As if historians of technology have written nothing about this... https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/making-silicon-valley … https://twitter.com/IEEEInstitute/status/969798777472278528 …
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yeah. I think our community launches into this discussion every so often, maybe in predictable ways/times. While I think it's a necessary conversation, I don't know how productive it is.
I think it's worth keeping in the background — if you want to change things, you have to build the infrastructure for that change (a very hist/sci/tech point!). There are several people within HSS working towards building some infrastructure, from different angles, FWIW.
-
-
For example:
@cjphillips100 and others (I am lightly involved) are working on making something like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for History of Science topics — could help lots of people (including journalists) navigate our topics (better than Wikipedia does, anyway). -
This Tweet is unavailable
-
I have, at great length. Wikipedia has a problematic epistemological structure, and rewards tenacity more than expertise, and I already spend as much time arguing with people on the Internet as I can manage. I was an administrator at Wikipedia for many years before I quit it.
-
In any case, it need not be all or nothing. Something like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides a peer-reviewed, named reference that a future Wikipedia editor could use as a resource for their own pages. It serves a different function than Wikipedia.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.