Kerry's loft

Originally posted at ouhos.org, the now-discontinued blog of the OU History of Science Collections. Neither this post nor any of its content should be taken as an official communication of the University of Oklahoma.

Why do we use Wikipedia? Should you?

In this blog and elsewhere I frequently link to Wikipedia for background information on an author or topic in the history of science. This practice is subject to some controversy, at least in certain classrooms and academic institutions. (On this website, I mark links to external websites with a special icon () to distinguish them from OU links.)

To explain why I use Wikipedia so frequently, let’s begin by distinguishing between sources appropriate for original research and the use of Wikipedia as a ready reference.

First, external links should not be taken as an endorsement of the content you find at Wikipedia or any other external website. Wikipedia articles are of markedly uneven quality, and even when Wikipedia is at its best, there is a difference between setting context with background knowledge (where a general, non-professional source like Wikipedia is appropriate) and conducting actual research in the history of science. For the latter, reliable professional secondary sources are required such as you will find with the aid of reference works like the Isis Bibliography for the History of Science, the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, and other reference resources. We link to Wikipedia for background knowledge; we will point you to reliable professional sources when you are doing research.

Undergraduate students: Be aware of the following deficiencies in Wikipedia:

• Because articles are not signed, the qualifications of writers are unknown.
• Because Wikipedia allows no original research, articles contain a preponderance of factoids and lack rigorous interpretative context.

These two deficiencies cause many professors to prohibit its use for research purposes.

After 16 OU students turned in final papers for the Spring 2006 semester that were plagiarized from Wikipedia, OU Assistant Provost Greg Heiser cautioned that “the problem with using Wikipedia for research papers is that it stunts a student’s ability to do research. ‘Doing good research is hard, but it is an important skill to master…. It’s almost like thinking you know how to cook because you can get to the nearest McDonald’s.” (Gene Perry and Jarrel Wade, OU Daily, August 31, 2006.)

In a daily newspaper, you expect the articles to present the facts. When you want analysis, you turn to the Editorial and Opinion pages where contributions are signed by known writers who take responsibility for their views. Think of articles from encylopedias like Wikipedia as the former. Original research is like the latter.

Again, most professors will not count articles in Wikipedia as reliable sources for assigned class research papers, for two reasons:

1. Articles that fail to provide author names provide no way of assuring responsibility nor of confirming that the writer possesses direct, first-hand knowledge of the primary sources. In contrast, Wikipedia articles may have been written by someone with far less knowledge than the average student in your classes this semester. Keep in mind as you read any particular article that it might have been written by someone you knew as a not-very-conscientious classmate back in Middle School. Anyone may contribute to Wikipedia; no special qualifications are required other than a self-confidence that may or may not be warranted. Articles may be written by people with little or no expertise. And even when articles are accurate they may not be balanced: some contributors may write with passion for a particular point of view that may not reflect a general consensus of professional opinion.

2. Take to heart the factoid character of Wikipedia, due to the lack of the most current interpretative contexts. This deficiency is due to Wikipedia’s editorial policy of allowing no original research. This is not a criticism of Wikipedia so much as a clear statement of its aim, which should be respected. Wikipedia is not intended to answer every question for every purpose. What this boils down to is that Wikipedia will be of greatest use when you’re looking up matters of fact, on which a consensus among anonymous contributors is easily reached (for example, “In which years did George Washington serve as President?” or “What are the differences between the 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, and 802.11n wi fi specifications?”). On the other hand, Wikipedia is ill-suited to resolve more complex, perspective-dependent questions, particularly those for which definitive answers do not exist and on which an assorted collection of anonymous authors are not likely to agree (e.g., “What were Theories of the Earth?” or “What was the origin of Greek science?”). In the latter case, Wikipedia articles offer, at best, dispassionate summaries of almost up-to-date interpretations. See this illuminating report of how difficult it can be to revise Wikipedia according to current scholarship: Timothy Messer-Kruse, “The Undue Weight of Truth,”, The Chronicle of Higher Education (February 12, 2012).

Wikipedia remains useful for obtaining general background information as a springboard for research (it is not a substitute for research). It is easily accessible, and often the most informative ready reference on the web. Consult it to get your bearings, but then guide your actual research by relying upon the professional literature. Go beyond where Wikipedia leaves off. At a bare minimum, independently verify anything you use from Wikipedia. And as always, if you use it, cite it.

Graduate students: You’re well aware of Wikipedia’s problems with inaccuracy, one-sidedness, and outdated perspectives, so when you see pages that are grievously misleading, why not invest a little of your time trying to improve them? And why not make it a group project with your friends or a class project with a professor? Why not incorporate group activities to improve Wikipedia into class assignments for undergraduates? If you show your students how to leave their mark on Wikipedia, you will inspire them to change the world.

Discussion:

1. What is plagiarism? Do you think it’s easier to inadvertently plagiarize from Wikipedia than from printed sources? If so, why?
2. “He says that research is like an Editorial or Opinion page! That’s odd!” How would you reply?
3. Which limitations of Wikipedia affect your research most?
4. What editorial policy of Wikipedia guarantees that you can always find some other source to use instead?
5. Read the article by Messer-Kruse at The Chronicle of Higher Education. How does it illustrate some of the weaknesses of Wikipedia’s editorial policies when it comes to using Wikipedia as a source for basic research in the humanities?

Read more:

• Wikipedia’s guide for students: “Researching with Wikipedia”
• Wikipedia’s suggestions for professors: “School and University Projects”
• Adrianne Wadewitz, Anne Ellen Geller, Jon Beasley-Murray, “Wiki-hacking: Opening up the academy with Wikipedia” (encourages teachers to use Wikipedia with their students).
• Sage Ross, “Introducing the Public Policy Initiative,” The Signpost, June 28, 2010. Ross, a leading Wikipedian in the history of science and former editor of The Signpost, maintains the ragesoss blog. See also Sage Ross, Professors criticize, praise Wikipedia in listserv discussions.
• Roy Rosenzweig, “Can History be Open-Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past, Journal of American History,” 2006, 93: 117-146.

Originally posted at ouhos.org, the now-discontinued blog of the OU History of Science Collections. Neither this post nor any of its content should be taken as an official communication of the University of Oklahoma.

Galileo’s Sidereus nuncius (Venice, 1610) created an international sensation as the first published record of observations made with a telescope. Yet many people do not realize that Galileo was also involved with the first published record of observations made with the microscope.

In 1616 Galileo was silenced on Copernicanism, but he bounced back with gusto in 1623. In that year his supporter and friend, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, a former patron of the Academy of the Lynx and uncle of Cardinal Francesco Barberini , became Pope Urban VIII. The election of Barberini seemed to assure Galileo of support at the highest level in the Church. A visit to Rome confirmed this.

The Apiarium (Rome, 1625) was a gift of the Lynx to the new pope. Galileo adapted the telescope into a new instrument, named a microscope by a member of the Lynx. In the Apiarium, the first publication of observations made with a microscope, Federico Cesi (1585-1630) and Francesco Stelluti (1577-1651) studied the anatomy of the bee.

Only a few copies of this broadsheet were printed. See how the type bit deeply into the hand-made cotton paper? (below).

Along the top of this extremely rare document are representations of ancient coins depicting bees (below). Note the Barberini crest. The classical age of microscopy thus began with diplomacy.

The text includes classical references to bees as well as new knowledge, integrated in a tabular outline (below). Cesi had a fondness for tabular layouts, even in classification.

In a work of the same time, Stelluti published drawings. On the title page (below, left), note the Barberini bees, and the name of their patron, Francesco Barberini. And the Lynx. A remarkable plate displays the fine anatomical structures of bees, arranged in the pattern of the Barberini crest (below, right; click thumbnails for larger versions).

Just as Galileo’s telescope brought near the Moon and stars, so the eyes of the Lynx could see the secrets of the small, portraying structures of the bee never seen before.

An early alumna of the OU History of Science program, Clara Sue Kidwell (right, and below left) translated the Apiarium as part of her PhD dissertation in 1970. The translation appears as an appendix to a larger study of the Academy of the Lynx. Kidwell explains that Curator Duane Roller used to keep the temperature so low in the Collections’ former location on the 3rd floor in order to prevent the old graduate students from spoiling!

Prof. Kidwell later served as Director of the Native American Studies program at OU (1995-2006) and as Director of the American Indian Center at the University of North Carolina (2006-present).

• Apiarium gallery
• Apiarium catalog record
• Kidwell translation (dissertation appendix; searchable pdf, 40MB)
• Kidwell dissertation (via catalog)
• Freedberg, Eye of the Lynx
• Galileo’s Microscope at the Galileo Museum, Florence
• List of digitized books

Originally posted at ouhos.org, the now-discontinued blog of the OU History of Science Collections. Neither this post nor any of its content should be taken as an official communication of the University of Oklahoma.

Today’s Astronomy Picture of the Day features a photo of the night sky at Alamut, in the Alborz Mountains of Iran, northeast of Tehran. Alamut Castle was for a while the home of the Persian mathematician and astronomer Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201-1274). Click the link and take a look at the sky as al-Tusi might have known it.

The History of Science Collections hold a copy of the version of Euclid’s Geometry associated with the circle of al-Tusi (right). This is a printed edition, not a manuscript, although through a technological feat it displays ligatures and other features of Arabic writing. However, this edition was not printed in Baghdad or Cairo, but in Rome in 1594. The Medici set up a printing press to make important Arabic works like this one available for European scholars who were willing to learn Arabic in order to make further advances in their fields.

Al-Tusi worked on problems raised by Ptolemy’s Planetary Hypotheses, a work concerned with describing possible physical structures of the universe that would correspond with the geometrical models of the Almagest. Al-Tusi is best known for developing a geometrical device called the “Tusi couple” that acts like a crank mechanism, sliding a planet directly toward or away from the center of the deferent circle. The Tusi couple resolved a problem with Ptolemy’s lunar models, which accurately predicted the position of the Moon but required the Moon to appear with a greatly varying diameter (which is not observed). Therefore the Tusi couple could move the Moon farther out or closer in as needed to maintain a more constant apparent diameter of the Moon. In the 16th century, Copernicus used a Tusi couple in his lunar theory, directly appropriating this technique from Islamic astronomers. [See former OU professor Jamil F. Ragep, “Tusi and Copernicus,” Science in Context, 2001, 14:145-163.]

Originally posted at ouhos.org, the now-discontinued blog of the OU History of Science Collections. Neither this post nor any of its content should be taken as an official communication of the University of Oklahoma.

Recent acquisition: Sébastien Saulnier, Notice sur le voyage de M. Lelorrain, en Égypte; et Observations sur le zodiac circulaire de Denderah (Paris, chez lʼauteur, 1822).

This is a story at the intersection of intrigue, thievery, French nationalism, Egyptian archaeology, politics, science and religion:

“On October 1, 1820, an engineer named Jean Lelorrain left Marseilles for Alexandria on a ship under heavy sail, laden with saws, chisels, jacks, and a sledge with wooden rollers made especially for transporting a large object over rough terrain. Lelorrain had been commissioned to remove an immense circular zodiac from the ceiling of an ancient temple near the village of Dendera on the west bank of the Nile. The zodiac, one of only four still extant, had excited tremendous interest and controversy when it had been discovered during Napoleon’s Egypt expedition two decades before.”

So begins chapter 1 of the riveting account by Jed Z. Buchwald and Diane Greco Josefowicz, The Zodiac of Paris: How an Improbable Controversy over an Ancient Egyptian Artifact Provoked a Modern Debate between Religion and Science (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).

In 1820, Sébastien-Louis Saulnier (1790-1835) commissioned the master mason Jean-Baptiste Lelorrain to travel to Alexandria, detach the large stone zodiac from its place within the ceiling of the Temple of Dendera, and smuggle the artifact back to France. Lelorrain set out to purloin the stone-carved, bas-relief ceiling of the Temple of Dendera, almost out from under the very noses of Egyptian officials and their favored English antiquities collectors. Against long odds, Lelorrain returned in triumph. Saulnier was an antiquities entrepreneur and past editor of Bibliothèque historique (14 vols) and the journal Minerve française. To promote the arrival of this astonishing artifact to Paris, Saulnier published a book hailing the ceiling as equal in importance to the Rosetta Stone (proudly possessed by the British Museum), and therefore as a fitting symbol of the glory of France. Until it was bested by Heinrich Schliemannʼs excavation and ransacking of Troy in the 1870s, the snatching of the ceiling, or Dendera Affair, was Europeʼs most glamorous and notorious archaeological event.

The Collections’ copy of Saulnier (1822), inscribed by the author, includes a large folding plate of the zodiac ceiling. This is the only North American copy we know of that is bound with an engraved plate of the artifact — which, as stated by a notice on the verso of the half-title page, could be separately purchased for 5 francs. The plate offers a detailed rendering of the zodiac, including the carved statues that encircled it, its band of hieroglyphics, and the dozens of astronomical and astrological symbols carved into its face. The plate was drawn by Vivant Denon, one of the artists on Napoleon’s Egyptian expedition.

A cartouche at the base of the illustration names the first observer of the zodiac as General Louis Desaix (1768-1800), the Napoleonic general who first expressed an interest in removing the ceiling to France. Perhaps resentful of the British capture of the Rosetta Stone in 1801, Saulnier, a police commissioner and prefect during Napoleonʼs regime, became an energetic amateur student of Egyptian antiquity. Although his expertise was middling and his methods of acquisition were frowned upon by professional savants, his activities were encouraged by the government. And Saulnier was successful: not only did Lelorrain deliver the coveted zodiac to Paris, but Louis XVIII paid 150,000 francs for it.

As the Notice was an attempt to persuade the government of Louis XVIII to purchase the zodiac, Saulnier concerned himself primarily with geopolitical intrigue: its first chapter, which comprises over half the volume, chronicles Lelorrainʼs voyage to Egypt and the numerous obstacles Lelorrain had to overcome in order to return to France with his quarry. The report begins with a decidedly unflattering portrait of Mehmed Ali, Egyptʼs viceroy, and climaxes in a sensationalistic account of how Lelorrain dislodged the zodiac from the temple ceiling using explosives, among other tools, in order to place it “under the protection of European civilization.”

Saulnier also provides a detailed description of the zodiac itself. His attempt to identify its date, and the astronomical and mythological significance of its figures, is couched in a discussion of works by Charles Dupuis and the Italian antiquarian Ennio Visconti, among others who wrote specifically on the zodiac, as well as scholars such as the astronomer Jerome Lalande. The exact date and astronomical importance of the zodiac were hotly debated by French scholars for many years.

The Zodiac was exhibited at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris until it was moved to the Louvre in 1964, where it remains on display.

View Saulnier, Notice (1822) and the zodiac fold-out plate.

Originally posted at ouhos.org, the now-discontinued blog of the OU History of Science Collections. Neither this post nor any of its content should be taken as an official communication of the University of Oklahoma.

Recent acquisition: In 1653, an English physician, John Bulwer (1606-1656), published a curious work in comparative cultural anthropology entitled Anthropometamorphosis: Man Transform’d (London, 590 pages).

Bulwer presented abundant woodcut illustrations of all manners known to him of decorating or transforming the human body, whether ancient or modern, New World or Old. For example, Bulwer depicted tattooing, scarring, circumcisions, binding, lip-piercing, ear-piercing, and the growing of the fingernails.

Bulwer discussed subjects as diverse as women’s maladies, cosmetics, eunuchs, deformities, tooth-rites, breast feeding, children, and monstrosities. An author of five published books, Bulwer is best known for his work on methods for communicating with the deaf via gestures.

View Bulwer image gallery.