Both Glieck and Liang discuss the inherent strength and weakness of alphabetical ordering. Glieck notes that before humankind thought to arrange data alphabetically, we arranged it by topic. Topical lists were "thought provoking, imperfect, and creative," while alphabetical lists were "mechanical, effective, and automatic." When described like this, it would seem alphabetical lists go against what's been said about information effecting knowledge. Glieck adds that data ordered alphabetically is not much different than data ordered numerically. Would the "Celestial Empire of Benevolent Knowledge" read differently if it was numeric? Is there potential for knowledge development in arranging data alphabetically?
Sample Solution