[Sigia-l] History of "Information Architecture"

[Austin Govella]

On Monday, October 13, 2003, at 12:17 AM, Derek R wrote:
> Well, as I have said, circular and clique-like associations (and
> revisions of history!!) are formed for only one purpose: to monopolize 
> a
> resource and to exclude non-members (duh!).

This is crazy. Accusing any of us of doing things to make a living is 
foolish. Of course Peter promotes his expertise. Isn't that what you 
call brand management?

It is possible Peter's history was misguided, or as a joke, a total 
failure, but on my reading, I didn't find anything particularly 
insidious. Nor evil. I understood it was from his perspective. He tells 
us so, several times. You should take a closer reading.

More importantly, he's not trying to monopolize a resource or exclude 
non-members. I don't feel like Peter, or any of the many other 
practitioners, own IA. I own IA. That others practice in the same field 
-- well, good for them.

And excluded from what? The secret weekly ice-cream socials open only 
to card-carrying members... of what?

Excluded from having a self-aggrandizing website where you promote your 
expertise to further your own career? Can't be. You have one.

Excluded from writing a book? Couldn't be. These last couple of years, 
it's seemed like any yokel who could button-hole an O'Reilly or New 
Riders editor could have a book deal. Have you written a book the cabal 
has black-listed?

Are they stopping you or others from holding seminars, holding jobs, or 
picking up contracts? Of course not. You're being silly.

> 1) You need to ask yourself if the contributions made by 'Peter and 
> the others' could not have easily been made by any number of others

Yes, they could. And many others made contributions. You've made 
contributions, and so have I. Obviously, others have made 
contributions. This just means there is no monopoly, and no exclusive 
club.

> 2) You need to remember Information Architecture was stolen from
> another's hard work

Stolen or built on or influenced by or was the next generation of or 
the obvious iteration of...

Stolen is a pretty specific term, and for someone with a Masters in 
Poetics and a degree in English, you're pretty loose with your words. 
Even more disturbing, for someone with a minor in Sociology, words like 
'stolen' and 'conspiratorial' make *you* look like the one interested 
in monopolizing and excluding others.

Exactly what aspect of the social network are you manipulating, and for 
what purpose?

And lastly as a content manager, you're well aware of the power of 
labels, and if you are not ashamed of carelessly slinging such 
disreputable ad hominem attacks, then you represent to me something 
more insidious than your accusations could ever make Mr. Morville to be.

> For instance, you can't consider yourself a 'founding father' of a
> discipline if you concede you stole all your ideas or had them
> superficially inflated by social networking.

What idea is not superficially inflated by social networking. How about 
the dvorak keyboard. Better than qwerty, but lost the PR contest. Do 
you seriously feel like a dvorak keyboard?

And that quote represents the worst part of your rant: there's no 
substance. You use heavy-hitting words, but no heavy-hitting meaning. 
Rhetorically, it's identical to 'shock and awe', intended more to 
intimidate than do real damage.

At this point, really, it doesn't matter. You're much too educated to 
use the term 'stolen' lightly, and much too educated not to know 
better. After years of reasonable posts, articles, and books from 
Peter, and a few reckless and spiteful posts from you here, and 
iron-fisted writings on your website, you lose a lot of credibility 
with me.

I don't take your meaning seriously at all, but just as Ziya was 
worried about the *real* history becoming tainted by errant text 
slinging, I'm afraid that good people will fail to make objective 
decisions about someone who is harmless at worst. At least Ziya backed 
up her reasonable assertion with links to the archives. Though I 
disagree with her tone, at least she offered some kind of carrot for 
reasonable discussion.

You've only given us a rant, a potentially harmful rant.

You should be a reasonable man. I suggest you reread Peter's preface, 
beginning with the opening quote from Schacter and Scarry. And 
reinterpret his use of 'we'. It's more collective than royal.

I suppose I will stick around until this thread ends, but like 
Christina, I left a while ago because of the tone here, and I agree 
that not much has changed. Talk about monopolizing and exclusive.

--
Austin