dive into mark

Vannevar Bush: As We May Think. July, 1945.

There is a growing mountain of research. But there is increased evidence that we are being bogged down today as specialization extends. The investigator is staggered by the findings and conclusions of thousands of other workers — conclusions which he cannot find time to grasp, much less to remember, as they appear.

… Our ineptitude in getting at the record is largely caused by the artificiality of systems of indexing. When data of any sort are placed in storage, they are filed alphabetically or numerically, and information is found (when it is) by tracing it down from subclass to subclass. It can be in only one place, unless duplicates are used; one has to have rules as to which path will locate it, and the rules are cumbersome. Having found one item, moreover, one has to emerge from the system and re- enter on a new path.

The human mind does not work that way. It operates by association. With one item in its grasp, it snaps instantly to the next that is suggested by the association of thoughts, in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain.

… Consider a future device for individual use, which is a sort of mechanized private file and library. It needs a name, and, to coin one at random, “memex” will do. A memex is a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory.

… Wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified.

… There [will be] a new profession of trail blazers, those who find delight in the task of establishing useful trails through the enormous mass of the common record. The inheritance from the master becomes, not only his additions to the world’s record, but for his disciples the entire scaffolding by which they were erected.

Thus science may implement the ways in which man produces, stores, and consults the record of the race.

Trail: Google Weblog (via RSS) → Dan Gillmor → Matt Webb → search for memex → The Atlantic.

§

Eight comments here (latest comments)

1. Brunmarde.com (trackback)

2. yes. _exactly_.

   — michael sippey 

3. Moon Farmer (trackback)

4. I think you’ve nailed it with webtrails.

   Now I understand what Dave meant by the Googlish way to do Directories

   http://davenet.userland.com/2002/06/02/theGooglishWayToDoDirectories

   He just folded up a webtrail and let you pivot across points of view at any step. This is a more powerful UI metaphore than a linear list and it’s not surprising Dave thought of it given his background in outliners, but I think the simple list will be enough for most people.

   — Micah Alpern 

5. The problem with Dave’s solution is this: Google’s success is to capitalize on what people do naturally. Nobody naturally creates directories, in OPML or any other format. The closest thing people do is create a big list o’ links (in HTML). No transclusion, but it works well enough.

   Then again, people naturally blog. And a big enough blogging on a specific subject (in HTML of course, so people can read it with tools they already have) can make you an authority on a subject (if enough people point to you from *their* HTML pages).

   Transclusion is interesting, but it’s not interesting enough to make people do something unnatural.

   — Mark 

6. At one time people would have said posting to a weblog was not natural.

   — Dave Winer 

7. Even now, many people say that writing in a wiki is unnatural.

   — John Abbe 

8. What’s unnatural is allowing all this culturally important data to slip into the hands of a corporation. They get control over our memories, they get control over the patterns & relationships in them. We will regret this.

   s/n:r

   — Anonymous 

Respond privately

I am no longer accepting public comments on this post, but you can use this form to contact me privately. (Your message will not be published.)

§