Observations

My early reactions while creating the ARchive in 2009 ...

---

January 2007: In anticipation of creating an Apologia content database some day, I'm preparing my files for database addition and I'm finding it embarrassing to review my early work. Some reactions:

- Cocky, arrogant, insensitive, cynical -- I'm getting a little better, but I still haven't learned how to spell ...

- Incomplete citations will infuriate readers:

- Articles and book reviews without even mentioning titles (and only giving an idea of content, if that)

- Failure to identify principal persons/subjects/content

- Content selection choices of questionable significance show my immaturity at this game

- Vague summaries are given, limiting their use to readers

(Ugg. This is painful. A lot of people using this database may never be able to forgive me. ;-)

POSTSCRIPT - January 2009: After more thot, it strikes me that I would probably have included more essential bibliographic info for my readers but for the fact that they were working in the same room with me at the time that I created those early issues of the FYI. My early stuff also assumes a California reader location/familiarity. The context was such that CRI researchers merely had to flag an item in the FYI (which was only available in print at first) and give it to the clerk who would then make sure that they had a chance to see the original of the cited item.

So keep in mind that before I started writing Apologia Report, my primary audience worked in the same office with me. With AR, I wanted to serve people who didn't have the same immediate access to the documents I was describing -- as was the case with the FYI/BBS-FYI.