Inside Oxford: Questions for Niko Pfund

2. Do you hate Wikipedia?”

Not at all, I’m actually very fond of Wikipedia, which is not only useful to me on a daily basis but one of the most interesting exercises in information-gathering we’ve yet seen. While there are obvious and stark differences between the goals and utility of Wikipedia and traditional reference works—say, the Oxford English Dictionary—we are rapidly moving toward an online environment defined by “multiple levels of authority” (in the words of our online/reference publisher, Casper Grathwohl), in which people know to go to different sites for different kinds of information. As the population becomes increasingly technology-literate and information-literate, as search becomes increasingly sophisticated, and as Wikipedia’s growing influence brings additional challenges (with prominence come expectations…), the one-stop shopping model will likely fragment, as people will know where to go for the best and most appropriate information, or will be led there automatically.

Inside Oxford: Questions for Niko Pfund

Whenever we talk about citation formats (APA,MLA) I always tell my students that the conventions of print are relatively new and the the emerging conventions of the web, including collective authorship, undated material and the like, are much older. Pfund makes a similar point, contending that Wikipedia is simply returning to a type of authorship that created, among many other things, the Oxford English Dictionary. Imagine, the rabble wrote the OED!

Abolition

Yes, we mean real slavery. People held against their will, forced to work and paid nothing. Sometimes the slave holder ‘pays’ a few grains of rice to keep the slaves alive, or uses a bogus payment that the slave holder reclaims at the end of the month. But the end result is what slavery is today and has always been—one person controlling another and then forcing them to work.

Through Free the Slaves’ research, first published in Kevin Bales’ Disposable People, our conservative estimate is that there are 27 million people in slavery today. This means that there are more people in slavery today than at any other time in human history. Slavery has existed for thousands of years, but changes in the world’s economy and societies over the past 50 years have enabled a resurgence of slavery.

FreeTheSlaves.net

I keep thinking and hearing about the world out there, hidden for the last eight years or so by this fog of rhetoric about terrorism, a tactic disguised as a movement. Here’s an awful problem that could be solved in just a few years, as easy as going to the moon, if only we paid attention.

Good News

WASHINGTON — Little-noticed in the tumult of the presidential campaign an the teetering economy, the Teamsters have racked up a series of organizing and contract wins, and may be on the verge of another, at United Air Lines.

The wins range from signing up approximately two-thirds of the workers at UPS Freight — the former Overnite Express — to breaking into the Deep South bastion of Mobile, Ala., by first winning a recognition vote last July and then getting a contract last month, with the help of the NAACP, at the New Era cap company there.

Mark Gruenberg, Monday, March 24, 2008

I’ve never liked this idea that the news should cover ‘good news’ although it’s very clearly true that the major networks and cable news shows push violence. I watched FOX the other morning at the gym and for nearly an hour it was murder after murder after murder. It’s a weird smoke-screen, too, because all of the moral outrage seems to dissipate when the subject changes to the state-sponsored violence in Iraq.

It’s also true that the ‘bad news’ focus makes the presidential race freakishly narrow minded. Really, it becomes ‘bad news horse race’ news. Obama and Clinton are essentially tied, and neither has much of a chance of winning by getting enough delegates. Yet the media narrative has become, “Will Hillary Clinton destroy the Democratic party by refusing to give up?” It’s part of ‘acceptable sexism.’

Why aren’t Obama and Clinton engaged in a fierce competition over ideas about justice and the economy and the war and health care and so on? That’s a better question. This is the context that made the labor news refreshing. It shows that there are media out there offering ‘good news’ of a substantive sort. Now if we could only get ABC to ask the candidates how they would help extend the winning streak.

Deconstructing Organic

See which of the country’s largest food producers are behind your favorite organic snacks.
Words By Phil Howard
Illustrations By GOOD magazine

GOOD and Phil Howard show you who really owns the family companies that make your smoothies and cracked wheat.

Good Magazine

I lived in the ICC housing co-ops in Austin, Texas, in the 1980s, while I was an undergraduate, and we bought all of our food either through food clubs or a local food cooperative called Wheatsville. At first, Wheatsville was nothing more than a kind of warehouse; you volunteered a few hours in order to become a member and you got access to all sorts of fresh food, mainly produce and whole grains.

Eventually, Wheatsville grew into a proper if small grocery store, owned and run by its employees and members. I never worked there, or even became an active member, but I shopped there regularly and I kept up with the often raucous debates that seemed to always drive the decision making over the direction of the co-op. Everything had to be decided collectively: irradiated foods, plastic bags, how and what to recycle, the redesigned storefront.

Even from a distance it was maddening and frustrating and exciting all at the same time. Often, too, when you went to Wheatsville you felt more than a little of a kind of self-righteous competitiveness. The bike people glared at you because you came on a motorcycle; the backpack people probably didn’t like the people who used paper bags; the people with dreadlocks thought the punks with bleached hair lacked commitment.

Still, Wheatsville opened up the world of food and politics for me in many ways. It was the first place I ever saw whole-bean coffee and Melitta coffee pots and filters. I used to love their deli made pimento cheese salad and turkey sausages. Wheatsville was the real thing: a new form of ownership designed to encourage a very different way of thinking about food that was environmentalist, feminist, progressive.

At about the same time, just south of the river, Whole Foods opened. At first it seemed similar: a small store that carried fresh vegetables, local brown eggs, cheeses that you could not get anywhere else. The same crowd: punks, Rastafarian wanna bes, college students. When floods destroyed the first store, everyone chipped in to help, just as they would at Wheatsville. Whole Foods had a completely different agenda, though.

It was privately owned, for one thing, and it wanted to be profitable and to grow beyond a single store. It had a creepy, messianic feel to it and an equally creepy if passive aggressive anti-worker agenda. Whole Foods declared itself too advanced to need unions. Maybe the Wheatsville rhetoric seems a little tired and dated, but its shadow twin has now become,”the world’s leading retailer of natural and organic foods, with more than 270 stores in North America and the United Kingdom.”

I went overseas for several years and when I moved back to Austin in the 1990s Whole Foods was well on its way towards becoming the Wallmart of the organic foods retailers. The Whole Foods story prefigures the evolution of the organic food industry illustrated in Howard’s charts. It took a great idea, drained it of all of what made it important and new, and then mass marketed the resulting empty shell. It’s a sort of institutionalized hypocrisy that’s become all too common.