Some things that caught my eye this week:
- ELLE Magazine, You’ve Got Mindy. I want Minday Kaling’s life. But not in a creepy stalker way! I’m way too lazy for that.
- I also love Kaling’s blog, Things I’ve Bought that I Love (yeah, I know that was the title of her old, dead blog, and her new one has a different name, but I still think of it this way, since that’s what most of the posts are), although we don’t really have the same taste in things. I totally want to hang out with her. Her blog and her Twitter feed make her seem so fun and accessible. From a recent post (but really, you should just go read them all):
Wanting to change your wardrobe frequently means that most of my clothes can’t be expensive. That’s totally fine by me, because I don’t like the pressure of not getting fancy clothes lost, stolen or Tabasco’d. Yeah, Rick Owens is fabulous, but am I really going to go to my job as a COMEDY WRITER IN THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY and wear some haute couture leather leggings and booties? In a perfect world where all the writers on my staff have their same brains but look like Serena and Blair from Gossip Girl, yes. But that’s not my life. Whenever I get too fashion-y, someone on my staff says “Why do you look like a Sister Wife?” or “Oh, are there auditions for the Rhythm Nation video again?”
- Note Bene, Oh, How I Love Irony: Citing to Wikipedia. Interesting post that covers a lot of ground (well, a lot of ground on the topic of legal citing to Wikipedia), including these points, which I regularly attempt to impress upon students:
In his posting, Mr. Cruse briefly acknowledges that there is a difference, especially in legal writing, between accuracy and authority, and he comes to the conclusion that “a crowdsourced reference [such as Wikipedia] can be extremely valuable as a place to start deeper research or for information more generally known” (emphasis added).
Although I believe there are many reasons why one should not cite to Wikipedia, the lack of quality control, even of a “crowdsourced reference”, ranks pretty high for me. I believe that all authors, whether of scholarly works, of appellate briefs, or even of blogs, owe their audiences a duty to make sure, to the best of their abilities, that the information they are disseminating is accurate. If the facts they pass on are accurate, then, ultimately, I really don’t care where the authors got their information (although knowing the source can either alleviate or elevate my anxiety about relying on an author’s assertion). It should be obvious that going to the original source for verification (or as close to the original source as one can get) should be the best practice.
There’s also a geeky discussion about the Bluebook that I enjoy.
- Law Librarian Blog, Right-sizing Academic Law Library Print Collections in and for the 21st Century: Cornell substituting print with digital like “all other top law schools are doing” but consequences need to be addressed. Some gems:
Eventually, no client will pay for firm e-research spending.
The difference between academic libraries, particularly ones which other law librarians hold an antiquated tradition-bound perception that assumes our “great academic law libraries” will provide extensive research collections, and law firm libraries is the 21st century transformation of academic law library collection development mission statements. Academic law libraries are becoming just as institutional user focused as law firm and corporate legal department libraries have always been.
The notion that major academic law libraries are supposed to maintain the greatest print collections accessible to all researchers does not reflect the realities of the 21st century now and that will
probablymost certainly increase in the near future to encompass more substitute p- for e- secondary materials.
Hope you’re all enjoying the tail end of a long weekend!