[SIGCIS-Members] Why is HuffPost publishing another "invention of email" series?

[Andrew Meade McGee]

I'm glad Barbara raised the issue of misattribution. It's something I was
mulling over yesterday afternoon while this e-mail thread was percolating.
Like Paul, I was reminded of the Atanasoff debate.

I'm curious, though, and I'm sure many on the list have given this thought,
why the impulse within the media and the general public to seek out
specific "founders" or "firsts" with regard to technology, and if the
answers are muddled or messy or not inclined to point ot a single finger,
why is there a willingness to embrace shoddy claims just for the sake of
having a representative "creator" figure? It seems as though some fields
and industries are particularly prone to this, and I wonder if computing is
one of these?

In this case their are obvious publicity and pecuniary benefits to being
accorded the honor in the mind of the public as the "creator" of e-mail.
(And residual benefits to those associated with individuals identified as
key founders of technology. I'm sure Newark and Rutgers would not mind
having Ayyadurai labeled the originator of such a ubiquitous technology by
the public.) I guess what I don't understand is why the public seems so
prefer the story of a single genius inventor, with a technology emerging
fully formed, over the incremental evolution resulting from the input of
several persons and groups (as is the case with the true development of
electronic mail).

Is it our impulse as humans to prefer a story? Our preference for
simplicity over complexity? A desire to have particular humans rather than
social process refine technology? I really don't understand the motivation
to rally around a single claimant with a strained claim over a multifaceted
history of a technology's formulation when it seems clear the latter is
true.

When you consider the fascinating Al Gore incident, when it became a staple
of late night comedy, talk radio, and general zeitgeist, the joke was
political or personality driven: the hubris or absurdity of a politician
having created the internet. The dissonance in the popular imagination was
with the idea of Gore as creator, not that something as large as "the
internet" could have a single creator.

Am I alone in my puzzlement?

--Andrew
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Andrew Meade McGee
Corcoran Department of History
University of Virginia
PO Box 400180 - Nau Hall
Charlottesville, VA 22904


On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Ceruzzi, Paul <CeruzziP at si.edu> wrote:

> I am showing my age, but I've lived through a few of these--too many. Some
> of you may remember the Atanasoff-ENIAC controversy, which overflowed into
> a fuss over the labels in the Smithsonian's "Information Age" exhibit. And
> the books written by Pulitzer Prize winner Jane Smiley, Alice and Arthur
> Burks, et al. I can supply unpleasant details, but perhaps best off-list.
> When I mentioned this to Mel Kranzberg, he said, "Hey, people are still
> fighting over whether Newton or Leibniz invented the calculus!"
>
> Paul E. Ceruzzi, Chairman
> Division of Space History, MRC 311
> National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution
> PO Box 37012
> Washington, DC 20013-7012
> 202-633-2414
> http://airandspace.si.edu/staff/paul-ceruzzi
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-bounces at sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces at sigcis.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Russell
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 6:54 PM
> To: Coopersmith, Jonathan
> Cc: sigcis
> Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Why is HuffPost publishing another
> "invention of email" series?
>
> Hi folks -
>
> To be clear, I agree with Jonathan (and others) who pointed out Gore's
> important role in networking history.  I think we can also blame Gore a
> little bit for using a clumsy turn of phrase in his CNN interview, which
> gave an opportunity to his political opponents who wanted to portray Gore
> as a liar.
>
> I found one article that Jonathan mentioned - "But Al Gore Did Help" - at
> http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2000-10-26/news/0010250556_1_patron-new-technologies-internet.
> In it, Jonathan gave us a clear, fair, high-level summary: "Gore's early
> initiatives helped shape the Internet into a more open and universal system
> with more access to federal and university databases than it would have
> otherwise."
>
> In addition to Jonathan's piece, anyone teaching about this topic should
> know about Seth Finkelstein's page of articles and resources:
> http://www.sethf.com/gore/
>
> The point I was trying to make in my earlier note is that this "invention
> of email" controversy (if we can call it that) resembles the Gore/invention
> "controversy" in that the consensus opinion of subject experts is
> dismissed, or deemed part of a conspiracy!  The facts and evidence are
> well-known; yet journalists and others with opaque or questionable motives
> ignore them, or twist them.
>
> I'm reminded of the way that climate skeptics and creationists "teach the
> controversy," which is a strategy to destabilize the overwhelming consensus
> of specialists and experts.  That topic gives me the same irritated
> sensation I felt when I read the new HuffPost/email series, which is the
> same type of irritation I feel when I tell people that I write about
> Internet history and they say "you mean how Al Gore invented it? heh heh."
>
> I hope somebody writes a biography of poor Al Gore that explains how Gore
> did such earnest and productive work with his advocacy of networking and
> climate change research, but found himself at the butt of jokes and public
> ridicule.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list
> of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at
> http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription
> options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/attachments/20140904/5193ff2f/attachment-0001.htm>