Comments on: The Future of Legal Scholarship http://madisonian.net/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/ a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things Thu, 10 May 2012 20:32:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: madisonian.net » More on the Future of Legal Scholarship http://madisonian.net/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/comment-page-1/#comment-75151 madisonian.net » More on the Future of Legal Scholarship Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:05:52 +0000 http://madisonian.net/archives/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/#comment-75151 [...] The problem is that things like The Pocket Part, and Harvard’s Forum, for example, aren’t really designed to extend the law review in new and innovative directions; they’re designed to save the law review, and all of its traditional tics, from various challenges to its authority and prestige. (Thus, in other words, my glib post yesterday about “The Future of the Legal Scholarshi’p” looking a lot like the past of legal scholarship.) For example, I just loved this paragraph from the editors: We see great value in professors’ online work. Blogs insightfully critique scholarship, comment usefully on problems of legal doctrine, and speak to decision-makers in straightforward language. The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part is our effort to join these strengths of online debate to the traditions of the student-edited law journal. The blogs have flaws that student editors can help to mend. Many online postings are incomplete or of only passing interest; students can help to select the most significant. Every online posting is subject to change or deletion at its creator’s whim; students can help to preserve and archive them. Many postings lack proper citations to the relevant authorities; students can carefully check the necessary sources. This Journal’s editors have long performed these tasks, and readers may rely on the permanence and the accuracy of these web pages as they have for so long relied on our printed pages. [...] [...] The problem is that things like The Pocket Part, and Harvard’s Forum, for example, aren’t really designed to extend the law review in new and innovative directions; they’re designed to save the law review, and all of its traditional tics, from various challenges to its authority and prestige. (Thus, in other words, my glib post yesterday about “The Future of the Legal Scholarshi’p” looking a lot like the past of legal scholarship.) For example, I just loved this paragraph from the editors: We see great value in professors’ online work. Blogs insightfully critique scholarship, comment usefully on problems of legal doctrine, and speak to decision-makers in straightforward language. The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part is our effort to join these strengths of online debate to the traditions of the student-edited law journal. The blogs have flaws that student editors can help to mend. Many online postings are incomplete or of only passing interest; students can help to select the most significant. Every online posting is subject to change or deletion at its creator’s whim; students can help to preserve and archive them. Many postings lack proper citations to the relevant authorities; students can carefully check the necessary sources. This Journal’s editors have long performed these tasks, and readers may rely on the permanence and the accuracy of these web pages as they have for so long relied on our printed pages. [...]

]]> By: Ann Bartow http://madisonian.net/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/comment-page-1/#comment-75140 Ann Bartow Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:40:47 +0000 http://madisonian.net/archives/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/#comment-75140 Okay, now I get it now, you linked to the two different Leiter blogs. Sorry to be so stupid. Dang, maybe I am turning into a humorless feminist! Okay, now I get it now, you linked to the two different Leiter blogs. Sorry to be so stupid. Dang, maybe I am turning into a humorless feminist!

]]> By: Ann Bartow http://madisonian.net/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/comment-page-1/#comment-75131 Ann Bartow Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:28:41 +0000 http://madisonian.net/archives/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/#comment-75131 I know, I just didn't understand the double Leiter reference. Penn's new "PENNumbra" dealie allows comments, see e.g.: http://www.pennumbra.com/issues/article.php?atid=12 The link in Solove's comment takes readers to Concurring OPinions, where for a time they could read this: http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=955 I guess this, plus the fact that I just read too many "You are a fat stupid ugly cunt" comments in the moderation queue at Feminist Law Professors to be enthusiastic about the idea. And no, they aren't only from anonymous cranks, many track back to law firms and law schools. I know, I just didn’t understand the double Leiter reference.

Penn’s new “PENNumbra” dealie allows comments, see e.g.: http://www.pennumbra.com/issues/article.php?atid=12
The link in Solove’s comment takes readers to Concurring OPinions, where for a time they could read this: http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=955
I guess this, plus the fact that I just read too many “You are a fat stupid ugly cunt” comments in the moderation queue at Feminist Law Professors to be enthusiastic about the idea. And no, they aren’t only from anonymous cranks, many track back to law firms and law schools.

]]> By: Mike Madison http://madisonian.net/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/comment-page-1/#comment-75120 Mike Madison Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:58:07 +0000 http://madisonian.net/archives/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/#comment-75120 Ann -- The YPP intro mentions that Rosa Brooks and Brian Leiter have contributions on the way. Mike Ann — The YPP intro mentions that Rosa Brooks and Brian Leiter have contributions on the way. Mike

]]> By: Frank Pasquale http://madisonian.net/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/comment-page-1/#comment-75093 Frank Pasquale Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:41:28 +0000 http://madisonian.net/archives/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/#comment-75093 Yes, there's a certain egalitarianism to having comments on the same page as the piece itself. If Posner and Becker can abide it, so can the YLJ! According to web guru Brendan Greely of Radio Open Source, this has been an essential part of the success of their show...originally shows had segregated off commenters to the side to maintain the pristine perfection of the original page. But they found that members of the commenting community did not want this second-class status--they wanted to be on the page they were commenting on. And letting them on has greatly contributed to the growth of the site & the show. Yes, there’s a certain egalitarianism to having comments on the same page as the piece itself. If Posner and Becker can abide it, so can the YLJ! According to web guru Brendan Greely of Radio Open Source, this has been an essential part of the success of their show…originally shows had segregated off commenters to the side to maintain the pristine perfection of the original page. But they found that members of the commenting community did not want this second-class status–they wanted to be on the page they were commenting on. And letting them on has greatly contributed to the growth of the site & the show.

]]> By: Ann Bartow http://madisonian.net/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/comment-page-1/#comment-74890 Ann Bartow Fri, 08 Sep 2006 01:42:21 +0000 http://madisonian.net/archives/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/#comment-74890 <i>...with more to come from Brooks and Leiter (or, perhaps, Leiter)</i> Huh? …with more to come from Brooks and Leiter (or, perhaps, Leiter)

Huh?

]]> By: 412 Precondition Failed http://madisonian.net/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/comment-page-1/#comment-74833 412 Precondition Failed Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:37:35 +0000 http://madisonian.net/archives/2006/09/07/the-future-of-legal-scholarship-2/#comment-74833 [...] [...] [...] [...]

]]>