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.
-
Replying to @LeapingRobot
Serious question -- ideas on how to advocate productively to get people writing essays of this sort to find and read and mention some of the scholarship?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ehepler
I wish I had an answer to this.
@ColdWarScience hits on a painful point though. One answer - p'raps@wellerstein has thoughts - is to cultivate productive relationships with editors of journals (cf.@PhysicsToday). But that's not a cure-all.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @LeapingRobot @ehepler and
I don't think we can expert non-scholars to take a whole lot of their time to trawl through our scholarly outputs. Esp. if we don't make it easy to do. Let's face it — even we have hard times keeping up with the literature, knowing where to start on a new topic, etc.
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @ehepler and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LeapingRobot @ehepler and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @LeapingRobot and
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).2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
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.
-
-
Replying to @wellerstein @DavideDenti and
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.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.