04-Assignment+Four+(Weeding+Project)


 * ** WEEDED ITEMS ** ||

1. //Dictionary of World Literary Terms// by Joseph Twadell Shipley (1943)
 * Superseded: by a new edition and better sources
 * Elsewhere: there are numerous similar other books in the English department library and English department classrooms
 * Ugly: old, musty, faded—in comparison to similar books around it, very unsavory

2. //A Manuel for Writers, 4th Ed.// by Kate L.Turabian (1973)
 * Superseded: by numerous other editions of writing guides and research writing guides
 * Elsewhere: the material may be easily borrowed from English classrooms, may be provided to students during projects, and may be accessed easily and largely online

3. //Language of Life// by Bill Moyers (1995)
 * Copy: two identical editions of this little-used book sit side by side on the shelf

4. //Pelican Guide to English Literature// by Boris Ford (a seven part series) (1974)
 * Superseded: the literature contained in this series is superseded by new and different sources
 * Ugly: pages seemingly no longer glued to the binding but rather just held together by the pressure of the book covers

5. //She Stoops to Conquer// by Oliver Goldsmith (1964)
 * Ugly: it seems this book might be eternally neglected because it is faded, worn, taped over, and difficult to read the spine

6. //Catcher in the Rye Cliff’s Notes// (2000)
 * Elsewhere: the material may be easily accessed online

7. //Great Writers of the English Language: Novelists// (1979)
 * Elsewhere: this information can be found in other books in the collection as well as in the library’s subscription-based online databases

8. //Murder Ink: The Mystery Reader’s Companion// (1977)
 * Ugly: largely worn out
 * Its huge size makes it look like it would be more comfortable in the reference section
 * It was last checked out in 1992

9. //Alarms and Diversions// by James Thurber (1957)
 * Last checked out: unknown
 * Ugly: worn out and seeming to invite ridicule rather than reading

10. //More Great Racing Stories// (Dick Francis, editor) (1991)
 * Trivial: of little discernible merit to the user group
 * Last checked out: 1993


 * ** REFLECTION ** ||

My school’s TL notes that the criteria embodied in MUSTIE, as outlined in the //School District No. 36 (Surrey) Teacher-Librarian Handbook// are a sound overview to follow for weeding principles. She says that she essentially follows those criteria. She also noted these additional criteria that she keeps in mind while weeding:
 * Rarely get rid of poetry (because the library is one of the few places it will be available to students)
 * Do not get rid of literary terms dictionaries (I am not entirely sure why)

As mentioned in an earlier LIBE 463 group discussion forum, my school's "library policy" book includes one 3-page article (with the middle page missing) from the Summer 1982 publication of //School Libraries in Canada//. This article, from what I can see, comprises the whole of the library policy binder's mentions on the topic of weeding. As such, MUSTIE—in addition to the qualitative details gleaned from recent course readings and the above-summarized discussion with my school’s TL—guided my weeding efforts for the most part.

As also mentioned in earlier LIBE 463 assignments, the 800s section of my school library was very recently—winter of 2012—weeded very thoroughly. The reader of this wiki may recall that—in addition to a thorough weeding—the books that were weeded have been accessioned onto the classroom shelves of the author of this wiki. It is important to note that such a thorough weeding of the 800s had not occurred in this library since at least 2005, which is the earliest date I can definitively speak to with authority (as that is when I arrived at the school). The fact that this weeding occurred just months before I took this course and undertook this weeding project has, of course, affected the shape and texture of my weeding experience. First of all, as I took a look at the collection from afar, I noticed right away the open space on many shelves in the 800s stacks, suggesting that this particular collection had not been left to balloon to an unwieldy and unusable size over the years. Secondly, as I took a closer look at the physical collection on the shelf, my thoughts were two-fold: 1) there is not //a lot// of excess here that could easily be identified as weedable (no easily identifiable books that make the weeder exclaim internally something like, //Oh my gosh—really!?// That //book is here?!)//, and 2) at the same time, a careful examination of the collection can still reveal books that could possibly be weeded. This second thought lends fodder for questions such as, “How large of a role does subjectivity play in the process of weeding?” “Can we guess as to the demographics or personal preferences of a librarian by reviewing his or her collection?” (of course the answer should be an emphatic “no”—we should only be able to discern the needs and preferences of the community group served by the collection by surveying the collection—but it is in the weeding process that I began to see the tension inherent in the process and, as such, the need for professional distance and perspective in the process of weeding). Though my experience weeding this collection was directly affected by the TL’s recent weeding of the 800s, these effects were not entirely negative: there was something lovely about being the user of a collection that had obviously been tended to. It was something like the opposite of Hamlet’s Denmark: the //well-weeded// garden.