Daily Archives: February 10, 2009

Anti-Internet sentiment at Whitman

Posted on by
2

This is probably a post that is a little more fitting with Twitter, but I couldn’t think of a way in which to fit it into 140 characters.

I’m taking a class right now that is titled “Decolonization in Africa” and is actually quite interesting. Part of the appeal is that the class is geared toward the final project, which is an individual research paper about an African country that we did not cover in class and the decolonization process within that country. Since the class is a mix of History majors and non-majors the professor has made an effort to explain the research process.

While describing the methods of citation that we are to use in our papers (Chicago for those curious) she brought up the question of how we can evaluate online content. Instead of simply advising that we be careful and leave it up to us supposedly tech-savvy kids she presented an argument against web sources and for traditional print sources. The gist of it was that print sources go through peer reviews and are subject to the critique/evaluation of that discipline’s community. Web sources on the other hand (at least seemingly in the professor’s mind) can just be published by anyone and are not subject to the same revisions that academic collaboration theoretically brings.

Overall, it just amazed me that even in the age of tools like Twitter and sites that almost universally have the ability to leave comments (heck, even the NY Times allows you to comment on most articles) someone could still believe that the web is just overflowing with content that is not subject to the opinions of the community. In my mind an article published online is going to stimulate just as much, if not more, peer review and critique than one published in print. If there’s an error in a print article then you must have the succeeding journal/paper/book edition/etc. to realize it. If an article errors in the digital medium you usually just have to scroll to the bottom of the page to see the problems with it. The most you might have to do is a search for other articles that mention the one you are reading. I just feel the impulsive need to “enlighten” older generations to the collaborative power of the web, if only they would trust in the online community. If only…

The Whitman Pioneer (again)

Posted on by
Reply

Since the Whitman Pioneer just updated its site design, Daniel Bachhuber at CoPress (a great non-profit organization for promoting collaboration between student news organizations) asked me to write a blog post about the design process, workflow, etc. It got posted today and can be found at the CoPress blog. I’d love to hear what you think and if anyone has ideas as to how to make our workflow at the Pioneer more efficient, I’d love to hear them.

A-Rod and Steroids

Posted on by
Reply

Doug Glanville has a post on the New York Times that is the best summation of the problem with focusing all of the blame and attention upon Alex Rodriguez for his recent admission of steroid use during his time with the Texas Rangers. In the article Glanville, who played with A-Rod in 2003, writes that:

In the end, it isn’t about Alex Rodriguez, though we are making it about him. He must be in quite a dark place, because he could always rely on the authenticity of his talent to overcome any criticism of his civilian self. Now that is gone, and I am sure the public will exact a price from him for years to come. Sure, all this has come about because of certain choices he made, but he was outed by forces beyond his control, in a way that was not honorable. That is not good for any of those 1,200 players who were tested. That is not good for anyone. And why focus on Alex Rodriquez and not the other 103? Why weren’t there leaks about everyone?

We should step back and think about what we really want to gain from this situation. While I was playing professionally, it was disturbing to watch players cut corners through chemical means to get to that next contract. But I don’t see the good in selling our souls while claiming we want to chase the devil from our midst.

I hope we learn how to keep our word. If the tested players had known up front that the results were going to be made public (or that there was even a chance that they might be), not a single one would have agreed to cooperate, and it has very little to do with hiding anything. It has everything to do with privacy. Being A-Rod should not change that fact.

Amen. These players agree to anonymous testing so that Major League Baseball could see if it had a major drug problem. They complied with the testing, and when the results came out they agreed upon a harsher penalty for offenders. The players lived up to their end of that bargain and ultimately it is the sports reporters and Major League Baseball that didn’t live up to the agreement by publicizing (even through leaks) the results.