Wikipedia vs. Britannica from a librarian perspective.

Good article in this month’s Searcher Magazine comparing and contrasting Wikipedia and Britannica with an eye towards castigating neither.

Let’s act like careful, reasonable people. Wikipedia is a great starting point. It’s a lesson in research methodology, a fun way to share expertise, and a groundbreaking new way of working. Its consensus model represents a shift in management styles and away from hierarchical organization. You might say that Wikipedia is Zen-like. Its ever-changing nature means that when you read it, you are completely in the moment. And its collective brain is like a conscious universe in which we are all one.

Britannica is a different animal. Flawed, yes. Behind the times with regard to non-Western and minority leadership, sure. Indispensable? You betcha.

[link-o-day]

2005 reading list, a year end summary

Time for the annual recitation of the books, same as last year, 600+ posts later. Thanks to some handy last-minute coding by Greg, it’s much easier for me to make a list of all the books I read in 2005. Yes I love LibraryThing, no I am not replacing my booklist with it.

number of books read in 2005: 86
number of books read in 2004: 103
number of books read in 2003: 75
number of books read in 2002: 91
number of books read in 2001: 78
average read per month: 7.2
average read per week: 1.7
number read in worst month: 3 (November, December)
number read in best month: 12 (March)
percentage by male authors: 74
percentage by female authors: 26
fiction as percentage of total: 55
non-fiction as percentage of total: 45
percentage of total liked: 84
percentage of total ambivalent: 14
percentage of total disliked: 2