User:Simonides/Peeves: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m →ISBNs |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== |
== ISBNs == |
||
I wrote this earlier at the Village Pump (spread the word!): ''I am quite opposed to the idea of using ISBNs, because they are misleading. An ISBN usually points to a single edition of a book, not to a title - the edition may be out of print, it may only be available in a certain country, it may be more expensive, it may be harder to find than other widely available editions, it may be out of date, it may not be in the original language, and so on. I think everyone should include only the title and authors, and the year of printing should refer either to 1) year of copyright on latest paperback copy or 2) year of copyright on first printing (perhaps both) and the language should be specified (ex. do not include original copyright year of German publication for a translated English title.)'' |
I wrote this earlier at the Village Pump (spread the word!): ''I am quite opposed to the idea of using ISBNs, because they are misleading. An ISBN usually points to a single edition of a book, not to a title - the edition may be out of print, it may only be available in a certain country, it may be more expensive, it may be harder to find than other widely available editions, it may be out of date, it may not be in the original language, and so on. I think everyone should include only the title and authors, and the year of printing should refer either to 1) year of copyright on latest paperback copy or 2) year of copyright on first printing (perhaps both) and the language should be specified (ex. do not include original copyright year of German publication for a translated English title.)'' |
||
* I also remembered that ISBNs were introduced in 1970 - anything published earlier that was not reprinted would not have an ISBN and would require a bibliographic record anyway. |
* I also remembered that ISBNs were introduced in 1970 - anything published earlier that was not reprinted would not have an ISBN and would require a bibliographic record anyway. |
||
Revision as of 08:43, 26 July 2004
ISBNs
I wrote this earlier at the Village Pump (spread the word!): I am quite opposed to the idea of using ISBNs, because they are misleading. An ISBN usually points to a single edition of a book, not to a title - the edition may be out of print, it may only be available in a certain country, it may be more expensive, it may be harder to find than other widely available editions, it may be out of date, it may not be in the original language, and so on. I think everyone should include only the title and authors, and the year of printing should refer either to 1) year of copyright on latest paperback copy or 2) year of copyright on first printing (perhaps both) and the language should be specified (ex. do not include original copyright year of German publication for a translated English title.)
- I also remembered that ISBNs were introduced in 1970 - anything published earlier that was not reprinted would not have an ISBN and would require a bibliographic record anyway.
- I think ISBNs are acceptable if you can be sure there is only one edition of that work around, ex. the ISBN of a Loeb Classics volume which is not available in any other format or from other publishers.
More coming soon
- Americocentrism, or more subtly Anglo-Americocentrism
- Lack of consistency - categories, lists, etc
- Foreign titles where ones in English have long been in use
- Correcting redirects
- POV pushers
- Lack of user-friendly approaches to sorting basic information
- Useless search function
- Reluctance to work on and/or slow response to new possibilities and initiatives