Just another blog by an ambiguously-gendered primeval monster.

Likes: terrorizing mortals; libraries; serious eyeshadow; chain wallets; suspiciously lifelike marble statues

Dislikes: people who aren't statues yet; bros; Perseus

23rd April 2014

Photo reblogged from Jen Bekman Projects: 20x200 | JBG | HHS! with 167 notes

jenbekmanprojects:

In The Library by Tatsuro KiuchiPaired: Tatsuro Kiuchi + Charles Simic 
In the LibraryThere’s a book called "A Dictionary of Angels." No one has opened it in fifty years, I know, because when I did, The covers creaked, the pages Crumbled. There I discovered The angels were once as plentiful As species of flies. The sky at dusk Used to be thick with them. You had to wave both arms Just to keep them away. Now the sun is shining Through the tall windows. The library is a quiet place. Angels and gods huddled In dark unopened books. The great secret lies On some shelf Miss JonesPasses every day on her rounds. She’s very tall, so she keeps Her head tipped as if listening. The books are whispering. I hear nothing, but she does.Charles Simic

In celebration of National Poetry Month, we’re introducing a new series called Paired, which will feature a 20x200 edition alongside a poem selected by a team member, friend, or collector each day in April. Submissions are welcome! Please write us at hello@20x200.com.

jenbekmanprojects:

In The Library by Tatsuro Kiuchi

PairedTatsuro Kiuchi + Charles Simic 

In the Library

There’s a book called 

"A Dictionary of Angels." 
No one has opened it in fifty years, 
I know, because when I did, 
The covers creaked, the pages 
Crumbled. There I discovered 

The angels were once as plentiful 
As species of flies. 
The sky at dusk 
Used to be thick with them. 
You had to wave both arms 
Just to keep them away. 

Now the sun is shining 
Through the tall windows. 
The library is a quiet place. 
Angels and gods huddled 
In dark unopened books. 
The great secret lies 
On some shelf Miss Jones
Passes every day on her rounds. 

She’s very tall, so she keeps 
Her head tipped as if listening. 
The books are whispering. 
I hear nothing, but she does.

Charles Simic



In celebration of National Poetry Month, we’re introducing a new series called Paired, which will feature a 20x200 edition alongside a poem selected by a team member, friend, or collector each day in April. Submissions are welcome! Please write us at hello@20x200.com.

Tagged: poetryartlibrarianshipbooks

17th April 2014

Photo reblogged from it's cow. moo. with 450 notes

criacow:

gorgonetta:

[Graphic of an older version of Encyclopedia Britannica, with inset text claiming that it is a compendium of reference books containing the most current information about the USSR.  Logo at the bottom reads “TL;DR Wikipedia.”]
Sure, but stuff like this is why people caution against Wikipedia: blatant personal bias passed off as fact, using shitty research and partial truths.  As a matter of fact, the Britannica does contain the most up to date info on the USSR.  It also contains the most up to date info on Fritz Lang, Pope Urban VII, and the Mayan pyramids, but we since those are clearly historical examples, it would make the OP look like an ass to use them instead, right?  So instead they pretended that current editions of the Britannica still refer to the USSR as an existing state, when that’s not even a smart lie.
In my cold, reptilian claws, at this very moment, is the Index (L-Z) of the 2010 Britannica.  When looking in the index for the USSR, this is what one finds:
U.S.S.R. (hist. state, Eurasia) see Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Russia, or […] U.S.S.R. (hist. state, Eurasia)
See that “hist. state”?  The “hist.” doesn’t stand for “histrionic,” although the OP’s transparent attempts to denigrate standard reference sources and trained research professionals, no doubt to make up for some personal lack on their part, is pretty histrionic.  It stands for “historical,” because print reference media which is still in production tends to be updated at pretty frequent intervals, and articles on major topics will of course be altered as facts change.  Interest in the USSR didn’t end the minute it ceased to exist as a political entity; it has historical importance, as well as ramifications on events occurring in Eurasia right now.  It’s almost as if the OP, and other Wikipedia proponents, are lying by omission or something!
I don’t get the animosity from the OP and their ilk, who apparently perceive themselves as ~edgy~ in their embracing of crowdsourced information, despite the fact that people have been crowdsourcing information since time began; the problems inherent in crowdsourcing information are precisely why teachers, librarians, and researchers now frown on it.  The thing is, very few librarians are saying Wikipedia is evil, or that people should never use it.  Pretty much anyone with internet access and a modicum of savvy uses Wikipedia at some point, including librarians.  The speed with which it is updated, the breadth of coverage, and its willingness to address popular culture or topics not yet treated by many academic sources make it a valuable resource.  Like any encyclopedia, however, Wikipedia’s articles are of varying quality; additionally, since literally anyone can edit articles, there is little quality control regarding the qualifications of contributors.  “But we have crowdsourced editing!” Wikipedia proponents might say.  They do indeed, and often it produces very fine results, but that does not make it the equivalent of genuine peer review or expert editorial oversight, grounded both in academic understanding and a professional ethic that values accuracy and objectivity.
Until those are verifiably and consistently part of Wikipedia’s oversight process, Wikipedia is a “good-enough” source of information.  As such, it’s very useful.  It’s a place to learn about topics for personal interest.  It contains information that can introduce students to unfamiliar concepts, such as profession-specific jargon, historical events, or the context for newsworthy current events.  It is a springboard to further research in scholarly resources, which is usually expected of students and academics, who are (and should be) held to higher than a “good-enough” standard.
There’s a lot of positive things to be said about Wikipedia, but condemning reliable academic sources as “tl;dr” is shamefully anti-intellectual, and betrays that despite the high-mindedness of Wikipedia’s tone and supposed aims, their attitude, too, is that “good-enough” is acceptable.  “Too long, didn’t read this full article detailing original scientific research relevant to my doctoral thesis, decided to read watered-down, dumbed-down summary in a crowdsourced online encyclopedia instead”: is that really acceptable?  “Sure, I need to understand the complexities of the causes and outcomes of the Hundred Years War, but this nuanced, well-researched, lively book on the subject is just too long.  I’m not going to read that—I’m going to read a few pages at a crowdsourced online encyclopedia instead.  That will surely give me a depth of understanding matched only by the foremost scholars in the field!”  By holding itself up as something it’s not—a valid academic source that supposedly delivers all the information a person really needs to know about any given topic, Wikipedia is not only making claims for itself that are obviously untrue, but insulting the intellectual curiosity of its users.  By lying in the process, it’s revealing itself to have motives other than pure, and perhaps a lack of sureness about its superiority as an information resource.

yeah but tl;dr wikipedia is a parody thing; they don’t take things from wikipedia, they just make joking/pithy comments and make it look like a tiny wikipedia entry
see also, on their front page right now, “Greece is Europe’s Detroit” and “A cello is one half of the popular musical duo Yo Yo Ma”
in other words, it’s a joke, and has nothing to do with what actual wikipedia says; the actual wikipedia page doesn’t even mention the USSR

The point isn’t whether or not Wikipedia actually says this about the Britannica; the point is that the OP is using deliberately incorrect information about a print reference source, and by implication, traditional research skills and professionals, to claim that Wikipedia is better.  The real questions are “better for what?” and “better by what standards?”, both of which I addressed in my post—but I’m sure that for many people, tl;dr applies to anything multi-paragraph, or which challenges their current assumptions.

criacow:

gorgonetta:

[Graphic of an older version of Encyclopedia Britannica, with inset text claiming that it is a compendium of reference books containing the most current information about the USSR.  Logo at the bottom reads “TL;DR Wikipedia.”]

Sure, but stuff like this is why people caution against Wikipedia: blatant personal bias passed off as fact, using shitty research and partial truths.  As a matter of fact, the Britannica does contain the most up to date info on the USSR.  It also contains the most up to date info on Fritz Lang, Pope Urban VII, and the Mayan pyramids, but we since those are clearly historical examples, it would make the OP look like an ass to use them instead, right?  So instead they pretended that current editions of the Britannica still refer to the USSR as an existing state, when that’s not even a smart lie.

In my cold, reptilian claws, at this very moment, is the Index (L-Z) of the 2010 Britannica.  When looking in the index for the USSR, this is what one finds:

  • U.S.S.R. (hist. state, Eurasia) see Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
  • Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Russia, or […] U.S.S.R. (hist. state, Eurasia)

See that “hist. state”?  The “hist.” doesn’t stand for “histrionic,” although the OP’s transparent attempts to denigrate standard reference sources and trained research professionals, no doubt to make up for some personal lack on their part, is pretty histrionic.  It stands for “historical,” because print reference media which is still in production tends to be updated at pretty frequent intervals, and articles on major topics will of course be altered as facts change.  Interest in the USSR didn’t end the minute it ceased to exist as a political entity; it has historical importance, as well as ramifications on events occurring in Eurasia right now.  It’s almost as if the OP, and other Wikipedia proponents, are lying by omission or something!

I don’t get the animosity from the OP and their ilk, who apparently perceive themselves as ~edgy~ in their embracing of crowdsourced information, despite the fact that people have been crowdsourcing information since time began; the problems inherent in crowdsourcing information are precisely why teachers, librarians, and researchers now frown on it.  The thing is, very few librarians are saying Wikipedia is evil, or that people should never use it.  Pretty much anyone with internet access and a modicum of savvy uses Wikipedia at some point, including librarians.  The speed with which it is updated, the breadth of coverage, and its willingness to address popular culture or topics not yet treated by many academic sources make it a valuable resource.  Like any encyclopedia, however, Wikipedia’s articles are of varying quality; additionally, since literally anyone can edit articles, there is little quality control regarding the qualifications of contributors.  “But we have crowdsourced editing!” Wikipedia proponents might say.  They do indeed, and often it produces very fine results, but that does not make it the equivalent of genuine peer review or expert editorial oversight, grounded both in academic understanding and a professional ethic that values accuracy and objectivity.

Until those are verifiably and consistently part of Wikipedia’s oversight process, Wikipedia is a “good-enough” source of information.  As such, it’s very useful.  It’s a place to learn about topics for personal interest.  It contains information that can introduce students to unfamiliar concepts, such as profession-specific jargon, historical events, or the context for newsworthy current events.  It is a springboard to further research in scholarly resources, which is usually expected of students and academics, who are (and should be) held to higher than a “good-enough” standard.

There’s a lot of positive things to be said about Wikipedia, but condemning reliable academic sources as “tl;dr” is shamefully anti-intellectual, and betrays that despite the high-mindedness of Wikipedia’s tone and supposed aims, their attitude, too, is that “good-enough” is acceptable.  “Too long, didn’t read this full article detailing original scientific research relevant to my doctoral thesis, decided to read watered-down, dumbed-down summary in a crowdsourced online encyclopedia instead”: is that really acceptable?  “Sure, I need to understand the complexities of the causes and outcomes of the Hundred Years War, but this nuanced, well-researched, lively book on the subject is just too long.  I’m not going to read that—I’m going to read a few pages at a crowdsourced online encyclopedia instead.  That will surely give me a depth of understanding matched only by the foremost scholars in the field!”  By holding itself up as something it’s not—a valid academic source that supposedly delivers all the information a person really needs to know about any given topic, Wikipedia is not only making claims for itself that are obviously untrue, but insulting the intellectual curiosity of its users.  By lying in the process, it’s revealing itself to have motives other than pure, and perhaps a lack of sureness about its superiority as an information resource.

yeah but tl;dr wikipedia is a parody thing; they don’t take things from wikipedia, they just make joking/pithy comments and make it look like a tiny wikipedia entry

see also, on their front page right now, “Greece is Europe’s Detroit” and “A cello is one half of the popular musical duo Yo Yo Ma”

in other words, it’s a joke, and has nothing to do with what actual wikipedia says; the actual wikipedia page doesn’t even mention the USSR

The point isn’t whether or not Wikipedia actually says this about the Britannica; the point is that the OP is using deliberately incorrect information about a print reference source, and by implication, traditional research skills and professionals, to claim that Wikipedia is better.  The real questions are “better for what?” and “better by what standards?”, both of which I addressed in my post—but I’m sure that for many people, tl;dr applies to anything multi-paragraph, or which challenges their current assumptions.

Tagged: WHOOSHlibrarianship*sigh*\

Source: tldrwikipedia

16th April 2014

Photo reblogged from TL;DR Wikipedia with 450 notes

[Graphic of an older version of Encyclopedia Britannica, with inset text claiming that it is a compendium of reference books containing the most current information about the USSR.  Logo at the bottom reads “TL;DR Wikipedia.”]

Sure, but stuff like this is why people caution against Wikipedia: blatant personal bias passed off as fact, using shitty research and partial truths.  As a matter of fact, the Britannica does contain the most up to date info on the USSR.  It also contains the most up to date info on Fritz Lang, Pope Urban VII, and the Mayan pyramids, but we since those are clearly historical examples, it would make the OP look like an ass to use them instead, right?  So instead they pretended that current editions of the Britannica still refer to the USSR as an existing state, when that’s not even a smart lie.

In my cold, reptilian claws, at this very moment, is the Index (L-Z) of the 2010 Britannica.  When looking in the index for the USSR, this is what one finds:
U.S.S.R. (hist. state, Eurasia) see Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Russia, or […] U.S.S.R. (hist. state, Eurasia)
See that “hist. state”?  The “hist.” doesn’t stand for “histrionic,” although the OP’s transparent attempts to denigrate standard reference sources and trained research professionals, no doubt to make up for some personal lack on their own part, is pretty histrionic.  It stands for “historical,” because print reference media which is still in production tends to be updated at pretty frequent intervals, and articles on major topics will of course be altered as facts change.  Interest in the USSR didn’t end the minute it ceased to exist as a political entity; it has historical importance, as well as ramifications on events occurring in Eurasia right now.  It’s almost as if the OP, and other Wikipedia proponents, are lying by omission or something!

I don’t get the animosity from the OP and their ilk, who apparently perceive themselves as ~edgy~ in their embracing of crowdsourced information, despite the fact that people have been crowdsourcing information since time began; the problems inherent in crowdsourcing information are precisely why teachers, librarians, and researchers now frown on it.  The thing is, very few librarians are saying Wikipedia is evil, or that people should never use it.  Pretty much anyone with internet access and a modicum of savvy uses Wikipedia at some point, including librarians.  The speed with which it is updated, the breadth of coverage, and its willingness to address popular culture or topics not yet treated by many academic sources make it a valuable resource.  Like any encyclopedia, however, Wikipedia’s articles are of varying quality; additionally, since literally anyone can edit articles, there is little quality control regarding the qualifications of contributors.  “But we have crowdsourced editing!” Wikipedia proponents might say.  They do indeed, and often it produces very fine results, but that does not make it the equivalent of genuine peer review or expert editorial oversight, grounded both in academic understanding and a professional ethic that values accuracy and objectivity.

Until those are verifiably and consistently part of Wikipedia’s oversight process, Wikipedia is a “good-enough” source of information.  As such, it’s very useful.  It’s a place to learn about topics for personal interest.  It contains information that can introduce students to unfamiliar concepts, such as profession-specific jargon, historical events, or the context for newsworthy current events.  It is a springboard to further research in scholarly resources, which is usually expected of students and academics, who are (and should be) held to higher than a “good-enough” standard.

There’s a lot of positive things to be said about Wikipedia, but condemning reliable academic sources as “tl;dr” is shamefully anti-intellectual, and betrays that despite the high-mindedness of Wikipedia’s tone and supposed aims, their attitude, too, is that “good-enough” is acceptable.  “Too long, didn’t read this full article detailing original scientific research relevant to my doctoral thesis, decided to read watered-down, dumbed-down summary in a crowdsourced online encyclopedia instead”: is that really acceptable?  “Sure, I need to understand the complexities of the causes and outcomes of the Hundred Years War, but this nuanced, well-researched, lively book on the subject is just too long.  I’m not going to read that—I’m going to read a few pages at a crowdsourced online encyclopedia instead.  That will surely give me a depth of understanding matched only by the foremost scholars in the field!”  By holding itself up as something it’s not—a valid academic source that supposedly delivers all the information a person really needs to know about any given topic—Wikipedia is not only making claims for itself that are obviously untrue, but insulting the intellectual curiosity of its users.  By lying in the process, it’s revealing itself to have motives other than pure, and perhaps a lack of sureness about its superiority as an information resource.

[Graphic of an older version of Encyclopedia Britannica, with inset text claiming that it is a compendium of reference books containing the most current information about the USSR.  Logo at the bottom reads “TL;DR Wikipedia.”]

Sure, but stuff like this is why people caution against Wikipedia: blatant personal bias passed off as fact, using shitty research and partial truths.  As a matter of fact, the Britannica does contain the most up to date info on the USSR.  It also contains the most up to date info on Fritz Lang, Pope Urban VII, and the Mayan pyramids, but we since those are clearly historical examples, it would make the OP look like an ass to use them instead, right?  So instead they pretended that current editions of the Britannica still refer to the USSR as an existing state, when that’s not even a smart lie.

In my cold, reptilian claws, at this very moment, is the Index (L-Z) of the 2010 Britannica.  When looking in the index for the USSR, this is what one finds:

  • U.S.S.R. (hist. state, Eurasia) see Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
  • Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Russia, or […] U.S.S.R. (hist. state, Eurasia)

See that “hist. state”?  The “hist.” doesn’t stand for “histrionic,” although the OP’s transparent attempts to denigrate standard reference sources and trained research professionals, no doubt to make up for some personal lack on their own part, is pretty histrionic.  It stands for “historical,” because print reference media which is still in production tends to be updated at pretty frequent intervals, and articles on major topics will of course be altered as facts change.  Interest in the USSR didn’t end the minute it ceased to exist as a political entity; it has historical importance, as well as ramifications on events occurring in Eurasia right now.  It’s almost as if the OP, and other Wikipedia proponents, are lying by omission or something!

I don’t get the animosity from the OP and their ilk, who apparently perceive themselves as ~edgy~ in their embracing of crowdsourced information, despite the fact that people have been crowdsourcing information since time began; the problems inherent in crowdsourcing information are precisely why teachers, librarians, and researchers now frown on it.  The thing is, very few librarians are saying Wikipedia is evil, or that people should never use it.  Pretty much anyone with internet access and a modicum of savvy uses Wikipedia at some point, including librarians.  The speed with which it is updated, the breadth of coverage, and its willingness to address popular culture or topics not yet treated by many academic sources make it a valuable resource.  Like any encyclopedia, however, Wikipedia’s articles are of varying quality; additionally, since literally anyone can edit articles, there is little quality control regarding the qualifications of contributors.  “But we have crowdsourced editing!” Wikipedia proponents might say.  They do indeed, and often it produces very fine results, but that does not make it the equivalent of genuine peer review or expert editorial oversight, grounded both in academic understanding and a professional ethic that values accuracy and objectivity.

Until those are verifiably and consistently part of Wikipedia’s oversight process, Wikipedia is a “good-enough” source of information.  As such, it’s very useful.  It’s a place to learn about topics for personal interest.  It contains information that can introduce students to unfamiliar concepts, such as profession-specific jargon, historical events, or the context for newsworthy current events.  It is a springboard to further research in scholarly resources, which is usually expected of students and academics, who are (and should be) held to higher than a “good-enough” standard.

There’s a lot of positive things to be said about Wikipedia, but condemning reliable academic sources as “tl;dr” is shamefully anti-intellectual, and betrays that despite the high-mindedness of Wikipedia’s tone and supposed aims, their attitude, too, is that “good-enough” is acceptable.  “Too long, didn’t read this full article detailing original scientific research relevant to my doctoral thesis, decided to read watered-down, dumbed-down summary in a crowdsourced online encyclopedia instead”: is that really acceptable?  “Sure, I need to understand the complexities of the causes and outcomes of the Hundred Years War, but this nuanced, well-researched, lively book on the subject is just too long.  I’m not going to read that—I’m going to read a few pages at a crowdsourced online encyclopedia instead.  That will surely give me a depth of understanding matched only by the foremost scholars in the field!”  By holding itself up as something it’s not—a valid academic source that supposedly delivers all the information a person really needs to know about any given topic—Wikipedia is not only making claims for itself that are obviously untrue, but insulting the intellectual curiosity of its users.  By lying in the process, it’s revealing itself to have motives other than pure, and perhaps a lack of sureness about its superiority as an information resource.

Tagged: information literacylibrarianshipi call bullshitwikipedia

16th April 2014

Post with 18 notes

I was going to write a well-argued essay about why the Buzzfeed “reasons why librarians are cool” article is really problematic, but I’m tired, what with fighting institutionalized bullshit every fucking day at my job.  Instead, I’ll just point out that if you need to first vilify older women and mock the necessity for quiet, safety, and behavioral intervention in library spaces before talking about why [pick all that apply: young, male, hipster, lazy, flashy] librarians are “cool,” than you are not only an ignorant piece of shit, but you suffer from a stunning lack of creativity.  If you share such articles uncritically, especially in a work context, you are part of the fucking problem.

Tagged: librarianshiplibrariansageismgenderglass escalatorfauxbrarians

8th April 2014

Link with 4 notes

Professional Library Literature : simplebooklet.com →

Tagged: I'M CRYlibrarianshipexcept for the hypersexual lady librarians these are fucking gold

7th April 2014

Post with 22 notes

Apparently some fauxbrarian on HuffPo is making waves by talking about how the “academic library of the future” won’t have so many books.  LOL, I wonder if they know they’re also rendering themselves redundant and irrelevant by claiming that libraries should be places for contemplation?  You can’t contemplate when the asshole next to you is showing off the upskirt photos he just took to five of his guffawing dudebro friends, or when the woman on the other side of you has just spilled her sweet and sour chicken all over your backpack.  But behavior monitoring and correction is “beneath” the new modern librarian, see, especially those nice young men who wanted to be librarians because it’s “cool,” but got upset when they found out it actually entailed work—and worse, *girl* work, even *Mommy* work.  So now they say, “Well that’s not librarianship, and the library shouldn’t be quiet, it should be a ‘commons.’”  Good luck with contemplation in your bookless, knowledgeless (information and knowledge are NOT the same thing), anything-goes “academic library of the future,” dumbass.

Tagged: librarianshipfauxbrariansbrosughugh ugh ugh ugh ugh

22nd March 2014

Photo reblogged from Things Library School Didn't Teach Me with 156 notes

[Public library poster claiming that every time a one opens a book, a writer gets her wings and a Kardashian breaks a nail]
library-lessons:

Help us break lots of nails!

Aw hey, I see where they’re coming from, but we don’t need that “I’m not like the other girls” stuff.  Yeah, we should absolutely examine gender performance in the context of oppression culture, but random denigration of femininity and “I’m not like the other [marginalized population]” exceptionalism just hurts everyone.  It even boosts along that whole glass escalator thing that’s letting a bunch of young dudes come into librarianship, refuse to do the pink-collar work, but somehow still get promoted anyway.  Also, it’s gross and I’m pretty sure it makes David Bowie cry.

[Public library poster claiming that every time a one opens a book, a writer gets her wings and a Kardashian breaks a nail]

library-lessons:

Help us break lots of nails!

Aw hey, I see where they’re coming from, but we don’t need that “I’m not like the other girls” stuff.  Yeah, we should absolutely examine gender performance in the context of oppression culture, but random denigration of femininity and “I’m not like the other [marginalized population]” exceptionalism just hurts everyone.  It even boosts along that whole glass escalator thing that’s letting a bunch of young dudes come into librarianship, refuse to do the pink-collar work, but somehow still get promoted anyway.  Also, it’s gross and I’m pretty sure it makes David Bowie cry.

Tagged: genderaw maaaaaanlibrarianshipmisogyny

Source: harriscountypl

17th March 2014

Link reblogged from Mercyhurst University Libraries with 93 notes

Doge Decimal Classification →

Tagged: oh my godlibrarianshipmemes

Source: lecieltumultueux

11th March 2014

Photo reblogged from U.S. National Archives with 16 notes

usnatarchives:

Archives specialist Nancy Wing shows you tips on how to navigate Archives.gov for your genealogy research.  
Wednesday, March 12 at 9:30 a.m. in Room G-25, Research Center (Penn. Ave. Entrance). 
Image: Photograph of Dr. Grover and Classes in Archives Administration and Genealogical Research, 1950. National Archives Identifier 3493215

usnatarchives:

Archives specialist Nancy Wing shows you tips on how to navigate Archives.gov for your genealogy research.  

Wednesday, March 12 at 9:30 a.m. in Room G-25, Research Center (Penn. Ave. Entrance). 

Image: Photograph of Dr. Grover and Classes in Archives Administration and Genealogical Research, 1950. National Archives Identifier 3493215

Tagged: librarianshippublic librarianshiparchives

26th February 2014

Link with 4 notes

Librarian Problems →

This looks like a librarian gripe blog that actually focuses on patron or staff behaviors, rather than providing shitty human beings who managed to infiltrate a noble profession with a space to brag about doing a horrible job and mistreating people from marginalized populations.  As such, they def. get a gold star and my approval, not that they probably care, but hey.

The A+++++ gif use is just icing on the cake.

Tagged: librarianshiptumblariansi cannot believe i fucking used that word ugh