Yes, Dewey was a jerk and all but the real issue with his system was how random and arbitrary the classifications are. Because he insisted on a base-10 numbering system he force-fit categories together in totally arbitrary ways based on his crazy views.
For a great overview of this watch David Weinberg’s presentation (Dewey stuff starts at 20:00 mark but it’s worth watching the whole thing.)
Important as it may be, I’m not convinced that “naval science” needs its own class.
Yeah, isn’t that just “philosophy?” oh sorry, I thought you said navel science.
Ya burnt, philosophy.
What’s more, the LCC only collects V at “level 4” – Research level.
That means either the board was pretty progressive, or his behavior was quite egregious.
Really? That happens?
It will never make social deconstructionists happy. Nothing will until the past is completely erased and Winston Smith works in a real government position.
Fascinating.
At my local library, I like to browse the shelves. Sometimes I have a specific book in mind, and use the catalogue, but typing to find a book on chintzy rubber dome keyboards does not really appeal to me. Maybe it’s that systems habit of disgorging thousands of results presented ten items at a time that really gets my goat.
At closed stack libraries, I adore the “shelved next to” feature found in particulay well designed electronic catalogs.
To take the example from the pod cast, the book Ida: A Sword Among Lions: Ida B. Wells and the Campaign Against Lynching has five subject headings.
Wells-Barnett, Ida B., – 1862-1931.
African American women – Biography.
African American women civil rights workers – Biography.
African American women social reformers – Biography.
Lynching.
United States – Race relations.
The LCC catalog number used by harvard is E185.97.W55 G53
That decodes as
History of the Americas/United States/Elements in the population/Afro-Americans/Biography. Genealogy
There’s little to stop a closed source library from shelving “five” virtual copies of the book in various parts of the shelves. So if you were browsing a bookshelf full of lynching books-- you’d find Ida. If you’re browsing the Biographies, you’d find Ida. If you were browsing shelves deddicated to social reform in the Americas you’d find Ida.
But an open stack library couldn’t do that, Even if its benefactors had supplied the stacks with 5 copies of the book-- what if there were two people browsing the “Lynching” section? The second person might miss the book in question. Which would be a shame, since the remaining fouur couuld be checked out.
I like detailed cataloging systems. Google Books tends to lump all the books I need for a particlar project into “Art”-- and unfortunately I lack the time to go through the thousands of public domain hits. LCC would classify them under a very specific subject heading, but in the absence of such a guideline, I’m forced to consider how a writer of the period would write their piece, and add “typical” vocabulary to my search terms. “Artists” disdain controlled vocabularies.
no-- ancient history is before 500 AD. Probably engineered to privilege the sack of Rome, but there are probably civilizations that straddle that date, making for an arbitrary distinction.
For instance–
In 491, Anastasius I, an aged civil officer of Roman origin, became Emperor, but it was not until 497 that the forces of the new emperor effectively took the measure of Isaurian resistance.[36] Anastasius revealed himself as an energetic reformer and an able administrator. He introduced a new coinage system of the copper follis , the coin used in most everyday transactions.[37] He also reformed the tax system and permanently abolished the chrysargyron tax. The State Treasury contained the enormous sum of 320,000 lb (150,000 kg) of gold when Anastasius died in 518.[38]
Winston Smith works at a think tank these days.
Sistema Decimale Quo
So Tom the Dancing Bug was right all along! I read it here first on Boing Boing!
The only reason this story exists is because people remembered and had access to the actual history of Melvil Dewey, not a cartoon myth where people actively erased mentions of his actual actions.
No one is saying to forget or erase history here. They’re asking that a fuller and more accurate history is told.
If you’re worried about remembering history, you should be concerned about the “social deconstructionists” who actively and consciously erased women, for instance, from historical stories, over generations. It’s not a new trend, if you think about it.
Imagine you’re trying to write a paper on Alonzo Church-- and instead of finding what you need in 511.3, you constantly have to consult the books in 005.13-- which is on a different floor, or in a different building altogether.
Apparently, if you know the Dewey Decimal System really well, there are mnemonics that you can use to locate books quickly.
2.31 Most notable memory aid is the constant repetition of a standard
pattern of areal arrangement. In nearly all areal developments, the digits
44, for instance, stand for France, 45 for Italy, 46 for Spain, 52 for Japan,
73 for United States. General history is class 9 ( or 900 with two zeroes
filling in the empty spaces ) , and it follows that 944 is general history of
France, 945 of Italy, 946 of Spain, 952 of Japan, 973 of United States;
general geography is division 91 (or 910 with the empty space filled), and
it follows that (with a decimal point following the third digit) 914.4 is
general geography of France, 914.5 of Italy, 917.3 of United States;
international relations is 327, and 327.44 is international relations of
France, 327.73 of United States, and even 327.440 73 international
relations between France and United States; distribution of precipitation
is 551.577 2, distribution of precipitation in France 551.577 244. The “area
table” appears in volume 2 on page 1263.
which is great if you’re interested in France. But what if you’re interested in something Melvil Dewey knew nothing about, or thought a perversion? Any old classification system would do just as well, and many would be less insulting.
I thought “ancient” and “classical” were separate things, but WP says the former includes the latter 
Dewey was obviously an ass, but the Library of Congress has a vested interest in highlighting this as they have a competing classification system. Dewey decimal is regularly revised and is constantly evolving, so most of the issues with the original system itself have been addressed. Maybe they should just rename it?
This has nothing to do with the Library of Congress. They’re not “highlighting” anything at all.
The ALA is taking his name off one specific award because he was an active and enthusiastic anti-semite, who sexually harassed women, not because he was “an ass”.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
