ATM S & T, continued

[Peter Abrahams <telscope@europa.com>]

Jon proposed that we submit the best of the ATM digest to S & T, by 
choosing threads on different topics & re-writing them into an article.
Donald wrote that S & T is irrelevant because the internet allows everyone
to publish themselves; and on the ATM digest, if we stay "on the topic of
ATMing there is no need for an outside "editor""  I wish the first idea was
workable and the second was accurate, but I don't think they are.
A couple of years ago, I asked Bill Cook if he'd be interested in a series
of articles for ATMJ on topics that had been discussed on ATMD.  I'd saved
posts on 'foucault test', 'polishing', etc, and felt that an article made
up of a variety of informed opinions would be better than my own
perspective.  Bill OK'd it, I proposed it to the list (and caused a little
heat regarding re-printing, etc.) & I got to work.  It was a complete
failure.  Trying to make a cogent, organized, correct essay out of a bunch
of short posts took forever, one argument never flowed into the next, but
above all, there was a very wide variety of opinions, a large number of
which had to be wrong.  Even limiting myself to those authors who are known
to have some expertise, there were just too many contradictions,
corrections, and disagreements.  
And this is why I don't think the internet is a replacement for edited
periodicals.  If S & T, and ATMJ, and other journals, weren't edited, they
would be much less reliable (of course, they're far from perfect).  The
archives of this list are very useful, and I consult them often.  But some
fraction, maybe half, of the messages are something that would profitably
be edited from a journal; and I don't always know which half.  I don't
think they should be edited, but they aren't a replacement for an edited
journal.
_______________________________________
Peter Abrahams   telscope@europa.com