In our business you never want to make a mistake. But when you do, you hope that someone will not only point out that you messed up, but also will guide you to the correct information, so that you can at least get it straight for the online archives that are likely to last a lot longer than a print publication.
So we were doubly lucky when we made a few errors in last week’s cover story on the Princeton University librarian, Karin Trainer.
The correction was offered online by a person identifying herself as a librarian at one of the university libraries. Our article may have overstated Trainer’s responsibilities when it suggested that she oversaw not just the libraries but also “the entire network of information systems at Princeton University. That honor may go to Jay Dominick, vice president for information technology and chief information officer.”
Our story also alluded to the Dewey Decimal System when, in fact, “most academic libraries do not use the Dewey Decimal System, or Classification (DDC), but the Library of Congress Classification System, to organize library materials by subject. One major difference between the two is that DDC call numbers are all numbers, while LC call numbers begin with a letter or letter combination that stands for a particular subject area, followed by a series of numbers.”
Finally, our critical but helpful reader noted, “the last sentence of the article was cut off in the print version” on page 22. Below is the entire last paragraph:
“The Firestone staff has gotten very expert at the Sysiphusian task of moving whole blocks of the collection out of that hall into this one, only to move it to some new hall later — while keeping every item accessible, in its proper order. Trainer shrugs and sighs only slightly as she says, ‘We are supposed to wrap this up by 2018, that means we’re more than halfway through now; so I am very much looking forward to completion.’”
To the Editor:
If my granddaughter spent hundreds of her hard-earned money for a phone that only worked 39 percent of the time, I would tell her she was being foolish. And if PSE&G’s customers spend billions on a plan which would only work (a little) for 39 percent of its customers, I would say that’s pretty foolish too.
PSE&G’s so-called “Energy Strong” plan claims to produce more reliable service during major storms. However, only 39 percent of PSE&G’s customers MAY see less frequent outages or for shorter durations (and we are talking about hours less, not days). Which means that 61 percent of its customers would see no benefit at all if another storm like Superstorm Sandy were to hit. PSE&G also claims that these billions in rate hikes would be used to shore up its infrastructure. However, it is the utility company’s legal statutory duty to provide safe, adequate, and reliable service. Simply put, AARP maintains customers should NOT have to pay more if PSE&G didn’t account for appropriate planning, ongoing maintenance, and system improvements.
AARP Volunteer, Monroe