Now Playing Tracks

There’s a potential for a digital humanities that holds toward data the same vexed, impossible loyalty with which media scholars honor the photographic image. In this version of digital humanities, scholars would view data neither as fully adequate to reality nor as necessarily mendacious, but as one moment, a slice of time and space. The best work would not be the most comprehensive — just as the best films are not the most verismilitudinous — but that which exhibits the most sophistication, the most humanity, in making the leap from fact to narrative.

Digital humanities and the allure of the absurd

ethiopienne:

We Read Too is a book resource app created by Kaya Thomas (@kthomas901) that includes over 300 Children’s and YA books written by authors of color featuring characters of color. You can browse, search, view the details of every book as well as suggest any books that should be added in the app. This resource is for all people of color who have felt misrepresented or forgotten when finding books to read.

Help the app grow by downloading it for free here (http://bit.ly/1mUfe2F), rating and reviewing the app, and suggesting new books & genres that should be included! Follow @WeReadTooApp on twitter and like Facebook page at facebook.com/WeReadTooApp for updates. 

On Monday California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 609–the California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act. The law requires that research articles created with funds from the California Department of Public Health be made publicly available in an online repository no later than 12 months after publication in a peer-reviewed journal. AB 609 is described as the first state-level law requiring free access to publicly funded research. It is similar to the federal National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy.

California enacts law to increase public access to publicly funded research

When publishers can demand whatever they wish
of authors, the free exchange of ideas is replaced
by suppression, democracy ceases, and it becomes
increasingly necessary to resist censorship, as seen when
it took an editorial board’s threatened resignation before
Taylor & Francis printed an article critical of publishers
(Jump, 2014)

Indeed, even as some publishers have begun to respond
to the appeal of open access, they have done so in ways
that profit them. Publisher support for open access and
self-archiving by authors is less than stable, since
“publishers are free to change their level of support
for self-archiving and they do, sometimes many years
later. Policies that appear stable could change in the
future… .For-profit policies appear designed to
thwart the green route to open access and incentivize
the alternative: paid open access publishing.” (Covey,
2013, p. 7)
This was certainly our experience.
Chilton, G, Thomas, J. (2014). A Tragicomedy of Communication and Information Dissemination Fails. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 2(3):eP1171. http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1171 
When librarians talk about a commons it is almost always about “the stuff in the space” – whereas communities are about “people doing stuff together.” I’m trying to move away from a focus on serving “the user” and instead trying to appreciate that we engage and support a multitude of different people with diverse and different needs. Our libraries are different things to different people. We cannot be everything to everyone, but we can be very good at being some things to many people.

Why do people who love libraries love libraries?

h/t makeithappenday

(via thelifeguardlibrarian)

We make Tumblr themes