ATM Re: Reprints of Everything

[Atmj1@aol.com]

Yesterday, Peter Abrahams wrote (Caps Added) :

>>>>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<<<<

Now then, we all know that Peter is dedicated to our craft. We know that Peter
is a collector. We know that Peter is a good organizer. SO, What does the
above tell us?? That is very easy for people who do not have any practical
experience for making such things happen to UNDERESTIMATE the complexity of
the task to be tackled! 

A few weeks ago, I addressed the issue of having past articles from TM
reprinted on the web with following --  for those fortunate enough to have
missed it the first time:

>>>>……In the last few posts, we see a number of people rallying behind ideas
like, we'll just get the authors to recreate their material for us. 

That sounds great at first. But let's take a second look. Are 15 you going to
send letters to Rutten and van Venrooij, or Dick Suiter, or Dave Kreige, or
David Levy, or Robert Sigler, or others and ask them to redo their articles?

If you do, what will you offer these busy people: 15 cents a word; $50 per
article; a kindly mention on a CD cover? And if it is a monetary reward, who
will pay for it? By committee? And if by committee, how will the funds be
raised? Who will take the responsibility for them?

Now as to content: who will decide the length needed or wanted? Who will
determine whether a particular illustration is best made with a photo or line
drawing? And what if there is a disagreement? And with most experienced
authors (usually the ones with the best knowledge and command of the
language), wanting to have their work published where it can be seen and
respected over the greatest amount of time, how will you convince these
authors that your site is better than any number of other similar sites? How
will you convince them that their work will be available on demand as
respected reference material at dozens and dozens of noted universities and
observatories in dozens of counties? (Sorry, Ric)

Some say that the authors responsible for most of TMs important articles are
list members. Perhaps. But then, when was the last time you saw a post by
Dobson, Shaffer, Sigler, Rutten, Buchroeder, Stoltzman, Suiter, Woods, etc.?
Humm?

Methinks positive thinking may have overshadowed thorough cogitation. It would
seem to me that what we need is a focal point for ideas, a rallying point for
efforts, and organization with ONE VOICE to bring some of these things to pass
for us as A GROUP.<<<<

With that, I went off into my ATMA thing. 

We are not going to get rid of the internet. However, too many people put too
many of their eggs in that basket.

1) Not everyone has a computer. This is especially true of our youth - those
we should be reaching out to.
2) Not everyone is going to get a computer -- at least soon.
3) Not everyone with a computer is going to be online.
4) Large monitors do not work well in bed. 
5) Just because everyone CAN be an editor, it doesn't mean they SHOULD be an
editor. Many very intelligent people (some who write very convincingly) do not
KNOW all they think they KNOW about any given topic. 

In ATM Journal #11, we published two pages of inaccurate illustrations. In
issue #12 an errata sheet has been enclosed. Do you have any idea just how
much that error cost, in time and dollars, to make right? Errors can be
changed pretty easy on website. Still, would the host go to the trouble? Would
they have time? And what if they disagreed with reality and held fast to false
information? Publishing the Journal, I have seen this many, many times. And
for the sake of the ATM community, those articles were not published. 

Finally, all of this is just to encourage our more zealous List members to
look at the big picture before coming up with over simplified solutions for
complex problems.

We all have our needs and wishes. Still, if we don't stop thinking of me, me,
me and start thinking of us, us, us, we may wind up proving that Randall was
right by being gone, gone, gone.

Just some thoughts,

Regards

Bill Cook, TN