![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, apparently cramming is good for something.
Have realized, while cramming for today's midterm (t-minus 168 minutes) that I am, yes, really in the right school and headed for the right profession, as I finally got around to reading an assigned article from a few weeks ago, Marcia Bates's "Rigorous Systematic Bibliography."
I mean, how can you not love this? Or at least, how can I not love it?
I was so excited about that part I had to quote it to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
iuliamentis, and then spend a couple of minutes convincing her that I was SERIOUS about being madly in love with it. But I am.
And then, um, I
dsudis: Mmmm, Rigorous Systematic Bibliography...
iuliamentis: ...that would make a great band name *g*
iulia: What is that the title of?
Dira: An article we were assigned that I hadn't read until just now.
iulia: Sounds like a page-turner :)
DiraSudis: Dude, it was so fucking awesome. I want to prepare a rigorous systematic bibliography of something right now.
iulia: *giggles*
iulia: You'll just have to restrain yourself. Somehow *g*
Dira: I'm serious! THIS IS MY JOB!
Dira: *koffs*
iulia: What exactly is entailed in preparing a rigious systematic bibliography?
Dira: well.
Dira: Let me tell you.
Dira: First off, naturally, it has to be a bibliography, i.e. an organized sequence of pointer information to some type of media items.
iulia: *nods*
iulia: (*admires teh jargon*)
Dira: Then it has to be systematic, which is to say, not analytic: so it's a brief listing of information on the entities described, not a long exploration of every little thing about them - in an effort to just establish a listing, rather than to provide a ton of information.
iuliamentis: So it would be a good starting point for research, then.
Dira: And then, in order to be rigorous, it needs to state, and adhere to, its own specifications: it needs to define, for example, the domain from which entities were drawn, the scope of entities that were included, and whatever selection principles were employed.
iuliamentis: Ooh, that sounds nice. It would be all uniform and tidy.
Dira: So: In preparing this bibliography, I examined the fanfiction.net "Numb3rs" directory, the memories at numb3rs_slash, and viggorlijah's numb3rs tags on del.ic.io.us.
Dira: That would define domain.
Dira: scope would be: This bibliography covers all readable-quality Don/Charlie fics.
Dira: Selection principles would be: how do I define "readable-quality" ? How do I define "Don/Charlie" for that matter? pre-slash? smarm? ratings? lengths?
Dira: etc.
iulia: The selections would be almost meaningless if the user didn't know how they were selected.
Dira: Right!
Dira: So, in order to be rigorous, you have to both arrive at those principles and stick to them, and then state them for the user, so they can know exactly what is and is not in your bibliography.
iulia: Okay, so, maybe I'm a giant dork as well, but that sounds so frickin' elegant, and useful and nifty.
Dira: *nodsnodsnodnsodnods*
iulia: I'd have killed to have something like that when I was doing my initial research :)
Dira: *grins*
Dira: And it's useful, obviously, to the user, for the reasons you stated, but also to the ideal of bibliographic control, i.e. knowing everything that's out there: because then some other bibliographer can know which territory you've already covered and how to fill in the blanks.
iulia: *nodsnodsnods*
iulia: It would prevent needless duplication of records and such.
Dira: And, in short, now I desperately want an essay question relating to this article, so I can babble about how FUCKING AWESOME rigorous systematic bibliography is.
Dira: ...though possibly not in quite those terms.
But! I think I scored a convert. So I win.
PS: naked curlers.
I mean, how can you not love this? Or at least, how can I not love it?
Every blind lead in a bibliography, every misfiled catalog card, is a clog in the flow of information. We have blocked information transfer, not aided it. A mistake, therefore, in handling or describing information is not just a mistake, it is a small defeat of the very purpose of our profession.
I was so excited about that part I had to quote it to
iuliamentis, and then spend a couple of minutes convincing her that I was SERIOUS about being madly in love with it. But I am. And then, um, I
dsudis: Mmmm, Rigorous Systematic Bibliography...iuliamentis: ...that would make a great band name *g*iulia: What is that the title of?
Dira: An article we were assigned that I hadn't read until just now.
iulia: Sounds like a page-turner :)
DiraSudis: Dude, it was so fucking awesome. I want to prepare a rigorous systematic bibliography of something right now.
iulia: *giggles*
iulia: You'll just have to restrain yourself. Somehow *g*
Dira: I'm serious! THIS IS MY JOB!
Dira: *koffs*
iulia: What exactly is entailed in preparing a rigious systematic bibliography?
Dira: well.
Dira: Let me tell you.
Dira: First off, naturally, it has to be a bibliography, i.e. an organized sequence of pointer information to some type of media items.
iulia: *nods*
iulia: (*admires teh jargon*)
Dira: Then it has to be systematic, which is to say, not analytic: so it's a brief listing of information on the entities described, not a long exploration of every little thing about them - in an effort to just establish a listing, rather than to provide a ton of information.
iuliamentis: So it would be a good starting point for research, then.
Dira: And then, in order to be rigorous, it needs to state, and adhere to, its own specifications: it needs to define, for example, the domain from which entities were drawn, the scope of entities that were included, and whatever selection principles were employed.
iuliamentis: Ooh, that sounds nice. It would be all uniform and tidy.
Dira: So: In preparing this bibliography, I examined the fanfiction.net "Numb3rs" directory, the memories at numb3rs_slash, and viggorlijah's numb3rs tags on del.ic.io.us.
Dira: That would define domain.
Dira: scope would be: This bibliography covers all readable-quality Don/Charlie fics.
Dira: Selection principles would be: how do I define "readable-quality" ? How do I define "Don/Charlie" for that matter? pre-slash? smarm? ratings? lengths?
Dira: etc.
iulia: The selections would be almost meaningless if the user didn't know how they were selected.
Dira: Right!
Dira: So, in order to be rigorous, you have to both arrive at those principles and stick to them, and then state them for the user, so they can know exactly what is and is not in your bibliography.
iulia: Okay, so, maybe I'm a giant dork as well, but that sounds so frickin' elegant, and useful and nifty.
Dira: *nodsnodsnodnsodnods*
iulia: I'd have killed to have something like that when I was doing my initial research :)
Dira: *grins*
Dira: And it's useful, obviously, to the user, for the reasons you stated, but also to the ideal of bibliographic control, i.e. knowing everything that's out there: because then some other bibliographer can know which territory you've already covered and how to fill in the blanks.
iulia: *nodsnodsnods*
iulia: It would prevent needless duplication of records and such.
Dira: And, in short, now I desperately want an essay question relating to this article, so I can babble about how FUCKING AWESOME rigorous systematic bibliography is.
Dira: ...though possibly not in quite those terms.
But! I think I scored a convert. So I win.
PS: naked curlers.