July 28, 2004 - 6 new jobs
June 03, 2004 - 5 new jobs
view all jobs...
July 28, 2004 - 1 new opportunities
May 07, 2004 - 2 new opportunities
view all...
In response to:
Preservation Tutorial
catherine said:
safeguard is spelled incorrectly in the lead in paragraph...
Read more
In response to:
Bookmark Organization
michael said:
Brett - it is really interesting to see your bookmark structure. I'm sure it makes total sense to yo...
Read more
In response to:
Bookmark Organization
Brett said:
Yahoo's companion toolbar plugs into most browsers. It is accessible via the My Yahoo pages, so the ...
Read more
In response to:
Google vs. Libraries, Part 724
michael said:
I agree with you completly. Personally, I think that libraries/librarians could compete with Google/...
Read more
In response to:
Google vs. Libraries, Part 724
t_l said:
Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on your stance) "your local reference libarian" cannot adve...
Read more
In response to:
Graduate Salary Figures
said:
There is definitely a difference in payscales when it comes to comparing 'Information Science' with ...
Read more
Comments
Though there aren't any "link police" it is certainly good practice to attribute sources. Usu. the only time I don't attribute is if I get something from a list-serv, a first hand source (obviously), or a link/reference is common enough that where you found it isn't such a big deal.
Posted by: Michael | February 4, 2004 05:09 PM
Electronic "links" are strange that way. Someone B tells someone Y who tells you about a great resource, you then tell people 1,2,3 that someone Y told you about this link, but someone y didn't tell you that it was actually someone B's diligence that discovered the link. So now people 1,2,3 either think the link is from someone Y or you. I don't think it matters who told you about the link -- especially for this site -- it is more important to discuss why it is relevant, or even just to post something at all.
Posted by: thomas lannon | February 5, 2004 10:27 AM