Chronicle of Higher Education

The "Chronicle of Higher Education", as seen in my last post, offers a wealth of relevant issues dealing with everything from the Internet to innovative schools in Africa. It is a biweekly journal that costs only $45 a year, and it is worth every penny. In the article "Authoritative Online Edition", Thomas Benton, an English professor, relates how difficult it was, prior to the World Wide Web, to locate specific volumes for the collected works of Walt Whitman. He goes on to praise certain digital archives that allow him to have free access to entire collections. One collection is the "William Blake Archive", which "is among the most difficult and expensive for the beginning scholar to assemble, and it is simply impossible to duplicate in print the quality and scope of what is now available on this Web site, short of owning the original works themselves" (C2). The quality and access are what make digital archives so important today. Outside of the "serious" scholars studying the sublime poetry of Blake, now the "curious" can enjoy it too. We sometimes forget that alot of the classical or obscure works were accessible to only the privileged few, but now such works have been unleashed from there most coveted academic chains and allowed to float freely in the fresh air where an unknown and "unadorned" poet awaits to be inspired anew.

"Is Wikipedia dangerous?"

In a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Michael Gorman passionately relates how collaborative online services are producing "a world in which everyone is an expert in a world devoid of expertise". It is interesting to look at both sides of this debate. I have not heard many dissenting opinions concerning the academic value of these collaborative networks, but I think it is noteworthy to mention that there is obviously knowledgeable collaborative projects and just plain error ridden projects. However, it would be unjust and foolish to dump all these projects in the heap bin of ignorance. To discern what is correct and what is incorrect, requires prior knowledge, and this is where the debate should be concentrated on. To disregard even the possibility of autodidactic erudition is to disregard some of the greatest contributers to knowledge in history, who did not possess diplomas or other academic accolades. Judging the material presented should be the main focus not the degrees the person has.