Archive for September, 2009

Golden oldie: The one true encyclopedia?

Posted in Cites & Insights on September 6th, 2009

Given everything else that’s going on (read: given distractions and a couple of legitimate projects) the only way to make this blog seem alive at all may be a methodology I’ve seen elsewhere, one that may be legitimate given the change in blogging platform and likely turnover of readers.
To wit, blasts from the pasts, from the archive, golden oldie–reusing part or all of an old post that might still be worthwhile or amusing.
Here’s one from the very first day of this blog, April 1, 2005–although it was the third post.


The one true encyclopedia?

I see one immediate use for this space: items I printed for possible use in Cites & Insights that turn out to be a bit too odd or difficult to use there–and, as a post later this weekend will show (I hope), topics I plan to cover that deserve a head’s-up earlier.
I’ve got several more items in the unending saga of Wikipedia in the Net Media folder, but as I look at “The political importance of the Wikipedia Project : the only true Encyclopedia of our days”, I think it deserves separate comment.
That comment might boil down to “Wha?” or “The French, they will be French.” Or it might not.
Jean-Baptiste Soufron subtitles this four-page essay “Wikipedia : Towards a new electronic Enlightenment Era ?” (Those extra spaces around punctuation are in the original; I can only assume they’re important for some reason. I quote the first three paragraphs:

“Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.” — Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
I am convinced that Wikipedia is the only real Encyclopedia of our days because it’s the only one that relies on a real political goal : to pursue freedom over content and information.
On the other hand, books like the Encyclopedia Britannica are nothing else than simple knowledge compendiums without any political soul and usurping the term “Encyclopedia”.

Scratching your head yet? I love that first paragraph: Wales could give Michael Hart lessons in grandiosity. “The sum of all human knowledge.” Sure, Jimmy. Never mind that.
Were you aware that something is only an encyclopedia if it has a “political soul”? No, neither was I. Ah, but after trashing Robert McHenry and explaining why Wikipedia is inherently superior in every respect, we get the real stuff here: Diderot and d’Alembert of the French Encyclopedie, of the mid-18th century, had a strong political basis for that encyclopedia. So, “a real encyclopedia should be a place directed toward a political project of its own…”
What’s that you say? The word “encyclopedia” has Greek roots? According to Merriam-Webster, it was used in English as early as 1644–a full century before the French Encyclopedie?
That may be factually true, but I’d guess it’s irrelevant to Soufron. Once the French took over the word for a definition of their own, it is uncivilized for anyone else to give it any other meaning, even if that usage preceded the French usage. The Diderot and d’Alembert effort was “the original encyclopedia,” and nothing else can claim to be an encyclopedia unless it has a similarly political end.
Wikipedia’s goal? “The political goal of freedom over content and information.” Read that carefully: freedom is more important to Wikipedia than the actual content.
My only real comment here is: “I laugh in your general direction.”


Tiny little update

“Unending saga of Wikipedia” indeed! By April 2005, I’d published three essays related to Wikipedia and mentioned it possibly half a dozen times in all. Since then?
Three more mentions in later 2005. Four in 2006, including one major essay. Four more in 2007, including two major essays. Four more in 2008, and although there wasn’t a major essay on Wikipedia, there was one on Citizendium (also mentioned in some other articles). This year? So far, three mentions, one essay–and half a dozen source items for the next go-round. Meanwhile, Wikipedia’s changing (or at least being more up-front about how editing actually works)–and, cross fingers, I’ve still managed to stay obscure enough to avoid an (English) entry.
Of course I use Wikipedia…with caution. And I’m so happy that, in 2009, few people use the “if you think something’s wrong with Wikipedia, it’s up to you to fix it” handwave that was so widely used around 2005 to deflect any and all criticism of the project.

Open access: Feedback still desired

Posted in Cites & Insights on September 2nd, 2009

Just over a week ago, I posted “Open access: Giving up on a theme.”
At the time, I said I’d pay attention to comments received at least until the weekend–that is, through August 30, 2009. I was considering writing the “final OA dump” this week.

Minimal response

I received one comment on the post, from a school librarian who appreciates the OA essays. I also received a couple of comments elsewhere.
What I did not receive: Any feedback at all from what I think of as “the OA community” (with one notable exception) or from scientists.
In a way, that’s consistent: I’ve noticed over the years that, except for Peter Suber and Charles W. Bailey, Jr., (and, sometimes, Dorothea Salo) people who blog or write articles about OA have almost unanimously ignored the writing I’ve done on the topic in Cites & Insights. That’s their privilege and perhaps appropriate, but does give me a sense of futility about continued efforts in this area. (If I’m not adding value and if “the community” doesn’t care, why bother?)

Leaving it open a little longer

On the other hand, I already have all the essays I’m planning to use in the next Cites & Insights (which, as an educated guess, is likely to emerge right around September 14).
If I do kiss off OA as a C&I topic, I won’t do the formalities until that issue is published.
So I’ll continue to pay attention to feedback, through September 14, 2009. Maybe I’m missing something…

Public Library Blogs: Gone

Posted in Books and publishing, Liblogs on September 1st, 2009

As promised, the book Public Library Blogs: 252 Examples is now officially out of print, both in its trade-paperback version (only available through CreateSpace/Amazon for the last month or two) and its downloadable PDF version (only available through Lulu).
The 80 purchasers now own a true limited edition…
Academic Library Blogs: 231 Examples continues to be available, in print and download versions through the title link or in print at CreateSpace/Amazon. Unless there’s at least one sale this month, it will go out of print in early October–making the 45 copies currently extant a very limited edition!
The Liblog Landscape 2007-2008: A Lateral Look, to the best of my knowledge the most comprehensive study of blogs within a specialty, continues to be available and probably will be available for some time to come. I’m working on a project that will complement but may not directly replace it…but that’s another story.


This blog is protected by dr Dave\\\\\\\'s Spam Karma 2: 104097 Spams eaten and counting...