[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I would not normally spam the list with one of my own blog posts, but I'd > love to get thoughts from the list on the topic. > > http://blog.fortiusone.com/2008/11/14/geophysics-vs-geography-divergent-viewpoints-on-the-geoweb/ > > In short it seems the geophysicists have really embraced geowanking type > things - check out their special session on spinny globes: > > http://conferences.images.alaska.edu/agu/2008/index.htm > > Now compare this to Mike Goodchild's quote in the latest ArcNews: > > “In 2005, Google Earth was released, and people with little or no background > in GIS, geography, or cartography began using it and other similar services > to discover the power of map making. Some even began calling themselves > neogeographers. Suddenly it was possible to do some powerful things with > geospatial data without committing to what was often a difficult and lengthy > learning process….But mistakes (by neogeographers) were and are being made, > as often happens when powerful technology is put in the hands of people with > little background in its underlying concepts and little experience in > thinking critically about its products.” > > I have a lot of respect for Mike's academic work but this seemed a bit over > the top. > > Any thoughts or response? > > best, > sean
I suspect we'd see somewhat different attitudes if an easy-to-use climate modeling application that is to the CCSM as Google Earth is to Arc* were unleashed on the public. Google Earth is disruptive to GIS, it isn't disruptive to geophysicists. I sympathize. Still, the length and difficulty of the GIS learning process is being exaggerated, don't you think? Sean (still suffering from Post Navier-Stokes Stress Disorder) _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
