Talk:As We May Think

Untitled
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the As_We_May_Think article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. &mdash; LinkBot 10:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

``a Life magazine article which showed illustrations of the proposed memex desk and automatic typewriter.'' reminds me of the retro / art deco "computers" used by the reporters of the Daily Planet in the Superman comics.

Perhaps we should put the following quote from "As We May Think" in the article, suggesting that Bush predicted hypertext encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia, 55 years before it appeared?

"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.""

Nyh 07:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

LIFE
I have corrected the date of the Life Magazine article - it is clearly the September 10th issue, and I can find numerous specific references to that whereas I cannot find any specific account of it appearing in any of the four November issues of Life - merely the vaguely repeated (and possibly originally ours) claim that it appeared in November. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have the November edition in front of me and Bush isn't mentioned anywhere. And the German Wikipedia still mentions the November issue, citing a TAZ article from 2005 (http://www.taz.de/?id=archiv&dig=2005/11/22/a0157). So much for "reliable sources"... - Armin B. Wagner (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Uninformed edits on 17 March 2014
Just caught this---they were by editor User:Sofia Koutsouveli. The extensive academic literature on hypertext---in particular, the 1991 Nyce/Kahn book---is very clear that the memex was not hypertext in any meaningful sense but merely inspired the development of hypertext. Any objections before I take out the garbage? --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Time to clean up the Engrish
I'm referring to the edits by User:Kaartic on 13 September 2016 and 28 September 2016 that took an article that was already a train wreck and made it even worse. No self-respecting native English speaker dumps multiple blockquotes into an article like that. Any objections before I clean up this mess? --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * First off, thanks for trying to correct any mistake I would have made. Anyways, . I have no idea why you thought I would be a english speaker (or maybe I misinterpreted your statement); because I am not! (as stated indirectly in my user page).


 * I don't know why blockquotes are a bad thing. I find them better than keeping quotes inline as they clearly separate the rest of the article from the quotations which aren't article content. Moreover, I thought that's what they were meant for! Even the manual of style doesn't discourage the way I used them (may be I'm missing something). Could you please state any reason as to blockquotes are a bad thing other than the fact that it's a gut feeling of a native english speaker (which I don't understand, sorry) ? - - Kaartic correct me, if i'm wrong 18:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)