User talk:Foobar - Revision history

Foobar at 23:23, 29 October 2009

2009-10-29T23:23:36Z

Cam2171: /* COSI */

2009-10-29T17:05:00Z

‎COSI

Cam2171: /* COSI */ new section

2009-10-29T17:02:38Z

‎COSI: new section

Nateoxford at 10:58, 17 July 2009

2009-07-17T10:58:52Z

Absentminded: /* Researching for WCU */

2008-02-29T14:41:28Z

‎Researching for WCU

Absentminded: /* Researching for WCU */

2008-02-25T23:04:28Z

‎Researching for WCU

Foobar at 22:44, 25 February 2008

2008-02-25T22:44:38Z

Absentminded at 13:46, 21 February 2008

2008-02-21T13:46:20Z

Nonsensical at 05:13, 8 July 2007

2007-07-08T05:13:27Z

Foobar at 00:49, 8 July 2007

2007-07-08T00:49:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 29 October 2009
Line 21:		Line 21:

	I don't know of any website with information on which profs sit on COSI. I'll look into it. [[User:Cam2171\|Cam2171]] 13:05, 29 October 2009 (EDT)		I don't know of any website with information on which profs sit on COSI. I'll look into it. [[User:Cam2171\|Cam2171]] 13:05, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
		+
		+	** it's only profs? lame. [[User:Foobar\|Foobar]] 19:23, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:05, 29 October 2009
Line 20:		Line 20:
	== COSI ==		== COSI ==

−	I don't know of any website with information on which profs sit on COSI. I'll look into it.	+	I don't know of any website with information on which profs sit on COSI. I'll look into it. [[User:Cam2171\|Cam2171]] 13:05, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:02, 29 October 2009
Line 17:		Line 17:
	:*I've responded on my talk page. [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 18:04, 25 February 2008 (EST)		:*I've responded on my talk page. [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 18:04, 25 February 2008 (EST)
	:*Yeah. The [[Statistical Abstract]] is basically the rosetta stone of Columbia. Or Excalibur. You get the point. :) [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 09:41, 29 February 2008 (EST)		:*Yeah. The [[Statistical Abstract]] is basically the rosetta stone of Columbia. Or Excalibur. You get the point. :) [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 09:41, 29 February 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	== COSI ==
		+
		+	I don't know of any website with information on which profs sit on COSI. I'll look into it.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 howdy.
 :yo. --[[User:Nonsensical|Nonsensical]] 01:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
 == Researching for WCU ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 29 February 2008
Line 14:		Line 14:

	:*I've responded on my talk page. [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 18:04, 25 February 2008 (EST)		:*I've responded on my talk page. [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 18:04, 25 February 2008 (EST)
		+	:*Yeah. The [[Statistical Abstract]] is basically the rosetta stone of Columbia. Or Excalibur. You get the point. :) [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 09:41, 29 February 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:04, 25 February 2008
Line 12:		Line 12:

	** ok obviously this content should be posted somewhere prominently, e.g., a FAQ for new contributors. [[User:Foobar\|Foobar]] 17:44, 25 February 2008 (EST)		** ok obviously this content should be posted somewhere prominently, e.g., a FAQ for new contributors. [[User:Foobar\|Foobar]] 17:44, 25 February 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	:*I've responded on my talk page. [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 18:04, 25 February 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 25 February 2008
Line 10:		Line 10:
	* 5) Stick everything you find into an external links section or referenced footnotes! I can't stress this enough. So much of this is hearsay, inferential, or even conflicting. Unless it's coming from one of the few canonical works we have (e.g. McCaughey and Dolkart's books), having links to the sources makes sorting things out easier as we learn more. In the course of researching one topic, if I find some tangential reference intriguing, I bookmark it and make sure I come back to it later. I've got about a dozen spec articles bookmarked regarding turmoil in the public affairs office follow Bollinger's arrival. The whole [[Emily Lloyd]] issue etc. (which I've already fleshed out a bit). Another Good source is [http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/cuhistory/intro.htm], the website for Robert McCaughey's [[University Seminar]] on Columbia history through which he did research for his book. There are some fabulous presentation notes on there.		* 5) Stick everything you find into an external links section or referenced footnotes! I can't stress this enough. So much of this is hearsay, inferential, or even conflicting. Unless it's coming from one of the few canonical works we have (e.g. McCaughey and Dolkart's books), having links to the sources makes sorting things out easier as we learn more. In the course of researching one topic, if I find some tangential reference intriguing, I bookmark it and make sure I come back to it later. I've got about a dozen spec articles bookmarked regarding turmoil in the public affairs office follow Bollinger's arrival. The whole [[Emily Lloyd]] issue etc. (which I've already fleshed out a bit). Another Good source is [http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/cuhistory/intro.htm], the website for Robert McCaughey's [[University Seminar]] on Columbia history through which he did research for his book. There are some fabulous presentation notes on there.
	* 6) Check out the USOpera article I linked on [[Brander Matthews Hall]] page. It's got a lovely anecdote that shows how poorly Columbia tends to its own legacies, as well as a great article idea ([[Columbia Opera Workshop]]) [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 08:29, 21 February 2008 (EST)		* 6) Check out the USOpera article I linked on [[Brander Matthews Hall]] page. It's got a lovely anecdote that shows how poorly Columbia tends to its own legacies, as well as a great article idea ([[Columbia Opera Workshop]]) [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 08:29, 21 February 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	** ok obviously this content should be posted somewhere prominently, e.g., a FAQ for new contributors. [[User:Foobar\|Foobar]] 17:44, 25 February 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:46, 21 February 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	howdy.		howdy.
	:yo. --[[User:Nonsensical\|Nonsensical]] 01:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)		:yo. --[[User:Nonsensical\|Nonsensical]] 01:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Researching for WCU ==
		+	Thanks! I vaguely remember Pegram labs being mentioned somewhere and hunted down a proper reference somewhere. I could glean only very little information on the internet. I noticed the [[Crocker Institute]] on a couple of old campus maps this year and decided to follow up on that yesterday. I got lucky and even found a picture of the building in a book scanned by google. Screenshot+MS Paint followed. Anyway, here are some rough guidelines I follow when researching:
		+	* 1) Find something you know nothing about and pursue it doggedly. A good source is old photographs and campus maps. Alternatively, see point 4 infra.
		+	* 2) Do a columbia site search through google (site:columbia.edu "search term"), using all kinds of variations on parentheses to find what you're looking for. This is an exponentially superior method for searching Columbia's domain than the search engine on the site. It also allows you to pinpoint your search (e.g. site:http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/ for a news search, site:http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/ for Columbia College Today, etc. That's how I researched all the articles on the [[:Category:Awards\|Awards]]
		+	* 3) repeat the same on google in general. and the nytimes website, which has indexed issues back through 1851 and lets you look at clippings for free up through 1923. a good google search using parentheses might also turn up old articles in Time magazine)
		+	* 4) Make ample use of google book search, because there are so much literature indexed there. In fact, read some of the older volumes listed at [[Books about Columbia]] for ideas to pursue and flesh out (e.g. [[Camp Columbia]], something I've seen pictures of and references to). There's oodles of information on Columbia's campus architecture in those books.
		+	* 5) Stick everything you find into an external links section or referenced footnotes! I can't stress this enough. So much of this is hearsay, inferential, or even conflicting. Unless it's coming from one of the few canonical works we have (e.g. McCaughey and Dolkart's books), having links to the sources makes sorting things out easier as we learn more. In the course of researching one topic, if I find some tangential reference intriguing, I bookmark it and make sure I come back to it later. I've got about a dozen spec articles bookmarked regarding turmoil in the public affairs office follow Bollinger's arrival. The whole [[Emily Lloyd]] issue etc. (which I've already fleshed out a bit). Another Good source is [http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/cuhistory/intro.htm], the website for Robert McCaughey's [[University Seminar]] on Columbia history through which he did research for his book. There are some fabulous presentation notes on there.
		+	* 6) Check out the USOpera article I linked on [[Brander Matthews Hall]] page. It's got a lovely anecdote that shows how poorly Columbia tends to its own legacies, as well as a great article idea ([[Columbia Opera Workshop]]) [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 08:29, 21 February 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:13, 8 July 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	howdy.		howdy.
		+	:yo. --[[User:Nonsensical\|Nonsensical]] 01:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:49, 8 July 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	hi.	+	howdy.