[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Kritiks
I sent out a lot of copies of my SCA paper. I hope this means you
won't miss the session. I also hope that I receive e-mail criticism
when you get to it.
I have been asked to put the entire thing on CEDA-L. I prefer not to
do that. It would not only suck up a lot of space. It would
discourage people from serious (publishable) criticism. Though I
include CEDA-L material in the text of the paper when appropriate, I
rejected most CEDA-L discussion because I found them vapid. Instead
of beginning a posting with "I feel..." or "I believe", might it not
behoove the writer to ground his/her comments on some rationale other
than personal observation or anecdote.
I know many of you out there use the L well. I find it useful to
discover what's going on and who's running what and what results were
at which tournament. I do think that you might find that no one in
the academic world will consider CEDA-L postings scholarship.
Hence -- (as Hunt told me) -- write to publish. There are a hnadful
of outlets that need serious and critical scholarship in our
activity. Please write. Our field needs serious scholarship.
If experience is any type of guide, that doesn't happen at the
conventions since papers seldom get to respondents in time for
serious criticism to be mounted.
As long as there are outlets like CAD, The Forensic, Speaker and
Gavel, etc., there will be demand for scholarship. As many of you
know, I'm seriously contemplating a journal of my own through
StarMakers. Before I begin to solicit material, I do plan to finish
my survey of scholarship and I am beginning to agree more with S.
Hunt.
Lots of ideas and lots of bombast but very little quality
scholarship.
CEDA-L serves many purposes but it isn't an alternative to
traditional scholarship (publishing).
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page