Talk:Library of Congress Classification
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I read a book by Mortimer Adler once, the name of which of course escapes me, that traced classification systems. He pointed out that the LC is based on Jefferson's own system, which was based on Francis Baconl. I forget if Bacon had a predecessor. --MichaelTinkler
Now you mention it I recall reading that as well, though I can't which book I read or much of the details. I read a book on the history of library classifications about a year or two. -- SJK
The paragraph on 'bias' needs to be re-written. Library classification schemes have good reason to be 'biased' towards actual library holdings rather than ideal analytical schemes of all knowledge which might someday come to be represented in their collections. --MichaelTinkler
As this is a formal title adopted by the LC I've capitalized "Classification" in the title.
Somebody had managed to change all the Class titles into a backward order and I've reverted this "Library of Congress classification" is not a disambiguator for the various classes. ☮ Eclecticology 12:06 31 May 2003 (UTC)
In an attempt to improve the aesthetics of the list I put it into a HTML table. I don't mind if it's considered overkill and gets reverted. Let me know. -- sugarfish 00:18, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I agree that it is a bit of overkill, but the data in the list is very stable so I wouldn't complain too strenuously that the more complicated HTML format is virtually uneditable by normal mortals. In a less stable environment, I might see things differently. ☮ Eclecticology 04:02, 2003 Sep 19 (UTC)
-
- Is it, then, worth extending the concept to the Sub-Classifications? -- sugarfish 06:32, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I don't particularly object. The question of the stability of the article comes into the picture. Although I did originally set some of these pages up in my earliest days on Wikipedia, I did leave the matter of expansion as an open question. I would appreciate your views on this.
- Meanwhile, if you're looking for a place to start working your wonders, I've noticed that someone expanded 4 of the subclasses in P. This guy stayed for a few days then disappeared. I look forward to hearing from you. ☮ Eclecticology 21:53, 2003 Sep 19 (UTC)
I've taken the following out for the reason that no evidence is given and sounds highly dubious. What, after all, could LIBRARIANS gain from subverting Christianity and the US? And how could a system of organization be biased against them? Prove me wrong and put back the quote. Until then, let it stay here:
- In particular, the classification often shows bias towards the United States and towards Christianity.
D.E. Cottrell 07:51, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- No problem. I don't think that I contributed that anyways. I've left it alone because it struck me as probably true. The bias should not be seen as an intentional bias, nor does it imply any kind of subversion. It seems natural to expect that a US developed system would put more emphasis on US centred topics. Thus we have more subclasses in B devoted to Christian themes. Class E alone is devoted entirely to US history while all the complexities of Old World history are grouped together in Class D. Subclass PS is devoted entirely to US literature, while English literature from all other places is put together in subclass PR. That being said, I don't attach enough importance to that bias to warrant a full scale defence to keep it in the article. ☮ Eclecticology 23:49, 2004 Jan 19 (UTC)
lol. I was thinking of a bias in the other direction. (Personal experience, talking!) Oh well, still stands. D.E. Cottrell 05:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Wikipedia outline format
The outlines on the pages linked from "Wikipedia organized by the Library of Congress Classification" are arranged using a combination of wiki indents (HTML definition lists) and manually typed dot-leaders. Looks like heck in my web browser.
Would anyone object to redoing these using HTML preformatted text (<PRE>) blocks? The results would look like the following (from Subclass PG). —Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
PG 1-9665.............Slavic. Baltic. Albanian 1-7948............Slavic 1-499............Slavic philology and languages (General) 500-585..........Slavic literature (General) 601-716..........Church Slavic 771-799..........Bulgarian Church Slavic 801-1146.........Bulgarian 1151-1199........Macedonian 1201-1696........Serbo-Croatian 1801-1962........Slovenian 2001-2826........Russian language 2830-2847........Belarusian 2900-3698........Russian literature 2900-3190.......History and criticism 2900-2998......General 3001-3026......Special periods 3041-3065......Poetry 3071-3089......Drama 3091-3099......Prose 3100-3155......Folk literature (including texts) 3199-3299.......Collections 3199-3205......General 3211-3219......Translations [etc.]
[edit] LoC Catalog Number
The Loc system started in 1939, according to the article. But I have some books listing a different LoC system, for example "Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 67-22622" for a book copyright in 1968. What is this? Bubba73 18:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- The LCCN (Library of Congress Card Number, USMARC tag number "010") serves a function similar to the ISBN, but LoC-specific. It is just a number whose purpose is to uniquely identify a book; it has nothing to do with classification.
- —Wing 05:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Using LC to organize category pages
I see potential for using these pages as a way to getting to [[category:]] pages. I do a fair bit of random article hunts, trying to attach cats and stubs to orphans. It is very difficult sometimes to find them. When I saw this, I became excited. I can run a library catalog search, find the LC number and use it to find appropriate categories. It's a very librarianish thing to do, I know, but a savvy user could use the same technique. What do you all think? --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
As voss pointed out the current wiki category system is a collaborative thesaurus not to be confused with a classification system. Adding a classification system to controlled vocabulory (thesarus) would mean you are talking about a taxonomy Aarontay 13:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Availability of the LOC classification system?
I notice that the actual classification system is unavailable online for free. Only the outlines are available. What is its copyright status? The LOC seems to charge money for online access, to the tune of $375 down to $68/person in bulk.
http://www.loc.gov/cds/classweb/
How does that articulate with a putative desire to use it to classify all or parts of wikipedia?
In tandem with asking this question here, I'm inquiring via email at the Cataloging Distribution Service email cdsinfo@loc.gov.
-Vonfraginoff 12:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism of LCC from the DDC Article
- The Library of Congress Classification system is also more complicated to use on an ad hoc basis without reference to the collection of the Library of Congress, and unlike DDC cannot be customised for the needs of a smaller library collection. Likewise, with the standardisation of LCC as a product for the preclassification of materials before they are accessioned there is little incentive for librarians to do their own classification of a work, even a work that was obviously classified erroneously by the Library of Congress. This has lead to a "homogenisation" and lack of vigour in the presentation of collections (and especially specialised collections) to the library patron.
I've removed this criticism from the Dewey Decimal Classification article because it seemed to be a little to extended for an article on another topic. Please review it and, if useful, integrate it here. —mako (talk•contribs) 15:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Classification articles nominated for deletion
Editors involved with these should see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible. –Pomte 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] All subsets of this page have been deleted.
For more information, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible. All subpages should not be recreated without any good reason. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
