Aug 2, 2006

More Noted Things

by Cliopatria

Marshall Poe,"The Hive," Atlantic Online, September 2006, is the latest report on Wikipedia. It begins and ends with Marshall Poe. In between is an interesting history of Wikipedia's development. O.K., so he initiated his own biographical entry. He's an interesting fellow: an early modern Russianist, who taught at Harvard and American University and is now a writer and analyst at the Atlantic Monthly. He also founded a wiki, the MemoryArchive, published his monograph electronically, and wrote about the experience in"Note to Self: Print Monograph Dead; Invent New Publishing Model," Journal of Electronic Publishing, December 2001.

Here, btw, is Wikipedia's List of Modern Historians (1900- ), but the list isn't complete because it doesn't include Poe or Sean Wilentz or Tim Burke. [Ed: Oh, wait ...!] But what the heck is Clyde Wilson doing in there?

At Oxblog, our colleague, Taylor Owen, has a remarkable post about American bombing in Cambodia during the Viet Nam war. The accompanying graphic is chilling. Taylor expects to be writing more about strategic bombing and civilian casualties soon.

Finally, in case you haven't yet read it on Jason Kuznicki's, Brandon Watson's, and the History Carnival's recommendation: Florence King,"Watch Ann Go Whoosh!," National Review, 7 August. So, yah, Andrew Sullivan's got it right: Why does Mel Gibson have to apologize and Coulter doesn't? He, at least, can claim alcoholism as an excuse.

More Comments:

Ralph E. Luker - 8/2/2006

Yes. I agree that the answer to my question is about who these two people are supposed to be. Coulter's persona is to be offensive. Gibson's, presumeably, is not.

Jonathan Dresner - 8/2/2006

(there's a matchup I could see on South Park)

Seriously, though, Coulter's been given opportunities to apologize for various statements and consistently refused them: her statements are intentional and intentionally provocative because that's what she does. For Gibson to be provocative is actually counteproductive because his talents lie elsewhere. He doesn't have to apologize, but it's in his interest (unless he wants to take a demotion to pundit). She ought to, but it's in her interest not to; her only bankable quality is her steadfast offensiveness.

The question is: why do seemingly respectable networks and publishing establishments give her a platform, when they are willing to deny it to someone like Gibson?