I just noticed that the History of Knowledge’s “About” page has been rewritten to claim that the GHI’s director conceived that project. I would tell the story somewhat differently, but the boss gets to tell the story the way she wants.1 Besides, this version reinforces my impression that my co-editor and I did something good because this boss would never claim ownership of a dud.

In fact, the site is still thriving, and, remarkably, it’s chugging along with the same old Penscratch theme from WordPress’s pre–block theme era. In an academic culture focused on making the new, while ignoring the need to maintain what has already been built, this is also a win of sorts. And I rest easier knowing that the site is being regularly archived by the Wayback Machine. Regardless of a director’s priorities and the institute’s funding, this thing will continue to exist for quite a while.

I just wish the current team had a more modern understanding of social media. Staying on Twitter after 2022 has meant relegating any conversation with readers and contributors to a now siloed platform that countless scholars and concerned citizens have abandoned. Of course, this criticism presupposes a desire for conversation. I suspect, though, that social media is purely a broadcast medium for the current team, as it is for many organizations. After all, engagement takes time, which means financial and opportunity costs.

  1. The change certainly adds a new layer of meaning to a small thing that happened in 2020. The director had me remove a footnote in an article about the blog that thanked her for the wide latitude we had in the project. ↩︎