82,891
edits
Obsolescence: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
===Use-case obsolescence: the [[Dewey decimal system]]=== | ===Use-case obsolescence: the [[Dewey decimal system]]=== | ||
The Dewey system is — but for most intents and purposes ''was'' — a [[taxonomy]] for physical libraries. You have to arrange a library somehow, and Dewey was the fellow that devised the system which most intuitively organised did that. For years, schoolboys like me knew to head immediately to [[001.9]] for MYTSERIES AND THE UNKNOWN. | |||
But Dewey’s was an arbitrary intellectual commitment to order for the sake of it, a little bit like the layout of a QWERTY keyboard. It didn’t mean to do anything other than help users find books they were looking for, and librarians put them back. | |||
Now, to those who jump at the shadows of power structures lurking in our language, to taxonomise is to narratise, is to commit to a power structure. So, ''bad''. But in a world of physical books, still, a necessary evil — you have to organise ''somehow''. But in a networked world of digital books, not just unnecessary but ''meaningless''. We can categorise ditigal information however we like. | |||
So, we don’t hear much about the Dewey decimal system these days: it is [[obsolete]]. Its demise was driven by the lack of a viable use-case. Outside of physical libraries (''are'' there still such things?) We no longer need it. Those who had it now found they could do perfectly well without it. | |||
===Competition obsolescence: Sony Betamax=== | ===Competition obsolescence: Sony Betamax=== | ||