> > Paleo = old, extinct, fossilized, etc… > > Hmmm... Merriam-Webster gives:
Main Entry: pale- Variant(s):or paleo- Function:*combining form* Etymology:Greek *palai-, palaio-* ancient, from *palaios,* from *palai* long ago; probably akin to Greek *tēle* far off, Sanskrit *carama* last 1 *:* involving or dealing with ancient forms or conditions <*paleo*botany> 2 *:* early *:* primitive *:* archaic <*Paleo*lithic> I checked a few other definitions as well and nothing gives "extinct" or "fossilized" as synonymous with paleo-. I think you are imposing this negative definition on the term. Instead, we could see paleogeography as deriving from Webster's first definition: Involving or dealing with ancient forms or conditions *of Geography* Perhaps it would be better termed Neocartography and Paleocartography - but the end result of Neogeography goes beyond the creation of a map. The map actually fades more into the background, allowing the purpose to come forward. This is why Google Maps leave off churches and other landmarks. The purpose of their map isn't so much to capture a spatial representation of a culture as it is to help you find the closest Starbucks. Granted, you can argue that what they are doing is exactly producing so many representations of a culture - and this is where the Paleo needs to point out the the Neo what it is they are actually doing. But Google Maps are designed to be ephemeral - they are meant to be even less permanent than a map drawn on a napkin. So, if Neo- is meant to be different from Paleo-, then what would be Neo would be the "forms and conditions". The form is a very ephemeral map that contains only the information the map user wants (or at least, the information that the mapping engine can produce). Mashups allow the map user to go the next step further and create their own combinations of information that others can consume (unlike a paper map on a wall with pushpins that can only be viewed in person). The conditions are also new (or Neo-) in that the entire process is fairly democratized (excepting the digitial divide) and ubiquitous. Turn on your iPhone, Google Starbucks, get a map. Turn off your iPhone and the map is gone. All that exists are traces in the Googleplex letting them know that someone with an iPhone likes to know where the Starbucks is. But maybe this is the wrong venue to have this discussion. Almost by definition, anyone following this list would qualify as a Neogeographer and there are many of us who also clearly qualify as a Paleogeographer. And while I do agree that the terms belittle the expanse of Geography as a discipline, they also help us understand some of the dynamics of the situation. These two bins probably should not be viewed as independent, but rather as ends of a spectrum. Of course, I deal with the problem of similar bins every day. I'm at a very traditional Geography department where people are immediately classified as "Human" or "Physical". In fact, our second semester graduate seminar in research design is split into "Human" and "Physical". Grad students, like myself, who study cartography, GIScience, etc. have to choose from one of the two bins of which neither is a particularly good fit. -Eric > > > 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 �C 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 �C 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 > > -- -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=- 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
