A fellow MLS student forwarded this website on: “The Hollywood Librarian: A Look at Librarians Through Film.” While the documentary has a heavy slant towards public libraries, they do go into private and special librarians and their importance to the fields they serve.
(You can watch the entire thing as a preview through the Online Store’s website, if you don’t feel like buying it.)
Website here.
Jamie Sunnycalb at Charlotte Law School called in to inform us of an error. “Langer on Practical International Tax Planning” release # 16 from October has a misprint in the filing instructions.
The pink pages tells users to file 72-1 to 73-13, pages that weren’t included. The instructions should have read:
Remove pages
73-1 to 73-13
Insert new pages
73-1 to 73-13
Thank you, Jamie, for bringing it to our attention!
Sunday’s New York Times has an article about the changing role of librarians in this new digital age. While the article has a focus on school media specialists, it is an interesting read, and a great bit of visibility for the profession.
It also discusses some of the challenges that librarians face today; balancing an ever-shrinking budget with an ever-expanding amount of information, and the need for a trained professional to filter out the relevant content.
(It’s also the second most emailed article of the day!)
Article here.
And to off-set that bit of negativity, here’s a list of PC World’s Top 50 Gadgets.
A great list full of some pretty awesome items (and moments of great nostalgia– remember the “Speak and Spell”?)
PC World has an interesting list of “The 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time.” Librarians being the charge leaders in this new age of technology and gadgets, I thought you might find it interesting to take a look back at those technological advances that almost made it but, for whatever reason, didn’t quite get off the ground.
Article here.
Britannica has announced that it will start to wikify its online content (though they don’t use that term/mock it and Wikipedia–“Wikipedia contributes to the spread of information and many people are happy with it as their only source of reference – as are many people happy to eat McDonalds every day.” ) to allow registered users to submit changes to Britannica article. The catch/way that this is different from Wikipedia?
a) Britannica will check on the accuracy of all changes/articles before changes can be viewed
b) You have to pay money to access the site and edit the site.
So while it might not be an economical investment for students or those who aren’t relying on accurate information to win a court case/prepare a brief/perform research, it might be worth looking into if you want guaranteed accurate content with an old-school brand name.
Article here.
Just found this helpful new search engine aggregator, LeapFish. Searches the span of Google, Yahoo, MSN, with separate search results for websites, blogs, videos, etc.
Very cool, very easy to use, and nicely designed.