Paleo = old, extinct, fossilized, etc. The term itself sets up the situation of defining one group as irrelevant and the other fresh, new and revolutionary. I am not going to embrace any categorization of my work as extinct or fossilized. Nobody would - it's hardly a positive characterization. Why isn't it OK to just look at these things as different, not necessarily one better than the other? There are very different goals at work here that make these comparisons not terribly meaningful. Academics work within a well-defined culture and have priorities that focus on advancing science goals and educating/advising students. A FOSS neogeographer likely has different priorities. And there are quite a few people who could be considered part of both camps. What I suggest is that defining these groups and starting us vs. them battles that do not seek interesting areas of common concern are not productive activities. There's way too much generalization going on - too many exceptions to both camp definitions and not enough value to be had from hashing out those definitions. I don't see how what I suggest is throwing up a wall. quite the contrary. I'm interested in whatever we can do to avoid setting up walls in the first place. Collaborations like the one FortiusOne has with the U-Wisconsin folks is one great example of the huge potential for mixing people from both backgrounds. I think setting up a charged environment by placing people in one or more camps that are narrowly defined with one group clearly being viewed as new, exciting, fresh, while the other is ancient, extinct, and irrelevant is a clear exercise in wall building that will only end up benefiting academics who critique trends in academic geography (that would be ironic, don't you think?). Maybe I'm not seeing it clearly - help me out here. It should be an interesting session at Where 2.0 if it ends up happening. I think we can agree that discussing this stuff in a postive, collaboration-oriented way is a good idea for everyone concerned. Hopefully I can leave the soft comforts of my ivory tower perch where I do nothing but generate secret, irrelevant, navel-gazing work that only other academics can understand to attend the meeting and participate myself.* Cheers, -Anthony *just a touch of sarcasm there. J Anthony Robinson, PhD Research Associate John A. Dutton e-Education Institute / GeoVISTA Center Department of Geography The Pennsylvania State University http://www.personal.psu.edu/acr181/ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Wolf Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 2:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Idea for a Neogeographers meet Paleogeographers panel at Where 2.0 Rather than thinking of neo vs. paleo as divisive, I think it's helpful to assume the perspective of the folks calling themselves "neo" geographers. I believe, from their perspective that this "geography" which is mostly embodied as web-based cartography is a new (or "neo") thing. But it's new on two counts: 1. It's new to the practitioners. They are the amateurs in terms of geography but they are NOT amateurs in terms of technology. 2. This technology democratizes cartography in a way not seen since Guttenberg made it possible for more people to have maps. In that sense, it is new or "neo". Regards to Geography as a discipline: In the realm of academia, neogeography does not mean to supplant Geography. But to simply say: "There is a new field for geography to research. Nothing more and nothing less in my eyes." Is to underestimate the significance of democratized cartography. And for "Mapping and spatial analysis methods didn't simply appear out of thin air to become mashable through an API. " It is admirable that you make efforts to get your software out as FOSS - but that's actually not that common in academic Geography. So many academics keep their software and data a closely held secret. They publish analysis methods but only in venues that other academics participate in. What happens is methods and APIs do "simply appear out of thin air" as these FOSS "hackers" reinvent the methods that are published in an inaccessible manner. Even APIs get supplanted because the overly formalized, academic APIs like OGC appear too complex (thus we get the Google API and the OpenStreetMap API). Further, many FOSS "hackers" are brilliant thinkers with a strong dislike of academia. They dropped out of college because the CompSci department taught decades old material in a very slow pedagogy. I believe is it very important for us Paleogeographers to wear the name with honor and embrace the efforts of the Neogeographers. We do carry with us much hard-fought knowledge and wisdom that the Neogeographers would benefit from. But, at the same time, if we don't make it accessible in a manner THEY get, then the Neogeographers will stumble their own way along backed by Billion$ in Venture Capital and Millions of code contributors. Geography has always struggled in defining itself. To throw up walls because of a definition being given it by a massively productive culture would, I think, be another blow against the discipline. -Eric -- -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=- Eric B. Wolf 720-209-6818 USGS Geographer Center of Excellence in GIScience PhD Student CU-Boulder - Geography
_______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
