***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/ *****
Maybe. There is also a major "Science" section with "Social Science" and
"Physical Science" as legitimate subsections, where the article could have
fitted equally well (and certainly better than where it actually appeared),
though. Interestingly enough, there is a major link from the top-level
"Science" section and no major link from the top-level "Arts" section.
However, there is a minor link from the "THE WEEK IN ARTS" box. So, I think
the editors were a little clueless on what to do with the article, which
deserves some thought. Since this is a ranting thread... :-)
--On Sunday, January 26, 2003 6:23 PM -0500 Steven Sherman
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/ *****
> In a message dated 1/26/2003 4:29:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> > Another curious aspect:
> > Why did the story appear under the "Arts" section when the only remotely
> > artistic thing in the whole story seems to be the network
> > graph?
> > Interesting editorial choice...
> The arts section includes an 'arts and ideas' feature every Saturday on
> current intellectual life, so I wouldn't make too much of that choice.
> Steven Sherman
> SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
> network researchers (http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/). To unsubscribe, send
> an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
> UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.