<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
<title type="text">Joseph Reagle</title>
<subtitle type="html"><![CDATA[
Open Communities, Media, Source, and Standards
]]></subtitle>
<id>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/van-doren</id>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog" />
<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/van-doren?flav=atom" />


<author>
<name>Joseph Reagle</name>
<uri>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/van-doren</uri>
<email></email>
</author>
<rights>Copyright 2003-2010 Joseph Reagle</rights>
<generator uri="http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/" version="1.4.3 01/10/2008">
PyBlosxom http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/ 1.4.3 01/10/2008
</generator>

<updated>2008-11-22T22:11:06Z</updated>
<!-- icon?  logo?  -->

<entry>
<title type="html">Van Doren on The New Encyclopedia</title>
<category term="" />
<id>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/2008/11/22/van-doren</id>
<updated>2008-11-22T22:11:06Z</updated>
<published>2008-11-22T22:11:06Z</published>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/van-doren.html" />
<content type="html">

  &lt;p&gt;In articles about Wikipedia, former Britannica editor &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Van_Doren&quot;&gt;Charles Van Doren&lt;/a&gt; is frequently cited as saying &quot;because the world is radically new, the ideal encyclopedia should be radical, too.&quot; For example, he is quoted in Daniel Pink&apos;s &lt;em&gt;Wired&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html?pg=3&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt;. And &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060731fa_fact&quot;&gt;Stacy Schiff&apos;s&lt;/a&gt; widely read &lt;em&gt;New Yorker&lt;/em&gt; article quotes Jimmy Wales citing Van Doren to claim that the new encyclopedia &quot;should stop being safe -- in politics, and philosophy, and science.&quot; As I note in my work, an irony of Wikipedia being compared to the staid authoritativeness of Britannica is this progressive essay by Van Doren, and the fact that he was a product of an unsavory new media phenomenon of his own time: the television game show &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/21/opinion/edbeam.php&quot;&gt;scandal&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

  &lt;p&gt;The whole Van Doren (1962) essay is &lt;a href=&quot;http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/1/23&quot;&gt;available online&lt;/a&gt;, but not publicly so. His essay is actually lauding the progressivism of the &lt;em&gt;L&apos;Encyclopedie francaise&lt;/em&gt; and argues that all encyclopedias should focus on teaching over informing, art over reference, human over scientific-literary, on serving the &quot;curious average man&quot; and on reformism over the intellectual and status quo. A line that I am fond of is his claim that &quot;If an encyclopedia hopes to be respectable in the year 2000 it must appear daring in the year 1963&quot; (p. 24). If we accept that Wikipedia is daring in its way, by this math, any respectability achieved before 2045 is a bonus.&lt;/p&gt;
</content>
</entry>
</feed>
