So we should take the word of a random "author" who didn't even bother to publish his name and credentials over Inman simply because this guy blasted Inman for being a Millennial? That's just as wrong as accepting some dumb comic as the authority on history.
This guy, whoever he is, goes on about "crap on the Internet" then cites a 3rd of his sources from the Internet, four of those being Wikipedia. Even better, half his non-Internet based sources are museums -- no further information provided. His sources are mostly unverifiable crap, then he stoops to an ad hominem. It's garbage.
Its published by the Edison Tech Center which is a non-profit in Schenectady, NY. It doesn't need to publish on a more granular level of authorship. I guess it would be nice, but its own editorial policies are what they are and not outside of norms. I don't complain about the Economist doing the same, for example.
>His sources are mostly unverifiable crap
There is a source list at the end of the article.
Sources:
-Electrification in Western Society 1880-1930. by Thomas Parke Hughes.1993 (book)
-Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany
-Historisches Museum, Frankfurt Germany
-The General Electric Story - A Hall of Electrical History Publication.1999 (book)
-Archives of the Schenectady Museum: William Stanley files, E.W. Rice Jr. Files
-Great Barrington Historical Society
-Hawkins Electrical Guides (book series)
-Men and Volts. by John Winthrop Hammond. 1941(book)
-Folsom Powerhouse Museum. Folsom, California
-Biography of Elihu Thomson, prepared by E.W. Rice Jr.
-Archives of the Edison Tech Center: Rice Family Archives
-Almost Edison: How William Sawyer and Others Lost the Race to Electrification. by Donald Scott McPartland. 2006
Internet Sources:
-MIT website: Inventor of the Week" William Stanley
-IEEE Global History Network: Milestones: Alternating Current Electrification 1886
> So we should take the word of a random "author" who didn't even bother to publish his name and credentials over Inman simply because this guy blasted Inman for being a Millennial?
No. I'm not saying anyone should "just" believe either party over the other.
For all of Inman's bold assertions, he cites no sources whatsoever-- not even random crap on the internet-- and ends his comic with an appeal to vandalize Wikipedia to support his argument.
Without knowing anything about ETC, from an objective standpoint, I agree with ETC's assertion that Inman isn't qualified to be publishing unsubstantiated claims about anything related to a dead man's character or accomplishments.
> I agree with ETC's assertion that Inman isn't qualified to be publishing unsubstantiated claims about anything related to a dead man's character or accomplishments.
He's an entertainer and comedian, not a bastion for everlasting factual histories of the world...
I seriously feel that a large percentage of commenters on HN need to step back a bit and be less rigid in their assessment of society around them.
This guy, whoever he is, goes on about "crap on the Internet" then cites a 3rd of his sources from the Internet, four of those being Wikipedia. Even better, half his non-Internet based sources are museums -- no further information provided. His sources are mostly unverifiable crap, then he stoops to an ad hominem. It's garbage.