Encyclopedia

The last time I picked up an encyclopedia, I was in high school. I don't even remember what I looked at, but I do remember that it was a World Book Encyclopedia. They seem to have cornered the market on library resources for secondary education. It is now over a decade ago that I last touched a paper encyclopedia. Our current pluralist conceptualization of information has spawned Wikipedia, the ever changing, not quite always reliable source of information about all things. As a professor, I am conflicted about allowing its use as a source of information. A year ago, Wiki ate my favorite website for electoral institutions information. Electionworld.org fell prey to the instant accessibility of Wiki. I felt sheepish when I told my classes this semester to look up electoral systems information on Wiki. I told them "you can use it for [this information], but please don't tell your other professors that I condone its use as a scholarly source." Obviously I do not encourage its use, but why not look at it to get a start on finding higher quality information? More importantly, what happens when a reliable source becomes part of the monster?

What differentiates Wiki from the World Book? Obviously content can change very quickly on Wiki and it is reviewed and modified constantly by interested parties. Who wrote the World Book, and why should I trust them? The librarians did, so should I?

This question has hit more closely to home as I write my encyclopedia article. It will appear in a hard-bound, true-to-life, paper encyclopedia (that is if I can finish it in time). Yes, they still make them. Yes, these people know about the information on the internet. Yes, they invited me to write an article. But what makes me more suited to writing an encyclopedia article than the multitudes of people who contribute to Wiki? With the exception of my degree, I haven't figure that out. There are editors who will correct major errors, so there is a check in the system.

It is scary to me that someone may pick up a book, find my entry, and consider it trustworthy because it came from a paper encyclopedia.

A true antique in the age of Wiki.

Luddite

In case you didn't know, my lovely wife has never seen any of the Star Wars movies. One of our friends indicated that if you didn't know what a "snap-hiss" was, you might be a luddite. I contend that if you don't buy a flashing cell phone headset, but rather use your ear lobe to hold the phone during mobile conversation, you might be a bluetooth disabled neo-luddite.

More mice

Since the last mouse update, I have prevented at least another 10 mice from breathing more of my precious apartment air. Supposedly there is a mouse population explosion in the vicinity, and thus I get to see them in my house. It is going to snow tonight, so I expect more kills. I will carefully bait the traps and wait for the cold weather...

No physical disability for me in Scotland

According to a Glasgow tribunal, I would not receive disability payments for emotional injuries that occurred due to my personal deficiency. I prefer the Elisha method of setting the score straight.

Catholic and Mormon Snobs

I was surprised to read that excessive reproduction could be interpreted as snobbery in the big city. I always thought that only having one or two was elitist, and thus the active Mormons and Catholics were the lower class. I never imagined that you could work your way up the social ladder so easily.

Teaching Effectiveness

Today I know I did my job. A student came up to me after class and unaffectionately said "thanks for roping me in to learning." I laughed and she grumbled about how she could have been paying less attention if she had only known it was a lecture.