"Non-fiction has numbers", we were told.
I'm not sure Dewey attempts to separate fact from fiction -- just to categorize the author's intent (or assertion).
In addition to the Christian Bible, the "non-fiction" section also contains religious texts that refute it. And New Age crystal vibration harmonic ecstasy stuff. And Dianetics.
The wide disagreement on "fiction" vs "non-fiction" is probably not a solvable problem. See also: a world map, at any time in recorded history.
That's not to say the line isn't murky, but that's true of any human classification system.
Speak for yourself. Several atheists including myself read some of the Bible for our book club. In particular the wisdom literature has value as a fiction removed from the religious context. Beyond that, the Bible is the earliest work we have which exhibits several tropes, and western art has been heavily influenced by it.
Fictional works are organized alphabetically by the author's last name
It's pretty clear that the anthology/compendium often termed "The Bible" is mostly myth and retellings of oral histories that date back many millenia, with some of those incorporating historical events (think docudrama[0]).
As such, I'd posit that in a vacuum, such works should be placed in the "Historical Fiction" section.
However, since there are quite a few of these works (the Hindu Vedas, the Tripitaka, the Quran, etc.), it seems that the current classification (Religion) is reasonable.
That said, not specifically calling it "fiction" doesn't make it non-fiction.
If what I checked out was fake? Yeah, personally I would like to be told.
1: http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/50-oh-howard-you-idio...
In real libraries, they only stocked published books, and publishers decided what to publish. So the publishers acted as gatekeepers and fact-checkers (sometimes not so well, as the Howard Hughes example shows), and the library could accept their classification.
Now, anyone can write a book and add it to our hypothetical library. If the librarians aren't going to classify the books, then who does? Because someone has got to...
No I wouldn't want anyone chastising me, nor any contact with a human (that can be awkward). But I'd be happy to get an email saying "Please be aware that the book X from the science section that you borrowed earlier has been found to contain inaccurate information and has been moved to our controversial science/science fiction section".
Retractoins occur all the time in newspapera but they build on the model that people actually read the newspaper. It doesn't work when people read one article from a social media link. Fact checking and retractions should be updated to work in the age of facebook 1) Respectable media would publish retractions to facebook, saying "Please notify anyone who followed the link to reuters.com/article/123 that the article has been corrected". 2) Fact checks would do the same thing (because this is most important with less respectable media).
For this to happen obviously facebook would want to agree to annoy a fraction of their users who don't want to find their favorite links unavailable, littered with warnigs, or followed by messages that they are eating an unhealthy news diet. Hopefully they realize that this is a goal worth pursuing.
We really don't have the best relationship with admitting change in our beliefs. Or with keeping records.
because one has to actively seek out information in a library. Are you aware of any libraries that send out propaganda pamphlets to tens of millions of people? Because that actually has caused the downfall of societies
With cars that turn out to be defective, in Germany the authorities can issue mandatory recalls and notices to owners of cars of the recalled model.
If I borrowed a book at a library or read a scientific study that has been later proven to be wrong or outright misleading, yes I would like to be notified of that.
Would you want a librarian chastising you for the books you check out? Would that make people more or less likely to use the library?