تبصرے (2)

گوگل کے ترجمے آٹومیٹک مشین ترجمے فراہم نہیں کرتے. ان سے آپ کو کہنے والے کی بات کا لب لباب تو پتا لگ سکتا ہے لیکن یہ آپ کو بات کا بلکل درست ترجمہ بشمول اس کی پیچیدگیوں کے نہیں دے سکتا.ان ترجموں کو پڑھتے وقت آپ یہ بات ضرور ذہن میں رکھیے

1. Antoon De Baets ستمبر 17, 2012 وقت 8:24 صبح
   replyجواب دینے کے لیے لاگ ان کریں report Report comment

   ANONYMITY IN SCHOLARSHIP SHOULD BE AN EXCEPTION

   Katie Engelhart’s interesting discussion of the negative anonymous reviews of Rachel Polonsky’s and Robert Service’s works by their colleague Orlando Figes takes a curious turn at the end. Service, she writes, noted that Figes’s attitude reminded him of the Soviet practice of personal attacks. Engelhart, though, shrewdly remarks that Figes had the right to publish anonymous reviews, and she rejects Service’s view with the following argument: “Service surely understands that anonymous criticism has, in history, had its rightful place.” This argument is historically and morally untenable.

   Anonymous criticism certainly had a rightful place in history—as a weapon of the weak. When in times past, graffiti and anonymous pamphlets defied the aberrations of power, they were given credit. This is hardly the case here. Figes was not the weaker party: his works are praised as much as those of Polonsky and Service. Anonymity did not serve to shield him from the vengeance of academic power; rather, it was an instrument to improperly hit his professional rivals. From a historical angle, the argument is misplaced.

   Figes had the right to publish anonymous reviews, but as a citizen, not as a professional or as a scholar. As a professional, that is as a publicist, he had no good reason to remain anonymous. Journalism and anonymity go together only in the one widely recognized case of secrecy regarding a source that gives information in confidence. Figes did not protect such a source, he protected himself. As a scholar, that is as a historian, his position is even weaker. Scholarship and secrecy are each other’s enemies. Scholars have to strive for maximal transparency and accountability. Disclosure is the rule, confidentiality the exception. Peer review, if it wants to be anonymous, needs strong justification. In the Figes affair, no such justification was available, and the anonymity was in violation of scholarly deontology. Engelhart’s argument is correct at the level of citizenship only, but if the duties of professionalism and scholarship are taken into account—and they should, as the affair centers on publication and scholarly rivalry—it founders.

   Ironically, in apologizing and redressing the wrongs caused by his action, Figes seemed to accept the above reasoning more than Engelhart does.

   Antoon De Baets
2. brianpellot ستمبر 7, 2012 وقت 11:09 صبح
   replyجواب دینے کے لیے لاگ ان کریں report Report comment

   Did RJ Ellory learn nothing from Figes? Another author caught out for trashing colleagues and glorifying his own work on Amazon – http://goo.gl/gP0we