- Members - lists.sigcis.org

Xerox Alto source code release at CHM
by Paul McJones 22 Oct '14

22 Oct '14

For those interested in studying primary materials (source code, documentation, etc.) from the Alto system built at Xerox PARC in the 1970s, the Computer History Museum has released an archive with snapshots of the Alto file servers at PARC taken at various times from the mid 1970s to the mid 1980s. This @CHM blog post introduces the archive: Xerox Alto Source Code: The roots of the modern personal computer Paul McJones October 21, 2014 http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/xerox-alto-source-code/ <http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/xerox-alto-source-code/> A “walk-through” of the archive is here: http://xeroxalto.computerhistory.org/xerox_alto_file_system_archive.html <http://xeroxalto.computerhistory.org/xerox_alto_file_system_archive.html> The archive is here: http://xeroxalto.computerhistory.org/ <http://xeroxalto.computerhistory.org/> More detail about the archive (provenance, naming conventions, file types, etc.) is available here: http://xeroxalto.computerhistory.org/xerox_alto_file_system_archive.html/#A… <http://xeroxalto.computerhistory.org/xerox_alto_file_system_archive.html/#A…> . Paul McJones

1 0

computing and historiography
by Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan 20 Oct '14

20 Oct '14

Hi SIGCISers, I'm continuing to mull over the citation & journalism controversies of recent weeks (actually it's years I realize, now that I went back to take a second look at Nathan's WaPo incident). Some of my reflections are up on my blog. I will make some more substantial followup posts in the coming week or two. Link here, for anyone interested: http://bit.ly/10d4YOD Feedback welcome. And on the idea of relaying links etc via the SIGCIS page: I would welcome having my comments or links reproduced on our webpage (though I may need to make some minor revisions before the whole text was reproduced--I'm still thinking-in-draft format). Best, Bernard -- Dr. Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan Institut für Kulturwissenschaft Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin www.bernardg.com

1 0

Should we aspire to be featured in or write for the New Yorker?
by Thomas Haigh 15 Oct '14

15 Oct '14

Hello everyone, I'd like to thank Ian and Bernard for their thoughtful contributions. Here's a bigger question that comes to mind as I ponder all the issues raised over the last few days in this stimulating conversation. Just for the moment, let's assume that whatever outrage anyone might be feeling is just a product of submersion in an unworldly academic culture. Let's assume that Evgeny Morozov and Janet Browne are entirely correct. That this is just how highbrow journalism works. The New Yorker does things in a particular way. Call it editorial determinism. There could only be one mention of Eden Medina, "entertaining" was just the right word, and it had to come in the tenth paragraph. The New Yorker prose aesthetic provided no alternatives. The Tumblr and twitter responses from Morozov resolved the matter. There will be no apology. There should be no apology. Let's assume that these are indeed the only terms on which the work of an award winning scholar can be popularized in the New Yorker. That these are the only terms on which a pugilistic public intellectual who is also a Harvard graduate student can or should engage with the work of an award winning scholar on the pages of the New Yorker. Take it or leave it. I'd bet that many historians dream of one day having their work profiled at length in the New Yorker, or, even less plausibly, of themselves being invited to contribute to its hallowed pages. Having that happen might seem like winning the lottery. But if nothing at all went wrong here, perhaps it shouldn't. Maybe the dream is more of a nightmare. Perhaps the New Yorker and scholarship are best kept apart. Best wishes, Tom

8 7

Call for papers 'Software as Scholarship', Bern, 29-30 January 2015 - extended deadline
by tara.andrews＠kps.unibe.ch 15 Oct '14

15 Oct '14

Dear SIGCIS members, I forward the following call for papers: although the original deadline has passed, I have only recently been made aware of the existence of the group and would be delighted to have an abstract from anyone here who feels moved to provide one! The extended deadline will be 26 October 2014. With best wishes, Tara Andrews -- Prof. Dr. Tara L Andrews Digital Humanities, Universität Bern http://www.dh.unibe.ch/ Scholarship in Software, Software as Scholarship: From Genesis to Peer Review ‘Expressions’, 29 January 2015: Workshop on Software-based Scholarship Organizer: Digital Humanities, Universität Bern Computation and software analysis have entered nearly every imaginable field of scholarship in the last decades, in a variety of forms from digital publication of results to computational modelling embedded in experimental work. In each of these digital outputs – be it an interactive publication with mapping of relevant geo-referenced data, or perhaps a statistical program for the categorization of millions of books according to their literary genre – there is some manifestation directly in the computer code of the scholarly thought that underlies the project, of the intellectual argument around which the outcome is based. The fact that scholarly software includes scholarly content is reasonably well-accepted. What remains controversial is the attempt at identification, in any particular instance, of what scholarly contribution has been made by a piece of software. Its makers tend to express the scholarship in writing separate from the software itself, if they even make explicit at all the scholarly reasoning that went into the code; its reviewers and users tend either to treat the software as a ‘black box’, opaque to informed scrutiny and therefore to be looked on with grave suspicion, or to deny that this particular software has any scholarship inherent to the source code. Given that our mechanisms for identifying and evaluating the scholarship within computer code are nearly nonexistent, we must ask: how do intellectual arguments — how does scholarship — come to be expressed in the software of digital humanities? How does this scholarship, so evident in theory but so elusive in practice, fit into the scientific process of advancement of knowledge? ‘Evaluation’, 30 January 2015: Round table on Peer Review for Digital Scholarly Work Organizer: Infoclio.ch<http://Infoclio.ch> Related to the question of the expression of scholarship in software, and in other forms of digital publication as well, is the question of how to evaluate it. This topic will be the focus of a half-day roundtable, Peer Review for Digital Scholarly Work, to be held on 30 January 2015. Digital scholarly works such as Digital Editions, Digital Libraries, Digital Exhibitions, Data Visualization, Geographical Information Systems and the like are increasingly frequent in the Humanities, as main or secondary output of research projects; the question of how best to evaluate them takes on ever greater importance. At the moment, researchers doing digital scholarly work are usually unable to obtain academic credit for their work—in order to obtain scholarly recognition, they must additionally publish a “normal” article in a print-based journal about their digital work. As universities and national research funding agencies across the world move toward encouraging more digital scholarship in the humanities, there is an urgent need to discuss the criteria and benchmarks that should be in place for evaluating digital scholarly work. We welcome contributions about existing initiatives in this domain as well as more theoretical contributions that treat the topic of peer review of digital scholarly work. Practical information We now invite participants for each of the workshop and the round table. • For the WORKSHOP, please submit a 500-word abstract of the work you will present. • For the ROUND TABLE, please submit a 200-word “position paper” indicating your intended contribution to the discussion. Submissions from early-career researchers and “alt-ac” practitioners within the digital humanities are particularly welcome. There are a number of travel bursaries available for speakers; if you would like to be considered for a bursary, please inform us when you submit your abstract. Abstracts should be submitted to thomas.leibundgut at kps.unibe.ch<http://kps.unibe.ch> by 11 October 2014; we will notify contributors of decisions by 23 October. Selected papers arising from the event will appear in an issue of Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, to appear in early 2016.

1 0

Why don't real historians write popular works?
by Dave Walden 15 Oct '14

15 Oct '14

At 07:03 PM 10/12/2014, Jonathan Coopersmith wrote: >There is another reason why historians don't write popular books, a >fear of being labelled a synthesizer by one's >colleagues. Admittedly, that may be partially due to jealousy at >the publicity and income of a best seller, but it is a real issue >especially within the reward structures (such as they exist) of universities. > I wish there was a little more tolerance for different approaches and views. I see many things as real history work: narrow research into primary sources for narrow audiences; synthesis for broad audiences; histories with lots of technology details; personal stories written by participants in the history; writing with lots of context and historiography; writing without context and historiography; etc. I envision all these different types of history writers struggling to make a living or accomplish what they see as a worthy life in the environment in which they chose to work (each with some annoyance at the way their environment operates). I bet very few make "big bucks" from writing computing history. Even a "best seller" in the computing history domain perhaps doesn't make enough money to enable the writer to stop working (although I suspect that a writer with a popular success can make, for a while, some additional money giving paid lectures). I see everyone having their own compulsions for writing (people who don't like to write or don't have a need to write don't write enough to matter): some people write to further their careers; some find a way to make a career of writing; some write for the joy of seeing themselves in print; some write to record what they want the world to know; etc. (Given all the success Isaacson has had outside of writing history, I'd guess he is writing his books for some other primary reason than to live off of the book advance or royalties.) I also suspect that when members of the various tribes get together alone (professionally trained historians or amateur historians or journals historians, etc.), they all have dismissive things to say about the people not in their particular tribe and the way that other tribe writes history and the way their world works.

6 5

Fwd: News - Computer Conservation Society celebrates its silver jubilee
by Brian Randell 15 Oct '14

15 Oct '14

Hi: I thought this would be of interest to SIGCIS members. Cheers Brian Randell News Release Computer Conservation Society celebrates its silver jubilee (photos available on request) 15 October 2014 Hailed as an outstanding success in achieving its ambitious aims, the Computer Conservation Society is 25 years of age and thriving. Millions have seen its working historic computers at close quarters in various museums across the UK and the machines it has reconstructed or restored, like Colossus, the Bombe, and the Manchester Baby and EDSAC, have become world-famous. Established in 1989, the Computer Conservation Society started as a joint venture between BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT, the Science Museum and the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester. In recent years The National Museum of Computing has become a key partner. In those 25 years, the skills and dedication of CCS volunteers have been evident in many bold and ambitious major restoration and reconstruction projects. Their work has established computer conservation standards and models that are now accepted internationally. The first full reconstruction to be completed by the CCS was the Manchester Baby, ready in 1998 to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the original computer running the first stored program. The fully working Baby still attracts large crowds at the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry. At Bletchley Park, two landmark CCS reconstructions are the wartime code-breaking Colossus Mark II at the National Museum of Computing at and the Bombe on display at the Bletchley Park Visitor Centre. Restorations of original computers also include the 1950’s Ferranti Pegasus and the 1960’s ICT 1301 (Flossie), best known for its appearance in James Bond films. More recent CCS projects include the restoration of the 1951 Harwell Dekatron (WITCH) computer, now recognised as the world’s oldest original working digital computer, and the ongoing reconstruction of the 1940’s EDSAC computer, the first practical general purpose computer. Sir Neil Cossons, Director of the Science Museum when CCS was founded and now Pro-Provost and Chairman of the Council of the Royal College of Art, said: “The Computer Conservation Society seemed a rather novel concept twenty-five years ago. Today we wouldn’t question the idea, such has been the society’s record of outstanding success and the public's growing appreciation that the computer has a profoundly important history that needs to be captured and reflected back to us through the material evidence.” Doron Swade, who conceived the CCS idea and co-founded the organisation with the late Tony Sale, said: “The combination of computers and conservation is a heady mix as we reflect on the extraordinary achievements of the pioneers of our digital age. At a time when many Museums are increasingly moving to computer screen-based displays rather than artifacts or working objects, the CCS is providing live access to the very machines that have enabled this trend.” Chair of the CCS Rachel Burnett highlighted some of the benefits of CCS activities: “Computer conservation has both social and historical value. The conserved machines offer superb and unique learning opportunities. These working machines offer an unparalleled experience by showing how they actually work and what it was like to operate them. They help bridge generations and give youngsters a perspective of the unparalleled rate of change that continues in the world of computers today. Restoring and reconstructing historic machines draws people into levels of intimate detail with the machine in a way nothing else does. Operating these machines often produces unexpected findings that give greater insights.” Sir Neil Cossons concluded: “Putting working historic machines in front of the public makes a vivid and lasting impact – there is nothing like the real thing. Ensuring that the real thing, expertly restored and reconstructed, can speak to future generations will be the lasting legacy of the CCS.” Membership of the CCS is open to anyone interested in computer conservation and the history of computing. It currently has over 1000 members world-wide. For more information about the CCS, see www.computerconservationsociety.org<http://www.computerconservationsociety.org/> Notes To Editors 1 Ten CCS Projects that have caught the public’s imagination Machine Babbage’s Analytical Engine construction First used c1840 existed only as a design Conservation Ongoing Location to be decided Machine Harwell Differential Analyser reconstruction First used 1930s Conservation Ongoing Location Manchester Museum of Science and Industry and the Science Museum Machine Bombe Reconstruction First used 1940 Conservation 2007 Location Bletchley Park Trust Machine Colossus Rebuild First used 1944 Conservation 2007 Location The National Museum of Computing Machine Manchester Baby reconstruction First used 1948 Conservation 1998 Location Manchester Museum of Science and Industry Machine EDSAC reconstruction First used 1949 Conservation Ongoing Location The National Museum of Computing Machine Harwell Dekatron / WITCH restoration First used 1951 Conservation 2012 Location The National Museum of Computing Machine Pegasus restoration First used 1959 Conservation 2014 Restoration terminated Location Science Museum and Manchester Museum of Science and Industry Machine ICT 1301 / Flossie restoration First used 1962 Conservation 2004-2012 Location In storage at The National Museum of Computing Machine Elliott 803 restoration First used 1962 Conservation Ongoing Location The National Museum of Computing Machine ICL 2966 restoration First used 1985 Conservation Ongoing Location The National Museum of Computing Media Enquiries Stephen Fleming for the Computer Conservation Society Palam Communications 01635 299116 s.fleming(a)palam.co.uk<mailto:s.fleming@palam.co.uk> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU EMAIL = Brian.Randell(a)ncl.ac.uk<mailto:Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk> PHONE = +44 191 208 7923 URL = http://www.ncl.ac.uk/computing/staff/profile/brian.randell

1 0

The pivot to positivity
by Thomas Haigh 14 Oct '14

14 Oct '14

Hello everyone, Bernard makes a good point that we should be careful not to appear curmudgeonly by focusing only on mistakes and problems made by non-members. That goes not just for public outreach, which is a longer term project, but also for new members who have joined the list over the last few days. Jason Gallo, our VC of Operations, just shared the news that 34 new people have joined in the past four days pushing our membership to about 400. Let's take that energy and push it in a positive direction. So here are some of the things SIGCIS is doing right now that we could use your help with. . The annual workshop is coming up next month and our program is online. http://www.sigcis.org/workshop14 Please attend! And please submit something yourself for next year's workshop. . We are making ten travel awards to graduate students to help them present at the workshop. http://www.sigcis.org/travelaward We don't have much money to do this with. Please consider donating. https://associations.press.jhu.edu/shot-app/contribute. For larger gifts, particularly in support of our forthcoming Mahoney Prize for an outstanding article, there is http://www.sigcis.org/mahoney. . Another way we fund the student travel is by auctioning spare copies of books at our annual lunch meeting. If you have any books that could be auctioned please bring them to the meeting or mail them to me. . Our syllabus repository is a great resources for people teaching in the area. http://www.sigcis.org/syllabi It also needs updating. If you have taught any course with significant history of IT content please contribute your syllabus by sending it to Chris Leslie along with permission to post it on our site. <mailto:chris.leslie@nyu.edu> chris.leslie(a)nyu.edu Good for you, good for the community. . Evan Koblentz evan(a)snarc.net and Rebecca Slayton <rs849(a)cornell.edu> have set up a working group to consider what SIGCIS can do, particularly in terms of our website, to improve interactions between journalists and the history of computing community. . If you publish or discover something that our members would be interested in, don't be shy. Tell them about it with an announcement to members(a)sigcis.org. . Our resource guide at http://www.sigcis.org/resources is useful, but also out of date and in need of broadening. Ramesh Subramanian is coordinating a process to update and expand it. If you would like to take part, contact <mailto:ramesh.subramanian@quinnipiac.edu> ramesh.subramanian(a)quinnipiac.edu. . Like SIGCIS on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/SIGCIS) and follow @SIGCIS on Twitter. Then post on our wall or tweet about us. . SIGCIS is always looking for new volunteers, for example to help out with the 2015 workshop or to set up ad-hoc initiatives in particular areas. Last but not least, if you are a new member then welcome to SIGCIS! Best wishes, Tom

1 0

Re: [SIGCIS-Members] historians and journalists
by Ian Bogost 14 Oct '14

14 Oct '14

Regarding the below: On Oct 13, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Nathan Ensmenger wrote: > Janet, your email seems to imply that the article that Latif originally wrote for the Atlantic did contain an appropriate acknowledgement of the work of Mara Mills, and that the editors of that journal subsequently removed this attribution without his knowledge or consent. If so, he has a serious complaint against that journal. He should perhaps consider making it public. It would be a welcome contribution to our ongoing conversation about the relationship between academic and journalistic ethics. If editors in these genres do have such unlimited license to modify (and in this case, seriously distort) our work, then we as historians should be even more wary of contributing to such journals --- or at the very least, we need to be very careful as we read through our author contracts. > > On the other hand, if the version of the article that originally appeared in the Atlantic was approved by Latif, and it was only *after* the public outcry that he realized he did not properly acknowledge his (sole) source --- well, that is exactly the problem we are concerned about. I do not buy the argument that calling something journalism eliminates one's responsibility to acknowledge one's sources properly. And I should say, neither do most journalists. The fact that the article was eventually corrected is nice, but does not change the fact that it was published at all. The original version was widely disseminated for days before being updated, and the updated version contains no acknowledgement that the article had ever been modified. How many people read the original version, rather than the correction? And as far as I am aware, no apology was issued, either publicly or privately. Has Latif made one? That would be a collegial thing to do. I’m a Contributing Editor at The Atlantic and I work regularly and closely with the editors involved in publishing Latif's article there. While I was not myself involved with this particular piece, and while I am neither authorized to speak on the A’s behalf nor would I want to speak for either the editors involved nor Latif, I can say that the situation was not so cut-and-dried as you’d like it to be. As most things aren’t. Incidentally, one of the main avenues scholars have for approaching a general audience is… to write for them directly. I run one series that attempts to facilitate such work (http://objectsobjectsobjects.com) but I’m always happy to help broker between scholars and The Atlantic for works of all kinds, including on subjects of relevance to this list. Many other, similar publications are likewise accessible to those who would seek them out. The thing is, most scholars don’t want or don’t try to take folks like me up on this offer, and then they tend to jump to conclusions about how the editorial and publishing process really works based on hearsay. It’s hard to square such conclusion-jumping with the simultaneous claim that academics are somehow the rigorous thinkers in this dyad. The desire for some kind of allegorical good vs evil rendition of academia vs journalism is really not a productive line of thought. Ian Bogost, Ph.D. Ivan Allen College Distinguished Chair in Media Studies Professor of Interactive Computing Professor, Scheller School of Business Georgia Institute of Technology Contributing Editor, The Atlantic

1 0

Re: [SIGCIS-Members] @EvgenyMorozov @NewYorker #ShowUsTheMissingPages
by Subramanian, Ramesh Prof. 13 Oct '14

13 Oct '14

I agree with Dave that we attempt to take the high road, and stick to discussing publishing ethics in the abstract on the SIGCIS mailing list. I understand the frustrations of those historians who feel slighted, overlooked and brushed off. Those who have been called out by name can definitely respond to specifics. But intense personal viewpoints are probably better expressed on personal blogs, with links provided on the SIGCIS mailing list for those interested in following up. -Ramesh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramesh Subramanian, Ph.D. Gabriel Ferrucci Professor of Computer Information Systems Quinnipiac University Hamden, CT 06518. Phone: 203-582-5276 Email: ramesh.subramanian(a)quinnipiac.edu Web: Ramesh Subramanian's web page & Visiting Fellow, Information Society Project Yale Law School New Haven, CT 06511 Email: ramesh.subramanian(a)yale.edu Web: http://www.law.yale.edu/intellectuallife/9841.htm Recent books: Access to Knowledge in India: New Research on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Development (Bloomsbury Academic, 2011) The Global Flow of Information: Legal, Social and Cultural Perspectives (NYU Press, 2011) "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated" Mahatma Gandhi -----Original Message----- From: members-bounces(a)sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org] On Behalf Of dave.walden.family(a)gmail.com Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:16 AM To: members(a)sigcis.org Subject: QU Spamtrap [Score:5.0] Re: [SIGCIS-Members] @EvgenyMorozov @NewYorker #ShowUsTheMissingPages Am I the only one who thinks this is getting out of hand. It seems to me there is a rush to convict the author based on second hand knowledge or to try him in an ad hoc court ("produce the evidence") which could lead to destroying his career, if that hasn't happened already regardless of what he says now. Perhaps his university or the magazine which have more first hand facts should decide if there is a problem. I think it is fine to discuss publishing ethics on this list in the abstract or with example's whose validity have been historically established. I'd rather this list wasn't a forum for what seems increasingly to me like savaging people's reputations in the guise of an ethics discussion. _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members(a)sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by 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

3 2

Some notes on my Morozov/Menard address
by Thomas Haigh 13 Oct '14

13 Oct '14

Dear Cabalists, I am sorry to have to drag you back to our lair on such short notice, but a couple more items are in need of our attention. First, I'm sorry to say that despite my full throated defense of Mozorov during our last meeting it seems that some slow-witted critics are still not convinced. The situation was fully resolved with his original Tubmlr post. Sadly he has been called away from his work recreating Don Quixote to write a second Tumblr post. This is, if anything, more compelling that the first and the situation is even resolvdier than before. As he makes clear at http://evgenymorozov.tumblr.com/post/99837458735/more-on-the-cybersyn-essay the books and boxes Morozov photographed previously were just the tip of the biblioberg. He's photographed more sources. As he mentioned, "there's also plenty of factual detail in my piece that comes from the archives - or other sources." I think we can all agree that evidence some material in a paper was one's own work is a surefire defense against accusations that much of it wasn't. At least that's what we were taught at the National University of Uqbar where I got my Ph.D by mail. Academic misconduct appeals there had a very high success rate. In addition Morozov is an exceptionally talented prose stylist, and for a man working on that artistic level the position of every word is crucial. Mentioning Medina in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, or ninth paragraph paraphrasing her work would have ruined the aesthetics of his entire piece and betrayed his readers. As he explained it, "where you, the author, decide to interrupt your piece and introduce the source matters - whether you do it in paragraph number three or paragraph number ten affects the overall flow and feel of the argument. My responsibility as an author is both to the readers AND to the sources that I draw upon." As a reader I certainly appreciate that level of dedication to my wellbeing. Case closed. Again. Second, some outrageous accusations have been made that my previous address bore a greater than acknowledged debt to the work of Jorge Luis Borges. Let me state for the record that I fully acknowledged my debt to Borges when I mentioned his entertaining article at the end of my oration. He wrote a nice piece, but it's nothing special. Any further similarity in claims and word choices undoubtedly results from our reliance on shared sources. I can say without fear of contradiction that I have read every word Pierre Menard ever published, visited each archival collection holding his letters and manuscripts, and interviewed all of his living descendants. In addition a public address, even when taken down by goblin scribes for dissemination to those unable to attend in person, is a very different format from a journal article. There simply wasn't time to acknowledge every source before the sun came up, which to say the least would have complicated your egress from our lair. Mentioning Borges earlier wasn't an option either - I'm a very talented orator and it would have spoiled aesthetics of the speech and betrayed your interests as listeners. Also, and I'm disappointed that any of you missed this, the whole thing was a book review. Finally, I am afraid that we had to flog those scribes because the previous message, and a few others they sent to the listserv yesterday, have not made it into the archive. Our elderly pipermail daemon seems to be self-censoring, which is ironic. So that we can better defend Morozov against the jealous and small minded I have posted a copy of the earlier message at http://www.tomandmaria.com/tom/writing/morozovquixote.htm. Cabal dismissed.

1 0