Content, Conduit and Context:
Jana C. Moring University of Oklahoma jmoring@ou.edu
Issues of Electronic Scholarly Communication
Abstract
In the current arena of academic publishing, the print culture favors the specialist who writes from and within discrete disciplinary boundaries. However, new electronic delivery systems extend a scholar’s idea outside and beyond the narrow specialty toward a heterogeneous and interdisciplinary audience. The organization of scholarly communication will necessarily move from hierarchical, methodological, and subject orientations to a rhetorical scheme—through the action of finding common positions, strategies and standpoints, scholars in the arts and sciences will connect and communicate interpersonally, interdisciplinary and interculturally. Validity of electronic scholarly communication may someday be measured by the breadth and depth of these connections and communications, but change depends on the actions and attitudes of the participants involved in academic publishing—university presses, scholars and academic libraries.
In a recent Wired article (Leslie, 1994), University of Pennsylvania classics professor James. J. O’Donnell describes his initial response to the possibilities of distributing the Bryn Mawr Classical Review electronically: "I compare that moment to Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney saying toward the end of the movie, ‘Let’s put on a show.’ I’m the one who got to say, ‘Gosh, we can do it in the barn!’"
The barn, or the National Information Infrastructure (NII), including listserv archives, aftp repositories, gopher servers and the World Wide Web, is not only facilitating scholarly communication by distributing up-to-date information widely and on demand, but, especially through the WWW, offering to transform scholarly communication by changing the tradition and function of scholarly journals based on print systems.
There are three major players--scholars, university presses, and academic libraries--in the traditional scholarly journal pipeline. This system is currently caught in the middle of a paradox: universities have stopped buying the results of scholarship that they themselves have published (Arnold, 1996). The publication of esoteric journal articles is a significant activity for most academics because of its gatekeeping function for tenure and its cumulative purpose in furthering learned inquiry within a specific discipline. This activity is prolific because it has been a well-oiled, albeit unquestioned, cog in the wheel of academic bureaucratic machinery. However, the relatively new electronic medium for academic publishing is throwing wrenches in the machine, and all who have a stake in this issue are scrambling to decide who the mechanics or architects of a revised system might be.
University Presses, subsidiaries of universities that produce refereed and non-refereed journals, assert they add value to scholarly articles by gathering and selecting information and providing a familiar (print-bound) and trusted (peer-reviewed and copyrighted) container for pertinent disciplinary knowledge (Day, 1993). Academic libraries, also subsidiaries of universities, are then asked to purchase the ever-expanding physical bodies of value-enhanced information, catalog, and store print or microform containers of scientific and scholarly discourse. The print-era publish or perish syndrome fuels a vast publishing engine and produces an unreasonable amount of material for librarians to account for (Dougherty, 1989). This expensive and time-consuming cycle of current scholarly communication is further critiqued in light of new, electronic technology:
To date, close to 500 scholarly journals and newsletters have decided to bypass the traditional channel of print publication and have gone electronic. Of those 500, more than 70 are peer-reviewed (Leslie, 1994). This growth in the latter category is, by print-era standards, beginning to give validity to electronic publishing of academic journals--the different conduit for information transfer promises to solve the aforementioned problems, but the format, content and rules are the same. And even though there is practical and utilitarian evidence for adopting this medium for scholarly communication, attitudes entrenched in an elitist print system are difficult to overcome: because most electronic publications are distributed free of charge, the electronic journal fights the stigma as an under-funded, technologically driven novelty (Kahin, 1995). These emerging electronic journals exist, for the most part, in harmony with currently defined institutional roles, but, as this paper will explore, a spirit is emerging in electronic scholarly spaces that challenges the established system by deconstructing who is writing what to whom.
With astute insight, McLuhan (p. 82) noted that new electronic technology threatens the ancient technology of literacy built on the phonetic alphabet: "Because of its action in extending our central nervous system, electric technology seems to favor the inclusive and participational spoken word over the specialist written word." In the traditional arena of academic publishing, the print culture favors the specialist who writes from and within discrete disciplinary boundaries. However, new electronic delivery systems extend a scholar’s idea outside and beyond the narrow specialty toward a heterogeneous and interdisciplinary audience. This dispersion of academic writing certainly enhances access to once cloistered ideas, but the electronic medium, in fact, promises to contextualize the message by redefining the concept of validity for scholarly communication.
Validity of scholarly communication traditionally connotes the print system’s idea of quality, particularly peer review. Academic peers validate one another’s ideas by recognizing esoteric or disciplinary patterns in submitted texts. The keyword esoteric, from the Latin esotericus and Greek terikos means that something is designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone, and limited or confidential. The academic print culture attempts to use refereed journals as the model to measure concurrent validity for electronic scholarship.
It is difficult, however, to use this same measurement across media. The electronic medium changes scholarly communication from an esoteric endeavor to an exoteric enterprise. Exoteric discourse is public, popular and for the uninitiated. Suddenly, specialized ideas travel through disciplinary tunnels out into a wide, but linked expanse of communication channels aimed at a universal audience. For scholars and their broad audiences, electronic technology allows scholarly arguments to be "positive in the creation, not passive in the reception, of data, facts, consequences, and objective organization" (McKeon, 1971, p. 24). The organization of scholarly communication will necessarily move from hierarchical, methodological, and subject orientations to a rhetorical scheme-- through the action of finding common positions, strategies and standpoints, scholars in the arts and sciences will connect and communicate interpersonally, interdisciplinary and interculturally. Validity of electronic scholarly communication may someday be measured by the breadth and depth of these connections and communications, but change depends on the actions and attitudes of the participants involved in academic publishing.
Actually, this challenge to traditional, linear ways of thinking about information transfer is not so new. Two interesting historical antecedents concerning alternative ways of approaching scholarly communication come to mind. Approximately fifty years ago, Vannevar Bush published "As We May Think" in The Atlantic Monthly. In this article, he urges scholars and scientists to turn their attention from war to the creation of a "great record," linked thoughts that make more accessible our bewildering store of knowledge. Bush’s hypothetical system of information storage and retrieval is called "memex." Memex would allow scholars to create personal indexes to documents, and to link passages from different documents together with special markers. This lofty idea was well argued for apart from any real technology to make it happen.
In 1965, when the technology was catching up to the ideal of linked scholarship, Ted Nelson coined the word hypertext in a paper delivered to a national conference for the Association for Computing Machinery (Wolf, 1995). Adding to his design for a non-sequential writing tool, Nelson proposed a feature called "zippered lists," in which elements in one text would be linked to related or identical elements in other texts. The writer and reader could manufacture a unique document by following a set of links between discrete documents that were "zipped" together. Nelson had a dream for the provision of a universal library called Xanadu that would allow for collaborative editing, the ability to trace the changes in documents through successive versions, a means to track and credit authorship, a royalty system, and non-sequential writing.
Although Nelson provided the vision for a universal library, Xanadu dissipated throughout the mid-seventies due to lack of funds and a viable technology to hold all the pieces together (Wolf, 1995). However, current technology emerges with possibilities for putting previous theory into practice. Relevant discussion abounds from scholars eager to take advantage of the distributed links in an electronic environment that are not bound in a physical container or by the bureaucratic and political processes that produce those containers. Memex and Xanadu are now realized—multi-media, quality hypertext databases, displays of research programs that model and manipulate data, and shared virtual environments encased in knowledge-bases are transforming scholarly communication (Lynch, 1993, p. 8-9). By stripping off the traditional containers of information and surrounding ideas with relevant and rich links, sounds, images and instantaneous and interactive involvement, scholarly communication changes in spirit: instead of focused and quiet argument, it takes on the flavor of ancient civic spaces like lively, sweaty, loud agoras or marketplaces where rhetors met to productively engage in debate or dialectic.
The university presses (UP) would like to maintain peer-review as a measurement for validity of electronic journals because they have a stake in maintaining the status quo: copyrights of scholarly communication generate the revenue stream that pays their costs and keeps them in business. This is perhaps a crude and reductive analysis of the UP’s position. However, even couched in the most subtle arguments, university presses appear threatened at the possibility of losing their gatekeeping function. Colin Day (1993), Director of the University of Michigan Press and past president of the Association of American University Presses (AAUP), argues that in the economics of electronic publishing, an overlooked commodity is the scholar’s time, and information that passes through knowledgeable intermediaries saves this precious resource. The subtext of this message is, of course, that the electronic environment is uncontrollable and not safely organized and endorsed by trusted intermediaries that select, edit, and disseminate scholarly communication.
As an alternative intermediary, the notion of librarian as publisher has emerged recently, and the prospect of this change has created anxiety for university presses that wish to keep their gatekeeping function. In 1992, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation issued a report proposing, in various ways, that universities reclaim responsibility for disseminating the results of faculty scholarship (Arnold, 1996). Ann Okerson (1991) from the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) encourages universities to reclaim control of the copyrights they generate from scholarly work and to construct university-based publishing nodes. The issues of copyright and intellectual freedom are beyond the scope of this paper; yet it is interesting that local, university-based electronic journals stand to gain economic validity by possibly bringing money and information control into the institution through licensing fees and copyright.
The issue of copyright has another important function in establishing traditional validity for electronic journals. In testimony prepared on behalf of the AAUP’s Electronic Caucus for the NII Task Force Working Group on Intellectual Property, Lisa Freeman (1993), chair of the caucus and director of University of Minnesota Press, pressed the importance of copyright for publishing activities. Freeman downplayed the fact that copyright generates the revenue stream that pays their costs by portraying copyright as an important imprint that signals to the scholarly community that the work within the journal is not just a preprint, but is peer-reviewed, the authoritative version. In other words, the university press faction believes that electronic journals must enforce copyright as their print counterparts do in order to maintain a recognizable quality product.
Without a recognizable, tangible container that signals peer-reviewed contents, traditional publishers who are experimenting an online product grasp for anything else that signals the old system of validity. Value might be recognized through uncompensated but well-known academic editors and reviewers (Kahin, 1995). A good example of this is OCLC’s online Journal of Knowledge Synthesis for Nursing. The editor of this journal, Dr. Jane Barnsteiner, does not only have administrative and institutional clout, but she also edits another established print journal.
Not all electronic publishers find this environment threatening or confusing. Commercial publishers who are not constrained by slow and cautious bureaucracy and profit from playfulness and creativity find the Internet exciting and burgeoning with possibilities. One such publisher writes that buying and selling discrete things, (books and information as objects), doesn’t seem to work online. What electronic commercial publishers are selling is access to information, a way of thinking about information, and not necessarily the information itself (Fillmore, 1993).
For those who produce and consume scholarly communication on the WWW, a new type of validity for online journals could be measured by the effectiveness and cogency of the medium in relationship to the content. Some journals exploit the visual and aural potential of computers. PostModern Culture routinely contains hypermedia articles alongside more traditional text-only material. The Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) is experimenting with video that illustrates research findings. Although it will take time, bandwidth and compatible browsers to take full advantage of multi-media aspects of electronic journals, scholars feel that the Web’s current ability to link information makes it possible to, for instance, access primary data, thus allowing researchers to check data analysis.
However, the best concept of validity for online scholarship does not rely either on content or conduit: validity is found through context, a cacophonous blend of writer(s), audience(s), subject matter(s) and medium. In this sense, scholars immediately validate each other by recognizing the array of novel ideas their thoughts have generated or how much their ideas provoke disagreement or debate with a wide variety of specialists. A handful of scholars already recognize the intoxicating concept of context for scholarly communication; they have bypassed the traditional print pipeline and are taking responsibility for disseminating and validating their own work. Their independence from print-based publication paradigms (whether in print or electronic journals) will eventually change the way many academics view valid information transfer in their fields. Princeton University’s Stevan Harnad, Department of Psychology, writes about Artificial Intelligence, specifically about the old order of computationalism (algorithmic symbolic language) and the possibilities of connectionalism (neural nets or the heuristic language of thought). He and other scholars (mainly from the hard sciences) electronically disseminate not only specific scholarly works, but also meta-electronic scholarly communication. Harnad (1990) calls this scholarly skywriting. The idea is this: a scholar writes a short but provocative target article. Both novice and established scholars react spontaneously to the article. The original author then responds back to each scholar, and this ongoing dialectic is posted and represented graphically.
Scholarly skywriting supplements peer review with "interactive publication in the form of open peer commentary on published and ongoing work" (1995). This notion of interaction embodies the spirit that cyberspace seems to promote: collaboration and community override the individual author. The feeling for many cyber-savv scholars is that quality is medium independent, and that the traditional concept of quality or validity will necessarily change with the medium. Again, the issue of validity becomes contextual.Harnad leads a coalition of scholars who have initiated a subversive proposal: bypassing print publication for electronic dissemination of esoteric (non-trade and market) scientific and scholarly works that the author does not necessarily expect to sell. Harnad writes that historically, print dissemination has forced reluctant authors of specialized work to enter into the Faustian bargain of allowing a price-tag to be erected as a barrier between their work and its esoteric intended readership. He proposes a new method--PUBLICation via ftp (file transfer protocol): scholars would establish a globally accessible local ftp archive for every piece of writing they produce.
This spirit of independence and democratic collaboration can be seen in the example of Paul Ginsparg's High Energy Physics (HEP) preprint network. Ginsparg, a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, was frustrated both by time lags in published research and the undemocratic nature of mailing preprints of important research to only those scientists in the loop. In 1991, he launched an automated electronic archive where physicists could post and read current research on the archive. The system quickly became the primary means of communicating research data within the field and is now one of the largest and most active databases on the Internet, with 20,000 users worldwide and 35,000 hits per day (Leslie, 1994).
These are a few examples of how scholars are taking to the cyber-skies to escape disciplinary crawl spaces that have been burrowed by print-based institutions. These subversive projects and proposals have aroused interest in how a contextual focus might ultimately change the form of academic writing. For example, in the print world, we are used to documents remaining fairly static. Journal articles, once published, are not normally updated. They become fixed in time and part of the historical record of scholarship. In historicizing, how might scholars interpret a subject or culture outside of known contexts and influences? Scholars of today might aid future generations by continuously documenting and linking arguments contextually--much like Bush’s memex or the fictional Glass Bead Game (Hobbs in this volume, 1996).
It has been suggested that scholars need to start viewing documents as continuously updated, and that they should get recognition for the currency of their documents rather than the number (Barry, 1995). If a scholar is working with one idea over time, they should have a central fixed site on the WWW that is home to their written, but plastic argument, and their ideas should be represented graphically as well. As the scholar learns and changes with the times, so will the article--listing and linking to other persuasive scholarship or ideas that ascribe the turn. A digital archive of these changes can be kept so that ideas and movements can be tracked over time; when future historians examine a scholar's work, they will be able to evaluate arguments better as they will be enriched with how and why they developed and unfolded.
Although scholarly skywriting and plastic, fluid documentation are viable and perhaps impending, the biggest challenges for widespread use of electronic scholarly communication is academic conservatism. The codex book, today our standard form of presenting information, has proved to be an effective and durable technology. Print containers are familiar:
Conservative critics may obviate the widespread use of electronic information transfer by presenting technical objections. Much of the success of electronic publishing depends on the following assumptions about the users: that they own and use a personal computer; that they have working knowledge of formatting documents in Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) and Standardized General Markup Language (SGML), and that they are comfortably able to read off of a screen. In many universities, there is still no campus-wide fiber-optic network that will make accessing electronic journals or other scholarly communication worth the effort.
In addition, experienced scholars in any discipline can, at times, be technically-challenged, and new ideas may appear to be incomprehensible nonsense, not even recognized as new and certainly not perceived as valuable. Unfortunately, many of these people are appointed to administrative positions, and their budgets may not reflect a need for new hardware and applications from the university.
Personal and institutional issues aside, the electronic environment has not accounted for issues associated with traditional scholarship, like citation analysis. Traditional scholarship measures the influence of an article by tracking the places and number of times it is cited. Such analyses, performed by Citation Indexing services, are relied upon as a way to gauge a scholar’s performance. The Web provides one-way (source to specified target) links only. There is no mechanism at present to work in the opposite direction and identify all the sources that point to a given target (Treloar, 1995).
Through the electronic medium, scholars have much to gain in realizing the potential of creative and associative scholarship that will enhance learned inquiry in interdisciplinary and intercultural ways. Yet librarians face difficult and practical challenges through the transition of the scholarly communication system—the largest one being the shift from a collection orientation to access orientation. As Katz points out, libraries are transforming from "physical repositories of texts and other materials to electronic nodes on a worldwide information network" (1992, p. 2).
In the electronic environment, information is fluid. This impermanence will surely affect the location of material, so how will librarians keep up with the ongoing whereabouts of electronic journals? Treloar (1995) suggests that all documents with a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) should also have unambiguous scholarly names called Uniform Resource Name (URN), an authority file of sorts that remains permanent apart from the document’s location. A similar problem with fluidity is that of document invariance. Electronic articles within journals are often updated, especially in fields undergoing rapid change like computer or information science. If documents are continuously changing and evolving, which version should be cited or indexed? One suggestion (Treloar, 1995) is to distinguish somehow between fixed documents, ASCII versions that are archived, and continuously updated documents in HTML.
In an access oriented environment, the traditional roles of cataloging will most likely evolve into indexing functions of sorts, describing intellectual content or context rather than physical description of the item. Librarians might find themselves in the position that one electronic publisher (Fillmore, 1993) describes as link editors. Link editors think in subject areas rather than in terms of static, single books. Librarians as intermediaries between a scholar and his/her readership could possibly be responsible for establishing links pointing to sources outside of the particular document that have relevance to the content (Arnold, 1994). Thinking about content requires training in marketing and in the indexing function of associative thought. As academic librarians will be asked to perform contextual functions like this in order to add value (or establish validity) to electronic journals, they will be changing the nature of not only their day-to-day tasks, but the nature of their profession. Lynch (1993, p. 17) agrees that the network is a place for scholarly communication and collaboration, but "it is also a place to conduct commerce...there is no firm demarcation between commerce and scholarship." Will librarians have to think more like marketing and business executives?
Because the physical location of resources and the point of delivery will not necessarily be located in the library, librarians will need to anticipate the needs of scholars rather than react to them. Librarians will be more like consultants--acting quickly to solve problems with expertise and skill. Arnold (1994) writes: Librarians are information retailers and in this new consumer market will have to find new ways of providing individualized service. The organization of information for the patron requires the deployment of tools that teach people to navigate resources seamlessly. Increasingly, public support for the library will be based on a perception of the value added by the librarian to the information in the entire digital world. Publishers have always known they have to package information. The publisher finds ways to make a manuscript more attractive. Librarians will find ways to make services more attractive.
The concept of acquisition-on-demand appears to solve problems arising out of the traditional system of scholarly communication that involve buying, processing and housing expensive journals that do not appear to circulate much. In this model, an academic library would electronically acquire individual journal articles only when requested by a patron, rather than subscribing to the journal (Lynch, 1993, p. 11). Yet publishers are sure to vary prices of individual articles based on usage levels, media attention, or topic interest, and, as Lynch astutely asks, are libraries "ready to adapt their budget and acquisitions policies to the realities of this new environment?" Also to be considered, does the user have a responsibility in this model to subsidize the cost of this transfer? Charging the user for information is not really an option because policy considerations about equality of access arise, and as Lynch (1993, p. 12) points out, this opens the academic library up for competition, and libraries would stand to lose valuable user fees.
Because academic libraries are non-profit institutions, and they are captive to long-standing policies and practices, they have a difficult time capitalizing on new modes of doing business. For this reason, cost-sharing and risk reduction approaches to the new electronic environment are well suited to their needs. The Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science, a peer-reviewed electronic journal under development by MIT Press, provides a model for cost-sharing in academic publishing. Kahin (1996) describes this process: In return for annual subscription of $125, libraries are licensed for unlimited use of the journal at their institution. The journal can be mounted locally or accessed over the Internet. It will be archived at MIT by the MIT Libraries so that subscribing libraries will not have the burden of archiving as they do with paper journals. The Journal will take advantage of its electronic form by including executable computer code. Furthermore, since there is no individual submissions market, no press run, no shipping costs and no inventory, the economics are streamlined.
A similar collaborative project is the TULIP project, a three-year experiment designed by Elsevier Scientific Publishers and a group of about 15 US institutions of higher education with the endorsement of the Coalition for Networked Information. The idea of the project is to spend three years providing the participating institutions with page images from about 45 science journals published by Elsevier. The sites are exploring usability, delivery options and different economic models (Lynch, 1993, p. 20).
The TULIP project, OCLC's Journal of Knowledge Synthesis for Nursing and The Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science are recognized to be traditionally valid because scholarly communication has adapted to a new medium without usurping well-defined institutional roles. In addition, these projects are deemed effective because each journal is associated with an existing successful print resource and allied with a scientific field that benefits from rapid communication and whose users are comfortable with electronic technology.
Whether the more familiar package of electronic journals is deemed valid or invalid by the institution, the role of information specialists in the academic environment is to make accessible all knowledge that will become part of the cultural and scholarly record. Therefore, electronic fugitive literature like scholarly skywriting and preprints is worth indexing, and academic libraries would be wise to anticipate the "compelling need for information-organizing technologies that accommodate not only the long-term information but also the ephemeral" (Lynch, 1993, p. 20).
Similarly, university presses must maintain a decisive position in the ongoing and electronic evolution of our culture. With flexibility and imagination, publishers, scholars and librarians can work together to create electronic spaces that produce interdisciplinary discourse that rejoins "reason and sense, cognition and emotion, universal law and concrete occurrence" (McKeon, 1971, p. 54).
Arnold, K. (1996). The body in the virtual library: rethinking scholarly communication. [On-line]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/works/arnold.body.html Barry, T. (1995). Publishing on the internet with world wide web. [On-line]. Available: http://snazzy.anu.edu.au/People/TonyB.html Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. In The Atlantic Monthly. [On-line]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/works/vbush/vbush.html Day, C. (1993). Economics of electronic publishing. [On-line]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/works/colin.econ.html Dougherty, R. (1989). Library Administration and Management, Spring. Fillmore, L. (1993). Internet publishing in a borderless environment: bookworms into butterflies. [On-line]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/works/fillmore.butterflies.html Freeman, L. (1993). Testimony prepared on behalf of the Association of American University Presses for the National Information Infrastructure Task Force Working Group on Intellectual Property [On-line]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/works/freeman.nii.html Harnad, S. (1990). Scholarly skywriting and the pre-publication continuum of scientific inquiry. [On-line]. Available: ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Harnad/harnad90.skywriting -----(1991). Post-gutenberg galaxy: the fourth revolution in the means of production of knowledge. [On-line]. Available: ftp://cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pub/harnad/Harnad/harnad91.postgutenberg -----(1995). Electronic scholarly publication: quo vadis? [On-line]. Available: ftp://cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pub/harnad/Harnad/harnad95.peer.review Kahin, B. (1995). Institutional and policy issues in the development of the digital library. [On-line]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/works/kahin.dl.html Katz, S. (1992, October). The humanities and the future of the research library. Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of the Japanese and American Library Associations, Tokyo, Japan. Leslie, J. (1994). Goodbye, gutenberg: pixelating peer- review. [On-line]. Available: http://www.hotwired.com/wired/2.10/departments/electrosphere/ejournals.html Lynch, C.A. (1993). The transformation of scholarly communication and the role of the library in the age of networked information. The Serials Librarian, 23(3-4), 5-20. McKeon, R. (1971). The uses of rhetoric in a technological age: architectonic productive arts. In L.F. Bitzer & E. Black (Eds.), The Prospect of Rhetoric: Report of the National Development Project (pp. 44-63). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: the extensions of man. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Odlyzko, A. (1995). Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending demise of traditional scholarly journals. [On-line]. Available: ftp://netlib.att.com/netlib/att/math/odlyzko/tragic.loss.txt Okerson, A. (1991). Back to academia? The case for american universities to publish their own research. Logos, 2(2), 106-111. Treloar, A. (1995). AusWeb95-Publishing on the web- electronic scholarly publishing and the world wide web. [On-line]. Available: http://www.deakin.edu.au/people/aet/ausweb95/ausweb95.html Wolf, G. (1995). The curse of xanadu. [On-line]. Available: http://www.hotwired.com/wired/3.06/features/xanadu.html
