Don't Disregard Dewey

            Weinberger’s chapter on “The Geography of Knowledge” focuses in on my opinion the more negatively related reactions to the Dewey Decimal System.  I was somewhat surprised by how several librarians are known, according to Weinberger, to roll their eyes at this somewhat outdated classification system.  Personally, I remember how organized and easy it was to understand where books were located due to the set-up of certain books.  Until now, I did not see some of these categories as being problematic such as “Philosophy and Psychology”.  Prior to reading this chapter, I would not find this to be an issue until further investigation as to why it poses so many issues to the average patron and/or librarian.  Psychology and Philosophy are considered to some, to be polar opposites thus causing a need to be separated categorically.  While I understand that this classification may be considered outdated to some, is it possible that his arrangement of categories can be used methodically and effectively in the 21^st century without over-analyzing the system to the point of disregarding it?  It seems to me, that as time goes on, it tends to be our goal to think of bigger and better ways to organize which may lead us to neglect past methods that have worked for decades.  I believe that after reading this chapter, I now have a new found respect for Melvil Dewey’s classification which has been the building blocks to the Library of Congress Classification.  While I appreciate Dewey’s classification based off the world, which at the time created was a popular idea, I do realize now it is outdated which has led to a more modern classification system that is easier to understand.  I am stuck in the middle of appreciating the early beginning of the Dewey Decimal System and its relationship to the foundations of studies at the time; however future foundations were not anticipated thus were categorized based solely on the present. 

            As for the TEDtalk video we watched in class on Wednesday, it changed my opinion on the website significantly.  I was one of the students who had been sworn off of Wikipedia by nearly 95% of my teachers since I was in grade school.  What I did not realize was the amount of effort and security placed within this online encyclopedia.  It is obvious that there are flaws in nearly every online source, but it seems apparent that Jimmy Wales understood these negative connotations associated with the Internet, and made it a mission to securely submit information.  I was astonished by his truthfulness behind an individual’s ability to submit false information but then the fast turnaround rate which was impressive.  His example regarding the Kerry and Bush campaign and how he had locked out people from submitting either untruthful text or “vandalizing” the page shows the importance of validity behind Wikipedia.  I have found that because of his security measures of preventing vandalism on pages, that Wikipedia is more accurate than I had assumed in the first place.  Prior to listening to Wales speak about this universal encyclopedia, I had found it to be a website based upon inaccurate information in which no one analyzed for truthfulness and facts.  I believe that by watching this video and looking up random pages after class, I was fascinated by the reliability after fact checking through other sources.