3/ "that has already been discredited," "I used to think that," "Your X reminds of Z's Y" are all usually WWIC moves disguised as debate.
-
-
Replying to @vgr
4/ WWIC is Internet equivalent of academic WWIC: "Why Wasn't I Cited?" that unfortunately drives 80% of peer review.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
5/ In both cases, academic and Internet, WWIC is a bid for a share of unexpected attention oil strike.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
6/ Right answer to WWIC in most cases is, "because you didn't contribute enough to the genesis and aren't adding enough post publication."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
7/ Internet makes it easy to cast wide net and cite/consult 10,000 things for tiniest idea. Acknowledging all is cowardice, not generosity.
3 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vgr
8/ You don't do your idea or your readers any favors by burdening your every thought with the weight of massively trivial provenance.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr
9/ This is why reinvention is *more* valuable when there is more history. Assume every thought is a rediscovery. Let WWIC handle links.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
10/ The value of the conceptual integrity you bring through reinvention usually exceeds potential missteps avoided through too much citation
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vgr
11/ Reason for this state of affairs is that "originality" and "avoiding mistakes of past" is vastly over-valued in industrial culture.
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr
12/ ...at the expense of elegance and *contextual appropriateness* that reinvention fosters.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
13/ So a deeper answer to WWIC is "because you are not relevant to my context, which I chose to reinvent for."
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.