- Sep 2022
tions will not always fit without inconvenience intotheir proper place ; and the scheme of classification,once adopted, is rigid, and can only be modifiedwith difficulty. Many librarians used to draw uptheir catalogues on this plan, which is now uni-versally condemned.
Others, well understanding the advantages of systematic classification, have proposed to fit their materials, as fast as collected, into their appropriate places in a prearranged scheme. For this purpose they use notebooks of which every page has first been provided with a heading. Thus all the entries of the same kind are close to one another. This system leaves something to be desired; for addi
The use of a commonplace method for historical research is marked as a poor choice because:<br /> The topics with similar headings may be close together, but ideas may not ultimately fit into their pre-allotted spaces.<br /> The classification system may be too rigid as ideas change and get modified over time.
They mention that librarians used to catalog books in this method, but that they realized that their system would be out of date almost immediately. (I've got some notes on this particular idea to which this could be directly linked as evidence.)
- Apr 2021
Dr Duncan Robertson. ‘The JCVI/MHRA Recommendation to Restrict Oxford/AZ in under-30s in the UK (Where There Is “low” Exposure Risk) Is consistent with the EMA Recommendation Not to Do so in Europe (Where There Is “Medium” or “High” Exposure Risk) Meaning the Risk/Benefit Balance Changes. Https://T.Co/C6SS9oN3Vz’. Tweet. @Dr_D_Robertson (blog), 7 April 2021. https://twitter.com/Dr_D_Robertson/status/1379808945750085643.
- Mar 2021
In a 1772 letter to Joseph Priestley, Franklin lays out the earliest known description of the Pro & Con list, a common decision-making technique, now sometimes called a decisional balance sheet:
I still use this method today. In my job, we use it to decide on possible courses of action - weighing the pros and cons of each against another.
- Jul 2020
- Jun 2020
Bailey, R. (2020, May 19). Why we need the human touch in contact tracing for coronavirus. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/why-we-need-the-human-touch-in-contact-tracing-for-coronavirus-137933
- transmission range
- pros and cons
- data sharing
- manual tracing
- contact tracing
- May 2019
- I wanted to highlight the previous sentence as well, but for some reason it wouldn't let me*
I understand why the author is troubled by the campaign's opinion of "It's not the search engines fault". It makes it seem as if there was nothing that could be done to stop promoting those ideas, and that if something is popular it will just have to be the result at the top.
This can be problematic, as people who were not initially searching that specific phrase may click through to read racist, sexist, homophobic, or biased information (to just name a few) that perpetuates inaccuracies and negative stereotypes. It provides easier access into dangerous thinking built on the foundations of racism, sexism, etc.
If the algorithms are changed or monitored to remove those negative searches, the people exposed to those ideas would decrease, which could help tear down the extreme communities that can build up from them.
While I do understand this view, I also think that system can be helpful too. All the search engine does is reflect the most popular searches, and if negative ideals are what people are searching, then we can become aware and direct their paths to more educational and unbiased sources. It could be interesting to see what would happen if someone clicked on a link that said "Women belong in the kitchen", that led them to results that spoke about equality and feminism.