach them that they should consult multiple sources. How is that different? If anything, defacing a resource that can be seen by anyone in the world is worse than defacing one book... even for fun or for a teaching moment.
Anyway - it is irrelevant for the discussion anyway :)
So you do that with a controlled wiki (easy enough to setup) inside of your network or create a page that the wiki admins will delete in a few days but in the meantime noone cares about... I understand what the idea was but what will happen if ever day a teacher (and a TV host - Colbert's was worse than one teacher doing it) start doing that (with the same idea)? :) And what happens when someone decides that that is a perfect prank for end of school? Wiki has enough issues with vandalizing even without ideas being put into people's heads.
Will it be ok for you if the teacher ripped a page from all copies of a paper encyclopaedia in the school library and glued inside a "changed" page to teach them that they should consult multiple sources. How is that different? If anything, defacing a resource that can be seen by anyone in the world is worse than defacing one book... even for fun or for a teaching moment.
Anyway - it is irrelevant for the discussion anyway :)
56anglemark
>54 Teacup_: And you are, IMO, taking vandalism of community projects far too lightly.
57Teacup_
I wasn't the one throwing a prank on her students. I merely shared a funny story a colleague told me, WHICH I will add might and might not have been within a controlled wiki. I didn't give the guy a 3rd degree to ask about his ethics and if the site was open or not, although I do trust his morality in general and he's a pretty reasonable guy. It could very well be inside a network- judging me as 'taking vandalism lightly' and taking this conversation way off track is ridiculous in my opinion. I'm unstarring this conversation and letting people lecture on their soap boxes all they want.
Have a great day.
Have a great day.
