638:. I reverted your edit (as I have done in the past) since this first paragraph has been a point of contention for some time, and has erupted in reversion wars before. The argument has always been between which library is "largest", the LOC or the British Library. In an attempt to resolve this issue, I added the reference to the Guinness Book of Records a few weeks back, and added the actual sizes (shelf-space) provided on each libraries FAQ page. Each library only gives their size in customary units, so I had to provide parenthetical conversions to make the comparison easier. I chose to put the conversion for each in parenthesis, since in each case this is the interpreted number. The first listed number is the one provided by the institution. This seems to make sense to me, and others can't claim that someone is attempting to metricate an article on a US institution, nor that someone is using an antiquated measurement system arbitrarily (both of these charges have been made in earlier reversion disputes.)
296:
Congress named the annex building the Thomas
Jefferson Building, but four years later, as the Madison building was nearing completion, they decided to name all three of the buildings after ex-Presidents and they decided to give Jefferson's name to the original building which until then had just been the Library of Congress building, and the Annex received its current name of the John Adams Building. Since which building of the Libray of Congress is the Thomas Jefferson Building depends upon when the source describing it was written, I thought including the note important, but not so important as to rate a full paragraph in the article. (If we had an article about the John Adams Building, the full exposition would be warranted, but I can't see any reason we would want to do so.) --
104:
five or ten years since I last checked prices, but one of the outfits I used to write for would usually order books 25 at a time because we were constantly revising the content. They had a stock cover in color, that they ordered 10,000 at a time and never changed. It was overprinted with the title and so forth for each run, then laminated. Then the cover and sheets were bound with a wire-o, the twin-wire sort of spiral binding. I think a run of 25 ended up costing around $ 300 or so, and most of that was setup charges. --
31:
764:(Please add new topics to the end of the page.) Well, it certainly is one of the largest in the world; I don't think anyone disputes that, regardless of any quibbles over the precise measurements. And I think most serious researchers agree that it is among the most important in terms of the breadth and depth of its collections. If anyone has a reference to support this, it would be appreciated. (Note that I'm saying it is
178:
violins -- how much information content would you need for one of those? My point is that the 20 TB number is glib and ultimately without meaning, despite its being oft repeated. I'm keen to find a better way to express that thought, but what I'm trying to achieve is stopping the misleading meme that LC == 20TB. --
276:)." No source was provided for this statement. To the contrary, the LOC's own history (which is linked from this page) describes it as the "de facto national library" but stresses that it does not have that official designation. Please don't revert this unless you can provide a source for the information. --
848:
Should the
Library of Congress Information System be mentioned or at least have a link? It is the most up-to-date database that the public can use to search for the status of a copyrighted works registered for copyright including books, films, music, maps, sound recordings, software, multimedia kits,
238:
Yes (generally speaking). All works authored by the U.S. Government are in the public domain, and the LoC is part of the U.S. Government. I suppose it's possible, but unlikely, that the
Library of Congress would post something on its website that is copyrighted by another author (presumably with that
177:
IMHO the misleading element is the presumed equivalence between a book and its contents in pure ASCII text, which is absurd on its face. Also, the
Library's content includes a tremendous amount of non-book stuff, including easily 20 TB of digital data. For that matter, the Library has Stradivarius
624:
I changed the above to put the same units in brackets and the same units not within brackets. This was quickly changed back. I understand that those are the measurements used by each library but i dont think that is important. What is important that the point in put across, which is that the
British
98:
Yes. There were once printing houses that specialized in publishing three copies of a book, most often a Ph.D. thesis: one for the author, one for the library of the sponsoring institution, and one for the LOC. They would print the sheets, have them bound up in batches of three each of hundreds of
86:
Is this really true (I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just somewhat surprised -- is it common for actual books, not just unpublished manuscripts, to have their only copies in the
Library of Congress? They are going to be deposited here if copyrighted, but would there really be only one or two copies of
818:
I think there is; "Congress, Library of" is used in two categories that compile articles about libraries. It seems reasonable to assume that those categories will contain many, many articles starting with the word "Library" and therefore that the articles ought to be indexed by a different word.
103:
books at a time with blank covers, and then heat-stamp the title and author on each cover by hand. The practice may have changed with the advent of desktop publishing. Having a book bound in short runs isn't the enormous expense one might think, it's just expensive on a per-copy basis. It's been
481:
Well, Good. Because a site map with explanation was what I was looking at, primarily. Is it just me or is the LOC a rather difficult place to manuver around in? Just trying to figure out the photography section with it's very odd search tool is quite a challenge, at least for me. So we are looking
563:
Ok, the task is underhand. It shall be a slow go, for the real world calls. But I shall soon have links tied into the
American Memory Collection of the Library of Congress all through out the wikipedia. It shall reign supreme and other collections from, uhm, other places will bow down and flee in
536:
I think
Linking from within the American memory article to the appropriate articles is exactly the right thing to do. Then the Library of Congress page can have a section which links to some of the top level articles, like Library of Congress subject headings and American memory, as an example of
454:
I don't think it's wikipedia's job to advertise or site map the LoC online collections for the library, but to present the site's notable aspects in a clear fashion. If we provide all the information a user needs to navigate the website I think we've probably done far too much -- but a collection
427:
I must be a glutten for punishment, but have found the LOC Web site a most unique challenge. I would love to try and kill a couple of birds with one stone, in trying to master the compexity of the website and present my findings at the dictionary, but I am most curious as to where one would place
444:
The problem with making a web-only category is that part of the point of the LoC website is to be a portal to the physical collections of the library itself. I think the first step would be to see which major products of the website do and don't have wikipedia articles. We could then write new
295:
Since there was a question raised about the above note in the text, I 'll give a fuller explanation here here, tho I think it's too much detail for the article itself. Before 1976, the John Adams
Building was simply known as the Library of Congress Annex. In conjuction with the bicentiential,
168:
Could one clarify what is meant by the 20 terabytes figure being "misleading" as to the total information content of the LoC? Is this because the non-print portions of the LoC would require far more data size to store? If so, is there an estimate available for what the total amount of storage
849:
drawings, periodicals, magazines, journals, newspapers, posters, sculpture, etc. in the United States since 1978. It runs on the good old fashioned telnet from the
Library of Congress' website. (What people used before the internet and still use for remote connections.) It is located at
449:, for example, is a pretty enormous undertaking with a fairly stubby page. At that point, it might be easier to see if a page needed to be dedicated to mapping explicitly the resources available on their website, and to annotating the resources that don't deserve pages of their own.
189:
The sentence after the 20GB information seems to be part of the argument as to why it is false, but is actually totally unrelated (as I read it?). Perhaps some more could be added to why the 20GB is a false assumption, and turned into a separate paragraph?.
862:
It can be used at any PC out of the box with a internet connection. Im not sure about a mac though. I think you have to click a couple of oks like any program that trys to connect to the internet for the first time, because of Windows built in firewall-
854:
PS: It also has Documents relating to copyright ownership, such as name changes and transfers. To use the system type your respone (not shown) and press enter. ex. 1, enter, 6, enter, 1, enter, google, enter, display item 4, displays this result
648:
Unless anyone has anything to add, im happy to leave it as it is with the units as they are listed by the institutions. I don't think it helps people understand the article but i understand why you think it is easier to leave it that way. Thanks
119:
Thank you for this very interesting information about a practice and possibility I was completely unaware of (though I'd heard of the more recent development of these outfits where you can print books on demand, a copy at a time).
515:
collection to each matching article in the Knowledge rather than to create another catagory for this monster? This nation is blessed with a huge amount of stored information, but it is a bit of a double edged sword in this regard.
658:
I think it makes sense to leave them as stated by the respective libraries. I'm going to take this sentence out of the introduction and move it farther down in the article, though, since it's getting very detailed.
858:
VAu-697-192 (COHM) ITEM 4 OF 4 IN SET 1 TITL: Google : Logo design of Google. NOTE: Cataloged from appl. only. CLNA: acMarie Shirato , 1970- DCRE: 2005 DREG: 19Jan06 ECIF: 5/S
625:
library is smaller. It is quite confusing when reading the sentence to understand the difference is size, because at first glance the british library looks bigger - 530 vs. 625. What do other people think?
350:
The section referenced above also mentions that an author has to "submit two copies of their works to the Library." But I had understood that this held true only when copyright was opt-in, but when the
815:
added a comment at the bottom of the page: <!-- Is there any particular rhyme or reason behind which ones are categorized as "Library of Congress" as opposed to "Congress, Library of"? --: -->
398:
I once heard that the only items the LoC is legally bound to retain are original manuscripts in the author's hands ("holographs", I think they are called); i this true or just an urban legend? --
737:
Who decides whether a work of the 20,000 something works submitted to LoC daily is significant or not (which leads to LoC keeping this work or not), and what are these decisions based on? --
588:
I may have missed it, and if so, my apologies, but it looks like this article is basically lifting huge chunk of text from the www.loc.gov site without citing the source. Bad practice. --
312:"Contrary to popular belief, however, the Library does not retain all of these works in its permanent collection, although it does add an average of 10,000 items per day."
797:
The article states that there are no plans to digitize any portion of the library's holdings, but this may not be strictly true anymore considering this press release: .
843:
867:
754:
What makes the Library of Congress one of the most important in the world? Even if it is the largest in the world, why would it be more important than any other? --
908:
355:
passed in the '70s or whenever, copyright was made automatic and opt-in, obviously implying that works need not be submitted to the LoC. What's up with this? --
838:
921:
710:
786:
758:
608:
422:
418:
It would be interesting to edit something about the data (type, amount) available on line. I'll try later, if you have time, please take the job. --
387:
666:
568:
546:
520:
493:
472:
435:
677:
653:
886:
775:
686:
221:
589:
154:
819:
The remaining categories aren't library-specific so there doesn't seem to be any reason to alphabetize them in other than the normal way. --
191:
179:
169:
needed for the entire LoC would be? Perhaps this is not a meaningful question, but nevertheless the current paragraph is a bit confusing.
321:
says 7,000 per day. Where did the 10,000 figure come from? And what happens to the items that are not added to the permanent collection? —
273:
746:
635:
413:
801:
408:
339:
741:
300:
924:
706:
132:
325:
826:
592:
428:
such a huge amount of information, which would mainly consist of links, with detailed expalnation, I believe. Any suggestions?
365:
460:
74:
718:
605:
405:
362:
904:
629:
66:
642:
335:
page they say 10,000 per day, and it also explains what happens to rejected items. I will add info to the article. —
290:(Note: Between April 13, 1976 and June 13, 1980, the John Adams Building was known as the Thomas Jefferson Building.)
703:
The Library makes millions of digital objects, comprising tens of terabytes, available at its American Memory site.
226:
Are texts from Library of Congress websites in public domain, so are they free to copy them to Knowledge? example:
730:
163:
376:
79:
The Library of Congress, which you cited previously, contains a great number of otherwise unpublished books. --
920:
This article mentions 2005 plans to digitize books, and then later says there are no plans to digitize books.
269:
305:
265:
792:
283:
700:
The Library currently has no plans for systematic digitization of any significant portion of its books.
393:
38:
806:
352:
47:
17:
714:
602:
583:
402:
359:
372:
915:
751:
This strikes me as odd: It is one of the largest and most important libraries in the world.
247:
239:
author's permission), so it would be wise to check for any such indication before copying. -
900:
542:
468:
459:
is notable and should be discussed as such, as is a resource such as the online mapping of
121:
88:
768:
the most important; it would be fairly controversial to remove the highlighted words!) --
227:
8:
726:
not really, its the word books you should be looking at, its pretty blates to be honest
663:
599:
399:
356:
823:
798:
772:
345:
257:
837:
which is da biggest library? LoC, Russian State Library or an other? -- Tank you!
881:
864:
783:
755:
538:
512:
508:
483:
464:
456:
446:
419:
380:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
674:
650:
626:
850:
137:
Where does the article mention the actual city where the library is located??
660:
614:
297:
277:
261:
240:
231:
210:
820:
769:
683:
639:
571:
565:
523:
517:
496:
490:
438:
432:
318:
157:
151:
142:
738:
170:
874:
812:
511:
collection. Might it be easier to just link each collection within the
384:
431:
I am thinking a new catagory would need to be made about the website.
332:
336:
322:
105:
80:
620:~530 miles (850 km) vs. the British Library's ~625 km (388 miles)
141:
Good point - it's in Washington DC, but that's not mentioned. --
892:
206:
489:
Any Idea of how many collections like this there might be?
682:
Excellent compromise, Russ. Thanks for making the change.
507:
OK, I just checked on the list of collections just in the
371:
You are correct, the sentence only applies if you want a
832:
692:
222:
Library of Congress website texts in public domain?
150:The location has since been updated in the article
844:L.O.C.I.S - Library of Congress Information System
383:, but doesn't mention whether they go to the LoC.
445:articles and flech out existing ones as needed.
697:Does anyone else find the following confusing?
209:has little to do with the above discussion. --
274:National Archives and Records Administration
75:Unpublished books in Library of Congress
14:
897:these semicolons are used incorrectly
252:I deleted the sentence that read "The
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
482:for something along the lines of the
537:resources available electronically.
461:Library of Congress Subject Headings
164:Size in bytes of Library of Congress
25:
747:Most important library in the world
414:Amount of data at the LoC website ?
23:
24:
935:
29:
673:It was a good idea to move it.
133:City of the Library of Congress
87:a book printed and bound?)? --
742:14:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
598:Could you be more specific? --
564:terror. Muah HA HA HA mUah hA
377:United States Copyright Office
13:
1:
802:01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
787:23:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
776:21:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
759:19:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
609:17:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
593:16:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
340:09:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
326:09:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
270:National Agricultural Library
721:) 01:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
423:12:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
388:10:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
301:23:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
266:National Library of Medicine
7:
911:) 21:41, June 8, 2007 (UTC)
409:20:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
366:20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
10:
940:
925:16:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
887:08:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
827:10:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
569:15:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
547:16:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
521:15:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
494:15:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
486:cllection to present here?
473:20:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
436:19:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
280:19:01, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
155:18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
248:National Library (or not)
243:17:02, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
194:05:30, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
173:18:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
145:12:55, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
868:02:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
732:Significant work or not?
687:00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
353:Sonny Bono copyright act
256:is one of four official
234:14:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
182:15:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
124:13:35, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
108:19:18, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
91:18:28, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
18:Talk:Library of Congress
678:22:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
667:20:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
654:20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
643:21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
630:21:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
213:07:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
851:telnet://locis.loc.gov
709:comment was added by
42:of past discussions.
373:registered copyright
306:Permanent collection
228:Myrtle Hill Cemetery
793:Digitizing of books
381:requires two copies
331:Ah, I see on their
284:John Adams Building
254:Library of Congress
873:It works on Macs.
394:Retention of works
258:national libraries
205:Pedantic nit, but
912:
903:comment added by
807:Category indexing
782:Whoops, sorry. --
722:
333:Fascinating Facts
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
931:
898:
884:
879:
704:
375:. For that, the
264:(along with the
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
939:
938:
934:
933:
932:
930:
929:
928:
918:
895:
882:
875:
860:
846:
839:172.178.248.186
835:
809:
795:
749:
735:
705:—The preceding
695:
617:
586:
584:Citing sources?
545:
513:American Memory
509:American Memory
484:American Memory
471:
457:American Memory
447:American Memory
416:
396:
348:
308:
286:
250:
224:
166:
135:
122:Daniel C. Boyer
89:Daniel C. Boyer
77:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
937:
917:
914:
894:
891:
890:
889:
857:
853:
845:
842:
834:
831:
830:
829:
816:
808:
805:
794:
791:
790:
789:
779:
778:
748:
745:
734:
729:
728:
727:
694:
691:
690:
689:
680:
671:
670:
669:
616:
613:
612:
611:
585:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
541:
529:
528:
527:
526:
502:
501:
500:
499:
487:
476:
475:
467:
451:
450:
415:
412:
395:
392:
391:
390:
347:
344:
343:
342:
315:
314:
307:
304:
293:
292:
285:
282:
249:
246:
245:
244:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
198:
197:
196:
195:
184:
183:
165:
162:
161:
160:
147:
146:
134:
131:
130:
129:
128:
127:
126:
125:
112:
111:
110:
109:
93:
92:
76:
73:
70:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
936:
927:
926:
923:
922:128.252.20.65
916:Contradiction
913:
910:
906:
902:
888:
885:
880:
878:
872:
871:
870:
869:
866:
856:
852:
841:
840:
828:
825:
822:
817:
814:
811:
810:
804:
803:
800:
788:
785:
781:
780:
777:
774:
771:
767:
763:
762:
761:
760:
757:
752:
744:
743:
740:
733:
725:
724:
723:
720:
716:
712:
711:74.229.48.186
708:
701:
698:
688:
685:
681:
679:
676:
672:
668:
665:
662:
657:
656:
655:
652:
647:
646:
645:
644:
641:
637:
632:
631:
628:
622:
621:
610:
607:
604:
601:
597:
596:
595:
594:
591:
573:
570:
567:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
548:
544:
540:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
525:
522:
519:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
503:
498:
495:
492:
488:
485:
480:
479:
478:
477:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
453:
452:
448:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:(Talk)Beam_er
437:
434:
429:
425:
424:
421:
411:
410:
407:
404:
401:
389:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
361:
358:
354:
341:
338:
334:
330:
329:
328:
327:
324:
320:
313:
310:
309:
303:
302:
299:
291:
288:
287:
281:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
262:United States
259:
255:
242:
237:
236:
235:
233:
229:
212:
208:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
193:
188:
187:
186:
185:
181:
176:
175:
174:
172:
159:
156:
153:
149:
148:
144:
140:
139:
138:
123:
118:
117:
116:
115:
114:
113:
107:
102:
97:
96:
95:
94:
90:
85:
84:
83:
82:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
919:
905:68.77.20.155
896:
876:
861:
847:
836:
796:
765:
753:
750:
736:
731:
702:
699:
696:
633:
623:
619:
618:
587:
430:
426:
417:
397:
349:
316:
311:
294:
289:
253:
251:
225:
167:
136:
100:
78:
60:
43:
37:
899:—Preceding
36:This is an
893:semicolons
865:Hamster2.0
813:User:Gwern
784:Soetermans
756:Soetermans
539:Deborah-jl
465:Deborah-jl
675:Wright123
661:Russ Blau
651:Wright123
636:Wright123
627:Wright123
346:Copyright
180:AndyBoyko
101:different
67:Archive 2
61:Archive 1
901:unsigned
719:contribs
707:unsigned
606:contribs
406:Contribs
363:Contribs
298:Caerwine
278:RussBlau
241:RussBlau
211:Ambarish
143:→Raul654
833:Biggest
684:Pixel23
640:Pixel23
590:Jxh2154
524:Beam_er
497:Beam_er
319:LOC FAQ
260:of the
158:Beam-er
39:archive
824:(talk)
773:(talk)
766:one of
739:Abdull
664:(talk)
603:(talk)
572:Beamer
566:Beamer
518:Beamer
491:Beamer
433:Beamer
403:(talk)
379:still
360:(talk)
272:, and
232:Darwin
192:Wombat
152:Beamer
877:ALTON
799:Danny
693:What?
615:Units
455:like
385:Algae
207:ASCII
171:Terry
16:<
909:talk
821:Russ
770:Russ
715:talk
634:Hi,
600:maru
543:Talk
469:Talk
400:maru
357:maru
317:The
230:. --
883:.ıl
463:.
420:DLL
337:mjb
323:mjb
106:Kat
81:Kat
717:•
659:--
268:,
190:--
120:--
907:(
713:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.