Ken,
You're right about the importance of assembling *good* reading lists.
I'm with you 100%.
I haven't even looked at the list on Mendeley - I use zotero.
Just because what's in there now might not be worth the time, doesn't
mean Mendeley is useless.
As I understand it, it is possible to annotate items in Mendeley.
In zotero, one can add arbitrary notes to each reference.
It may well be that an annotated bibliography is possible using these
functions, including "to explain what the references are about, how
they relate to the field, or even how they relate to other titles in
the compilation."

There are other solutions, of course.  Wikis come to mind.  I have a
plugin for my wiki that does fairly primitive bibliography stuff, and
then I can write in various pages about the relationships between the
papers, etc.

But I still think that there's a disconnect between the service and
the content, and that, if properly used, the service can be useful.
Cheers.
Fil


On 28 June 2011 21:00, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Fil,
>
> Apologies, but I think you’ve missed the point of my note.
>
> The issue I raised is that Mendeley is not appropriately structured to
> be a useful platform. It’s a social networking site. One might
> describe it as Twitter for researchers: short tweets that share titles
> with no substantive information to explain what the references are
> about, how they relate to the field, or even how they relate to other
> titles in the compilation. The only clear link among the contributions
> is that a Mendeley “follower” liked them, at least back in 2009.
>
> Beyond this, the items currently in Menedeley do not constitute a list
> of fundamentals. There are some important pieces mixed in with pieces
> that are useful in another context and a number of works that aren’t
> useful for any purpose I can see.
>
> A sudden upwelling of information from an enthusiast followed by a
> years-long gap in contributions is an indication of just how useless
> this site is. It could be that a few well-intentioned people will add a
> few titles as a result of these prompts, but I can’t see a durable
> long-term outcome. The format and structure are wrong.
>
> Every field has good mechanisms for assembling useful reading lists.
> These aggregate and share the knowledge of the field. These mechanisms
> include topical reading lists, annotated bibliographies, and literature
> review articles, as well as the reference lists of completed articles
> and books.
>
> Victor’s post on literacy addresses fundamental issues. We will not
> solve these problems by posting reading lists or adding three titles a
> year to Mendeley.
>
> To the degree that there are such things as useful reading lists and
> bibliographies, some of us do provide them. If you really want to see
> this kind of thing emerge, why not assemble and provide reading lists in
> the areas of your expertise? Unlike Mendeley, we can judge the likely
> value of a scholar’s reading list based on the scholar’s work and
> reputation.
>
> Developing an annotated bibliography takes far more time, and it is far
> more useful. I’m not suggesting you do this, but I do say the field
> needs them. Unlike Mendeley, we also know that the author of an
> annotated bibliography has actually read the material he or she puts
> forward – and that the author has given enough attention to the issues
> involved to share scholarly, scientific, or professional expertise with
> the rest of us.
>
> Serious literature review articles and major bibliographic essays such
> as Victor’s chapter in Design Discourse are an immense contribution.
>
> Mendeley offers the semblance of a contribution mixed in with random
> information compiled by the ill-informed and the ignorant. I understand
> their intentions, but the gap between the claims they make for the
> information on the site and the quality of the content is too great.
>
> Time is precious, my friend. I am not willing to sort through reading
> lists where useful material is mixed in with the useless, and where
> lists are compiled with no clear basis for selection. Mendeley is not
> for me. The evidence to date suggests it is not for anyone else,
> either.
>
> Ken
> [...]



-- 
\V/_
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/