Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Questions (not edit requests)
>
Goodreads Listopia
258 edited259 - no idea
260 - needs rivka
261 -sorted
#259 Sterekhttp://fanlore.org/wiki/Derek_Hale/St...
So these are Listopias based on (mostly) fanfic based on two characters from a TV series based on a movie. There are certainly worse reasons for having a Listopia. I'd leave them.
#260 last edited by an employee only 2 days ago. {runs away}.
Dinosaur BDSM Erotica???
#261, and so obviously not the author touting his book.
Mod
There are 6 different lists using the word "microhistory" to describe a genre or in academic terms "subfield" of historical writing. The first one has over 800 books on it, and only 15 of them have anything to do with microhistory. This is because the actual definition on the list is wrong, referring to microhistory as "the social history of just one thing."I can't see it on the change log now, but when I first viewed it, but the original list-maker got there by changing the definition of the word microhistory in order to fit the popular books by Mark Kurlansky and others about single ordinary subjects such as Salt, Cod, etc.
This new definition of the word has now replaced the original meaning of the word for probably the majority of readers who are not professional historians as the list has also become a reference cited by online reviewers and public librarians. Microhistory existed before these general books about single topics and refers to a different kind of historical writing entirely.
It has become a bit of a Quixotic quest, but I have been going around the internet trying to fix this problem to get people to see the earlier meaning of microhistory. I also created a list on listopia which uses the correct definition and includes both major examples (Ginzburg's The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-century Miller which doesn't appear on the first microhistory list even though it is the genre defining example ) and some theoretical works by microhistorians as well as more recent and popular examples of books that are sort of close to microhistory (some of Erik Larson's work comes close). Some of Jill Lepore's work might also. Here is an article about her that explains why: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/articl...
"The Cheese and the Worms" does appear on that list (which I believe you are calling the first microhistory list, the one with 893 books on it, created November 10, 2008). I know because I voted for it, eons ago now.I don't want to belabor this issue forever (I'd like to stop now, really), but maybe you should just concentrate on the microhistory list you created, since it seems to be the only one that can satisfy your very stringent definition of microhistory. I would be in favor of culling some of the books on the 893-list that use much too wide an understanding of microhistory, but I certainly don't want to see the list shrunk down to a tiny handful of books.
(adding this comment to the list, too)
Someone, attempting to "correct" the list has deleted The Cheese and the Worms - not because I changed the list title - but because the list was created in order to include general topical histories, not microhistories as historians know them. One person even commented in the list discussion, before I even showed up there, that books about single events and biographies should be deleted from the list because they are not "sweeping histories of just one thing" which is the definition of microhistory according to this list. That definition is just wrong. This is why I thought the solution would really be to just change the title to something more close to the subtitle, the spirit of the original list-maker, while preserving the definition of the word microhistory as it was originally intended.
You can call the definition stringent if you want. It is an academic term and it comes from an academic subfield. It's not *my* definition.
The Cheese and the Worms is on the list - #150, p. 2.I agreed that sweeping is the wrong adjective to use - that's why I removed it from the description.
I understand that microhistory is an academic term and that you did not coin the term or craft the definition. However, not everyone who studies history agrees with such a stringent definition of microhistory as you. That's what I'm referring to when I say your definition is overly stringent. Basically what I'm saying is, among definitions of microhistory, it makes sense to use one of the broader definitions, otherwise the list shrinks down to virtually nothing.
(Finis.)
You can be done with this issue, but I am not. I am not being excessively stringent. The definition posted here is wrong by historical standards. There are plenty of microhistories. None of them are topical studies of cancer, marriage, bad manners, pencils, or forms of food. There are websites, journals and classes about this type of writing - and some include lengthy bibliographies (again, please see microhistory.org) . These indicate quite clearly that the ballpark definition of the term has nothing to do with the definition posted here whether you include the word "sweeping" in the title or not. It wouldn't matter except that people read this definition as correct and from here it has spread so the original meaning of the term has been lost.
Lobstergirl wrote: "The Cheese and the Worms is on the list - #150, p. 2.glad to see that the book is still there. I missed it in my scanning of the list yesterday. I suppose that's something that we agree on.
Mod
?"
It's a homeschooling method, or rather a subset thereof.
Mod
Personal listopia: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7..."p.s.- This is a private list I made for my own personal growth. However, feel free to comment."
Here is a list about a specific book, the only purpose for which seems to be to make the obscure book appear along other more popular books. Would this pass as appropriate use of Listopia?
Mod
Are these lists ok to leave or should they be cleared out? Or will they automatically be taken care of?https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8...
Also, out of curiosity - are there any language rules for lists?
Either way, I think this may be a personal list - the description says "江平 最喜欢的书" - google translate says that's Jiang Ping's Favorite books. Jiang Ping is the list creator. https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1...
Personal lists? https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/5...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8...
Personal - the list is named after the maker: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6...
Title needs cleared up - definitely don't follow goodreads guidelines (hence why no one else has voted for them - it takes a minute to even figure out what they are! )
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/7... (favorite series with kick*ss female heroines)
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8... (science fiction books)
I'm sorry because I'm sure this has been answered before, but what do we do about duplicate lists, i.e., there are at least three listopias for Buzzfeed's 65 books to read in your twenties:https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/3...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/3...
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/4...
Thanks!
Paula wrote: "??https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8..."
What's the point? That's what your to-read shelf is for. Which has unlimited space, unlike a listopia.
Lobstergirl wrote: "Paula wrote: "??https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8..."
What's the point? That's what your to-read shelf is for. Which has unlimited space, unlike a listopia."
She has a private profile (with a nice piccie of Gloria Jean) so having the books on a Listopia allow her to share the books with us without going entirely public. Makes some sort of sense.
Question: she refers to another list but is there a way to find that other list?
^I think she was referring to her shelf or shelves, not another listopia.
Banjomike wrote: "She has a private profile (with a nice piccie of Gloria Jean) so having the books on a Listopia allow her to share the books with us without going entirely public. Makes some sort of sense."Not really. "Sharing" your to-read list with others makes a listopia personal, which it's not supposed to be.
I'm in favor of deleting that one.
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8...Looks like the list was created to promote one single book. The list has two voters and now contains many other books besides that single book; delete list? Or rewrite title and description.
Hello, could someone remove "The Long Good Boy" from this list? After some research I determined it does not fit the criteria of the list: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/9... Thank you!
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1...Anyone know who Robin Ali is and what it has to do with the list?
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/1...A 'recommended reading order' isn't really an appropriate use of a listopia....delete?
Tool is a musical artist--maybe they reference books in their lyrics? I have no idea.
The Tool one is definitely about the band. The names in the tags are band members.
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/4...Per description, list is supposed to be limited to 13 books. It has 18. Maybe it needs to be a static list?
Looks like 295-299 were completed.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
But the book is not going to be published until the year 2105, so is it really eligible f..."
mistyped publication year - fixed