Note: We have indicated page numbers at the bottom of pages in
this reply for convenience in referencing.
RE: Metaphorical Pages: Wrens' Reply to John Lederer
December 5, 1994
Dear John:
We read with interest your December 3 posting to LAW-LIB,
replying to our December 1 posting, entitled "Citation Reform:
The Page as a Metaphorical Unit." Our posting and yours present
an excellent example of people looking at the same data and
coming to directly opposite conclusions.
Perhaps the most vivid instance occurs when you write, "[Page
breaks] are simply arbitrary marks. . . . [P]age numbers (as in
star pagination) are simply a sequential number inserted at
points somewhat equal in distance from each other." We agree
with this characterization of the data. But when we look at the
arbitrariness -- that is, the content-neutrality -- of page
breaks sprinkled throughout a court decision, we come to a
conclusion fundamentally different from yours. For us, it is the
very arbitrariness (i.e., the content-neutrality) of court-
assigned page numbers that makes them useful for public-domain
pinpoint cites for cases: these content-neutral markers avoid
the risks our December 1 posting mentioned -- the risk that the
distinction between judicial decisionmaking and statutory
interpretation will become blurred, and the risk that paragraph
numbering will prompt lawyers, concerned about the prospect of
waiving clients' claims by inadvertently failing to cite relevant
paragraphs, to cite paragraph numbers in unwieldy citations
characterized by no more precision than now afforded by page
numbers. We cannot see a reason for citation reform to create
even the possibility of a smidgen of a scrap of such risks by
using paragraph numbering when page numbering works just as well
for any purpose paragraph numbering would serve.
Similarly, we agree with your observation that "page breaks
[from one print edition] can rarely be physically duplicated in
Page 1
another edition." But for us, this circumstance constitutes a
non-problem. Star paging provides the mechanism for mapping the
page breaks of one edition to the text found in a physically
dissimilar edition. That, of course, is how Lawyers Cooperative,
West Publishing, LEXIS, and WESTLAW all handle the physical
dissimilarities between their versions of U.S. Supreme Court
decisions and the versions found in United States Reports.
In another instance of drawing opposite conclusions from the
same data, you look at star paging as suffering from the "problem
of [someone having to say] `page 32 of the court's opinion,
printed on page 129-131 of your edition of case law and on page
788-789 of my edition'." We do not see how that differs from (to
adapt your wording) the "problem of [someone having to say]
`paragraph 32 of the court's opinion, printed on page 129-130 of
your edition of case law and on page 788-789 of my edition'."
Both markers -- page numbers and paragraph numbers -- represent
internal locations that will require researchers to flip to
differing places in differing editions. Moreover, a stated goal
of citation reform is to encourage the entrance of new publishers
into the legal marketplace and to encourage all publishers of
legal sources to compete by adding value to their publications;
if numerous publishers all end up adding value, the divergence
among various publishers' editions of the same documents will
almost certainly increase and researchers will find themselves
flipping pages more, regardless of whether paragraph numbers or
page numbers are used as the locators in cases. In other words,
paragraph numbering does not solve the problem you identify.
In still another instance of your and our seeing different
implications flowing from the same data, we note that you
conclude our posting in part "rests on converting a fault into a
virtue, i.e. page numbering is good because it's [sic]
imprecision allows a lawyer to avoid being nailed for malpractice
when he [or she] miscites." We did not write, and do not
believe, page numbering is good because it allows lawyers to
avoid malpractice. Rather, we wrote:
The practitioner's response [to paragraph numbering]
will likely consist of string citations to paragraph
Page 2
numbers within a case, undermining the simplicity
that citation reform now promises. With such a
response, pinpoint citation to paragraph numbering
will come to provide no more precision -- and perhaps
less -- than reformers now see in pinpoint citations
to page numbers.
In other words, our point has nothing to do with whether page
numbering is good or bad as a means of avoiding malpractice; the
point has to do with lawyers' practical responses that will
likely make locating text through paragraph numbering no more
precise than locating text through page numbering, thus
undermining one of the principal arguments in support of
switching to paragraph numbering.
We also find ourselves at odds with your willingness to
premise a switch to paragraph numbering on the assumption that
printing on paper will become, in your language, "obsolete" (a
view consistent with your citation-reform proposal that in
Wisconsin, the authoritative archive of cases exist only in
electronic form). We realize that some in the technology
community predict the obsolescence of paper, but we also know
that after looking at the same evidence you have, others in the
technology community have come to the opposite conclusion.
For example, computer scientists at Xerox Corporation's Palo
Alto Research Center (the legendary think tank credited with
numerous technological advances, including the invention of the
personal computer) gave up on the idea of creating a paperless
office because, as one scientist put it, they had come to realize
that "sometimes paper is just the right medium." Laura Myers,
"Xerox Invents Software That Lets Faxed Paper Instruct PCs," AP,
May 23, 1992 (AM cycle) (originally obtained through LEXIS, Nexis
library, Wires file). In an article reporting the decision of
WIRED magazine to begin offering a print version of its
electronic publication, The New York Times observed that "experts
in mass communications are . . . discovering that, for many
purposes, nothing is as technologically advanced as ink on
paper." John Tierney, "In Multimedia Storm, Text Thrives," N.Y.
Times, Jul. 5, 1993, at 21. The article goes on to quote the
Page 3
editor and publisher of WIRED magazine: "`There's nothing that
comes close to the user-friendliness of paper. . . . Paper is
completely random-access; it's high-resolution; it's portable;
it's almost interactive in the way it gives you the ability to
determine the pace, to go backward or forward. Paper is still
the best way of delivering high thought content."
The August 14, 1994 issue of The New York Times Book Review
includes an article (pp. 3, 20-21) examining the future of the
printed book. The article notes that Microsoft's Bill Gates
opted for print publication, not electronic publication, of his
book about the information revolution: "[I]f Mr. Gates at
Microsoft likes computers so much, you might ask, why did he
decide to publish his forthcoming book the regular way? `The
medium is appropriate,' said Jonathan Lazarus, the vice president
of systems strategy at Microsoft, who negotiated Mr. Gates's book
project -- for $2.5 million -- with Penguin U.S.A." In a similar
vein, the article quotes Don Norman:
"The book has been with us for about 500 years,"
said Donald Norman of Apple Computer, who recently
published a book, "Things That Make Us Smart," which
argues that technology sometimes runs away with
itself, dazzling and tyrannizing people instead of
serving them by making life simpler. "People think
it's unsophisticated technologically, but the book
has evolved into an extremely convenient and
sophisticated artifact. It uses modern paper, with
good contrast and good quality print. The typefaces
themselves have evolved over many years, the design
and layout have evolved in esthetic quality and
utility. And in many ways, the book is a good random
access device that's extremely easy to scan through."
. . . .
As Mr. Norman, whose book about the tyrannies of
technology is about to come out in a new CD-ROM
version, said, "If you really want to read my book,
I'd recommend the paper version."
David A. Hirsch, a partner in a law firm that uses computer
technology extensively and who edits NETWORK 2d, the quarterly
Page 4
newsletter of the Computer & Technology Division of the ABA's
Section of Law Practice Management, brings the point closer to
home in the legal community. Writing in The Iowa Lawyer (July
1994), Hirsch reviewed West Publishing's CD-ROM of Iowa cases
("Iowa Cases on CD-ROM, A Must for You," pp. 17-20) and reported
his experience with the print and electronic versions of Iowa
cases:
Cancelling our subscription to the advance sheets and
the hardbound Northwestern Reporter meant that in the
long run the CD-ROM would be cheaper than maintaining
the hardbound Northwestern Reporter. . . . We
cancelled our subscription to the Northwestern
Reporter and to the advance sheets. Three months
later I reinstated our subscription to the
Northwestern Reporter. Even though full opinions can
be printed out from the CD-ROM, I find that I like to
breeze through the strikes on screen. Once I
determine what the key cases are, I then like to go
to the books and read the opinions there. Your
experience may vary. In general I prefer to use the
books once I have the citations.
In light of strong evidence for an enduring and prominent role
for paper, we think caution can serve a useful function when
considering the adoption of a citation scheme designed, as you
put it, to accommodate the demise of print technology.
You nicely capture the basic tension between your posting and
ours when, in writing "[y]our article . . . doesn't make a
convincing case that [page numbering] equals or surpasses
paragraph numbering," you state that the "principal" drawback to
page numbering is that "page numbering is media and edition
specific" and that "[p]age breaks are inherently dependent on
some reference printed (or prepared for printing) document." We
have known since April of this year, when you had lunch with
Chris, that your commitment to this view is unyielding.
Consequently, we did not write our December 1 posting to LAW-LIB
with any expectation of convincing you.
Page 5
Others, however, have rejected the notion that page numbers
cannot be effectively carried forward into the electronic
environment. For example, our December 1 posting quoted the
observation of the current chair of the ABA Section of Science
and Technology that "[a]s long as the divisions are marked
electronically and in accordance with a public domain syntax,"
divisions within cases can be accomplished either through
paragraph numbering or page numbering. In illustration of that
point, of course, Louisiana has opted to accomplish citation
reform through page numbers. By referring on LAW-LIB to others
who have seen the possibility and utility of using page numbers
in public-domain citation schemes, we thought our posting might
help balance the LAW-LIB discussion of citation reform, a
discussion that has featured postings from proponents of
paragraph numbering.
As for ways in which page numbering can surpass paragraph
numbering, we refer you not only to the discussion in our
December 1 posting of the opportunity to avoid the previously
noted risks, but to the discussion of taking advantage of the
page number's familiarity as a widely used locator (a course that
minimizes disruption), of avoiding the need to reprogram online
services set up to deal with page breaks rather than paragraph
breaks, of avoiding the need to add paragraph numbers like "17b"
to court decisions if the court subsequently adds paragraphs or
to leave numbering gaps if the court subsequently deletes
paragraphs, and of the convenience of simply using the court-
assigned page breaks that the courts' word processors can
automatically generate without further software programming
(thereby undoubtedly saving much time and many taxpayer dollars).
So, even though our posting did not persuade you, we hope
others might have found something in it useful in developing
their views about ways to implement citation reform if they
conclude that changes to the current system are needed.
Chris and Jill Wren
702 Emerson Street
Page 6
Madison, WI 53715
Voice: (608) 251-1774
Fax: (608) 257-5719 (c/o our publisher)
E-mail: cgwren@acm.org
Page 7
================================================================================
YOUR ORIGINAL MESSAGE
> From:IN%"74020.210@compuserve.com"
> To:IN%"law-lib@ucdavis.edu" "Multiple recipients of list"
> CC:
> Subj:The Page as Metaphor (Citation Reform)
> Date: Sat, 03 Dec 1994 09:42:55 -0800
> From: John Lederer <74020.210@compuserve.com>
> Subject: The Page as Metaphor (Citation Reform)
> Sender: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
> To: Multiple recipients of list <law-lib@ucdavis.edu>
> Message-id: <941203173417_74020.210_DHE38-1@CompuServe.COM>
>
>
> (note: this is a repeat of a posting that was badly
> formatted which I attempted to abort -- if you receive this
> twice, please excuse me.)
>
> Chris and Jill Wren wrote on Dec. 1st:
>
>
> " It strikes us that this focus and assumption have obscured
> the benefits offered by page numbers -- benefits that match
> or surpass the benefits citation-reform proponents have
> noted for paragraph numbers and that can with equal
> effectiveness achieve the goal of providing citable
> public-domain divisions that work in all media."
> =================================================
>
>
> We started off in our discussions in Wisconsin with a
> "vendor-neutral" page numbering system. In the end we
> abandoned it in favor of what all saw as a superior system,
> paragraph numbering.
>
> The reasons for preferring paragraphs to pages have been
> previously enumerated:
>
> (1) integral part of the author's communication,
>
> (2)not dependent upon a particular medium (or preparation
> for a medium),
>
> (4) precision.
>
> Your article ,it seems to me, suggests some ways in which
> page numbering can approach paragraph numbering in utility,
> but doesn't make a convincing case that it equals or
> surpasses paragraph numbering. Some of the argument rests
> on converting a fault into a virtue, i.e. page numbering is
> good because it's imprecision allows a lawyer to avoid being
> nailed for malpractice when he miscites.
>
> But, what is lacking is an honest appraisal of page
> numbering's faults.
>
> The principal one is that page numbering is media and
> edition specific. Page breaks doen't just depend on paper
> size, but on typeface, font, margins, letterspacing,
> leading, etc. All of these have to do with the method of
> publication, not the author's communication.
>
> Page breaks are inherently dependent on some reference
> printed (or prepared for printing) document. In the absence
> of having that particular physical document in hand, they
> are simply arbitrary marks. To one who does not have the
> reference document before him, page numbers ( as in star
> pagination) are simply a sequential number inserted at
> points somewhat equal in distance from each other.
>
> All documents printed on cut paper have , however, their own
> physical page breaks. Because of all the variables that
> make up the page numbering on the reference document, page
> breaks can rarely be physically duplicated in another
> edition. Thus,page systems always have the problem of "page
> 32 of the court's opinion, printed on page 129-131 of your
> edition of case law and on page 788-789 of my edition". We
> invented parallel cites to make up for this deficiency, but
> parallel cites are grossly inefficient, and can only
> support use of a very few editions.
>
> Compare that to a paragraph numbering system. If I say
> "Genesis 11:7", you, I, and anyone else with a Bible can find
> the same cite (of course, religion being what it is, we may
> have different wording <g>). We can do so easily, and
> without concern for whether I have the "easy reading"
> version and you have the pocket version.
>
> Note that so far in this discussion I have not referred to
> new technology. Paragraph numbering makes sense on paper.
> "U.S. Constitution, Art III, Sec. 2" points to the same
> place regardless of whether we have the original or a
> reprinted copy. "U.S. Constitution, p. 12" is futile unless
> we have the same precise copy of the Constitution.
>
> Technology does enter into it, however. It does so in this
> sense, in my opinion:
>
> We ought not lightly change citation systems. If we do
> change them, we ought to change them so that the new one
> lasts a long time.
>
> I have a reasonable expectation that paragraphs will last a
> long time regardless of what our media turn into. I do not
> have the same expectation for pages, because pages are a
> byproduct of a particular way of publishing opinions .
>
> Pages came into our life when we began printing on cut paper.
> I expect their use to decline as printing on paper becomes obsolete.
> I probably won't live to see that, but at this point I would
> be foolish not to see the handwriting (without page numbers)
> on the wall.
>
> Indeed, the signs are perhaps too evident. Your article, in
> this medium, had no page numbers, nor did my reply.
>
> Regards,
> John Lederer
> Chair, Technology Committee, Wisconsin
> State Bar
> (but speaking only for myself)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST