This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.
Welcome to Weblogs at Harvard Law School. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!
Journalist Jill Carroll, captive in Iraq since early January, has been freed. The Christian Science Monitor, for which she freelances, has lots of articles.
The first Digital Commonwealth Council of Members meeting is today, March 30, at the Worcester Public Library at 2 pm. Roy Tennant of the California Digital Library, Web4Lib, XML4Lib, and Common Cites (among other things) is the guest speaker. The meeting is free, but registration is required.
Thanks for the tip, Rich. I really did almost forget to blog it. = )
Edward Tenner explores whether search engines are making people dumber because they don’t have to use as many research skills in this New York Times Op-Ed.
One of the joys of being around the Berkman Center is attending the lunches they host with very interesting speakers. Today, David Weinberger is speaking some more about the book on knowledge he’s writing. I’ve had the pleasure of listening to him talk about various other portions of the book and his research before, including an analysis of encyclopedias.
One of the points he made is about how putting all of human knowledge into print is impractical. Imagine how many printed volumes that would take! If we want to record it, we might need another medium.
In a speech at a journalism conference, Patrick J. Purcell, publisher and president of the Boston Herald, opined that the news-gathering strength of news organizations will help them survive the digital age.
Remember that study published in the journal Nature about how Wikipedia is only slightly less accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica when it comes to certain articles about science? Apparently, it made the folks at Britannica nervous enough to look into the study itself. They sent around an e-mail to a select group today encouraging people to read their refute of that research.
3/28: Nature responds (.pdf) to Britannica’s assertions, mentioning that Britannica contacted Nature soon after the study appeared, but Britannica did not follow up with Nature’s initial response. Nature explains more about the process of completing their study and demonstrates that they tried to treat Britannica and Wikipedia the same.