Different Views on About.com

In reaction to an announcement in the Caught in the Web section of the February 2001 issue of Footnotes, I wish to inform you that the online business About.com, which boasts a “sociology” section, is a commercial website that is primarily interested in much less than scholarly pursuits. The company has just merged with Primedia, itself a dubious e-venture. In February 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported that Primedia was pouring more and more money into all kinds of businesses in the hope of getting out of its dire financial situation. But Primedia’s share actually plummeted 25% the day its merger with About, Inc. was announced.

About.com is also public, listed on Nasdaq (as BOUT), where its shares have gone neatly down, from more than $90 a share last year to about $22 a share in February 2001. I am absolutely sure that the editors at Footnotes did not intend to participate in this, but About.com’s posting in Footnotes was nothing more nor less than a dot-com advertising ploy of yet one more troubled e-business.

The activities of About.com in sociology are dubious. The site links to other (often distinctly scholarly) websites while displaying advertisements. If you want to see webpages on Durkheim, Giddens, or crime, linked from academic servers but at the same time also displaying banners advertising Hotwire.com or Beliefnet and much more, then About.com is for you! Logging into the About.com site will also open pop-up windows with contests to win lucrative prizes!

I hope that as sociologists we can work to keep our discipline and profession on and off the internet free from the commercialism that dominates the world of e-commerce. We can and should develop our own sociologically appropriate webpages, in our departments, as individual teachers and researchers, in the ASA sections, and through other non-commercial means. If we remain autonomous in controlling sociology’s presence on the internet, we can contribute in upholding the dignity of our profession and the standards of our discipline to advance sociological interests and the interests of sociology even in the cyber age.

Mathieu Deflem, Purdue University, e-mail e-mail DeflemM@soc.purdue.edu; http://www.sla.purdue.edu/people/soc/mdeflem/Apropos.edu

As the editor for About’s Social Sciences GuideSites, I have been aware of Prof. Deflem’s objections to his online papers being recommended by the sociology and anthropology sites on our network. I’ve also spent several years of my own career teaching in private and public universities, as well as working as a consultant for the City University of New York in their efforts to expand the horizons of students and faculty members and encourage use of online resources for education.

As Deflem boldly proclaims on his own personal web page, the internet is free medium for a free society. He enjoys this freedom by posting academic papers with dripping-blood graphics and links to pictures of himself wearing a Pantera t-shirt. For the record, I think this humanization of academia is something to be encouraged in all aspects, including the opening of academic discussion to the populous.

Somehow, Deflem fails to see that this medium which allows a Purdue professor to endorse right-wing rockers like Ted Nugent also provides learners from all aspects of society and all backgrounds to share in a collective human experience of knowledge, in a way not possible within the structure of a university system. Ironically, he has chosen the slogan “free Education now” in protest of a medium that is providing content and interaction free of charge to an Internet population who may not be able to afford the thousands of dollars required to attend private colleges.

One need only look at the actual activity on the About Sociology site, run by Professor Kathy Stolley, to understand how online sociology centers can serve the worldwide curiosity for understanding human behavior on a daily basis. Stolley’s recent article on GroupThink capitalized on the popularity of the movie “Thirteen Days” in order to introduce movie and history buffs to some of the psychological decision-making habits that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Readers were pulled in by the movie but learned more about the sociological studies behind GroupThink theory and gave them a forum for discussing these connections further. The About Sociology Forum itself is a clear indicator of the bridges our sites constantly build among curious people from all backgrounds. Deflem’s main objections seem to be about how those bridges are funded. As About is the sixth largest Internet property in the world, it’s clear that most of our audiences, particularly in our academic-related channels do not share his objections. High school students, professors and random web surfers from America, Europe and Australia can be found engaged in free discussion on sociological topics ranging from pop culture to academic studies. Given a free medium, people will freely exchange ideas and knowledge with each other, with a level of energy and diversity nearly impossible to achieve in a college classroom.

In sum, the free nature of the Internet gives the populous the opportunity to choose how they will participate in exchanging information and attaining knowledge. Our navigational elements allow users to visit recommended sites and return to the topic site of their choice. It also allows users to turn off the navigation simply by clicking the “Turn off this top frame” option. I would disagree with Deflem’s assertion that putting his work on a “public server” does not implicitly give the public permission to link to it or refer to it. There are many professors and educators who do wish to control who can and cannot link to their papers or online syllabi and the most common and practical method is to make their sites password-protected.

In my experience, the educators who are making the effort to embrace and exploit new media in all its forms are the ones who are really preparing their students for a new world in which the boundaries between the classroom and society are not so strict. Deflem’s arguments for insulating academia from the Internet will only serve to retain these social boundaries.

Would he prefer that About not cover sociology or anthropology at all?