EVEN MORE: (10th comment) re: "what is in reality a highly automated and self-contained system that depends on *repeatable, mechanized processes*" [my emphasis]
I think this is a serious limitation of search engines. Plenty of things are just not amenable to using "repeatable, mechanized processes." There is definitely a place for people as far as improving search.
Delia
MORE: (8th comment)
re: "Delia: Sort of defeats the purpose."
Seth: I would have asked Larry to post again without the credibly libelous part. I mean, it's not like all comments bring original criticism here...
Delia
P.S.not a big deal, though (I just thought I'd let you know what I thought) D.
...
(5th comment) Let Larry talk, Seth... Let *us* decide if the part you did not regard as credible libel was "common criticism"... (now you just made me curious...)
Milton: I don't think the idea, in general, is a bad one (using people to improve search). I just don't think it could or should be done the way Jimmy is trying to do it (Seth is right on this).
Delia
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
to Twitter or not to Twitter? (is the time investment worth it?)
MORE:
re: "Delia: I need to do a video so you can see just how many people I do have a relationship with online and just how they add value to my life on all these services."
OK, Robert -- I'd watch that. (I just hope I'll remember to check for it...)
Delia
P.S. take care! D.
Delia
P.S. it all sounds rather silly to me… (sorry if I’m wrong) D.
re: "Delia: I need to do a video so you can see just how many people I do have a relationship with online and just how they add value to my life on all these services."
OK, Robert -- I'd watch that. (I just hope I'll remember to check for it...)
Delia
P.S. take care! D.
...
Robert,
Delia
P.S. it all sounds rather silly to me… (sorry if I’m wrong) D.
Monday, April 7, 2008
to blog or not to blog? what *kind* of blogging?
STILL MORE:
Dan&Seth: I don’t think the issue can be presented in *general terms* — it’s WAY too varied… might just as well ask, “Is *reading* killing us?” — it all depends what are you reading and how you react to it, doesn’t it? it may well give heart attacks to some of the people… D.
EVEN MORE:
Seth,
Don’t you think it’s a legitimate concern? for *some* blogging/blogers? The issue could definitely be better framed but it is one worth talking about… I think.
Delia
MORE: God! how can I still post the wrong email address? (it posted with no problem once I got it right) D.
...
Dan, (2nd comment, awaiting moderation -- forgot to enter webpage , I don't know if this caused it to go in moderation, it usually posts automatically)
It seems to me that the issue is poorly defined: what *kind* of blogging?… it can be an enjoyable walk in the park or a recurrent nightmare and probably pretty much everything in between — all in a day of blogging.
Delia
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/04/07/blogging-kills-disproportionately-nyts-story-doesnt-make-the-case/#comment-153052)
Dan&Seth: I don’t think the issue can be presented in *general terms* — it’s WAY too varied… might just as well ask, “Is *reading* killing us?” — it all depends what are you reading and how you react to it, doesn’t it? it may well give heart attacks to some of the people… D.
EVEN MORE:
Seth,
Don’t you think it’s a legitimate concern? for *some* blogging/blogers? The issue could definitely be better framed but it is one worth talking about… I think.
Delia
MORE: God! how can I still post the wrong email address? (it posted with no problem once I got it right) D.
...
Dan, (2nd comment, awaiting moderation -- forgot to enter webpage , I don't know if this caused it to go in moderation, it usually posts automatically)
It seems to me that the issue is poorly defined: what *kind* of blogging?… it can be an enjoyable walk in the park or a recurrent nightmare and probably pretty much everything in between — all in a day of blogging.
Delia
(http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/04/07/blogging-kills-disproportionately-nyts-story-doesnt-make-the-case/#comment-153052)
another Delia?
MORE:
Dan,
I’m a bit confused about the “other Delia” that started to post on this blog while I was taking a break. No, I don’t have exclusive claim to my first name but I found it strange that that name is not present on her blog anywhere I could see, yet she uses it to post here.
Delia
P.S. Not necessarily ill intended, of course, just seems odd to me… D.
...
when I saw her post I was worried someone was impersonating me... it still seems odd that she only uses the name "Delia" on Dan Gilmor's blog... (not on hers) -- I took a cursory look at her blog... D.
Dan,
I’m a bit confused about the “other Delia” that started to post on this blog while I was taking a break. No, I don’t have exclusive claim to my first name but I found it strange that that name is not present on her blog anywhere I could see, yet she uses it to post here.
Delia
P.S. Not necessarily ill intended, of course, just seems odd to me… D.
...
when I saw her post I was worried someone was impersonating me... it still seems odd that she only uses the name "Delia" on Dan Gilmor's blog... (not on hers) -- I took a cursory look at her blog... D.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
(Wikipedia) the good and... the not so good...
EVEN MORE:
Matthew,
To leave here on a light note, here’s my favorite “quote” from Wikipedia: “Jimmy Wales was born to a Parisian whore named ‘Babette’ during the French Revolution”(this can be still found on Wikipedia — it’s part of the archived edits for the “Jimmy Wales” entry). Good reason not to take Wikipedia too seriously…:)
Delia
P.S. take care! D.
...
Hi, Matthew!
Yes, my comment doesn’t make it clear that Mark’s article was on wikis, in general. My bad. But he definitely talks about Wikipedia *in particular*:
“Early in this process, Wikipedia launched and began its completely unexpected rise into utility. In some ways, Wikipedia has an easy job: as an encyclopedia it must provide a basic summary of facts, not a detailed exploration of a topic, and it is generally possible for someone with a basic background in a topic to provide this much information. Yet this critique overlooks the immense breadth of Wikipedia (as of this writing, nearly 2.3 million articles in its English-language version). By casting its net wide – inviting all experts, everywhere, to contribute their specific knowledge – not only has Wikipedia covered the basics, it’s also covering everything else. No other encyclopedia could hope to be as comprehensive as Wikipedia, because no group of individuals – short of the billion internet-connected individuals who have access to Wikipedia – could be so comprehensively knowledgeable on such a wide range of subjects.
Wikipedia will ever remain a summary of human knowledge; that is its intent, and there are signs that the Wikipedians are becoming increasingly zealous in their enforcement of this goal. Summaries are significant and important (particularly for the mass of us who are casually interested in a particular topic), but summaries do not satisfy our obsessive natures. Although Wikipedia provides an outlet for expertise, it does not cross the salience gap. This left an opening for a new generation of Wikis designed to provide depth immersion in a particular obsession. (Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, realized this, and created Wikia.com as a resource where these individuals can create highly detailed Wikis.)”
Since your post deals with Wikipedia *in particular*, that was the part of Mark’s article I commented on. And you are both most welcome!
Delia
P.S. I don’t view Wikipedia as an authoritative source and I don’t think it’s intended to be used that way. I think it’s just a good starting point for learning about things with the understanding that it may not be correct… that it IS wrong and biased in places and will *always* be (these are the trade-offs, as far as I can see). D.
....
Mark,
Your comment is definitely interesting and entertaining (like pretty much everything I’ve seen of yours). But I also find that Dave Winer’s experience with Wikipedia (and I’m sure he is not the only one who’s had such a frustration experience with it — how *could* he be?) does shed some light on the sort of trade-offs an enterprise like Wikipedia entails.
Delia
P.S. I liked your article but I didn’t find it particularly balanced. I got the feeling that you were subtly arguing *for* Wikipedia, not taking a detached look at it. Nothing wrong with that, of course… it’s just not the *whole* story, as far as I can tell… D.
Matthew,
To leave here on a light note, here’s my favorite “quote” from Wikipedia: “Jimmy Wales was born to a Parisian whore named ‘Babette’ during the French Revolution”(this can be still found on Wikipedia — it’s part of the archived edits for the “Jimmy Wales” entry). Good reason not to take Wikipedia too seriously…:)
Delia
P.S. take care! D.
...
Hi, Matthew!
Yes, my comment doesn’t make it clear that Mark’s article was on wikis, in general. My bad. But he definitely talks about Wikipedia *in particular*:
“Early in this process, Wikipedia launched and began its completely unexpected rise into utility. In some ways, Wikipedia has an easy job: as an encyclopedia it must provide a basic summary of facts, not a detailed exploration of a topic, and it is generally possible for someone with a basic background in a topic to provide this much information. Yet this critique overlooks the immense breadth of Wikipedia (as of this writing, nearly 2.3 million articles in its English-language version). By casting its net wide – inviting all experts, everywhere, to contribute their specific knowledge – not only has Wikipedia covered the basics, it’s also covering everything else. No other encyclopedia could hope to be as comprehensive as Wikipedia, because no group of individuals – short of the billion internet-connected individuals who have access to Wikipedia – could be so comprehensively knowledgeable on such a wide range of subjects.
Wikipedia will ever remain a summary of human knowledge; that is its intent, and there are signs that the Wikipedians are becoming increasingly zealous in their enforcement of this goal. Summaries are significant and important (particularly for the mass of us who are casually interested in a particular topic), but summaries do not satisfy our obsessive natures. Although Wikipedia provides an outlet for expertise, it does not cross the salience gap. This left an opening for a new generation of Wikis designed to provide depth immersion in a particular obsession. (Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, realized this, and created Wikia.com as a resource where these individuals can create highly detailed Wikis.)”
Since your post deals with Wikipedia *in particular*, that was the part of Mark’s article I commented on. And you are both most welcome!
Delia
P.S. I don’t view Wikipedia as an authoritative source and I don’t think it’s intended to be used that way. I think it’s just a good starting point for learning about things with the understanding that it may not be correct… that it IS wrong and biased in places and will *always* be (these are the trade-offs, as far as I can see). D.
....
Mark,
Your comment is definitely interesting and entertaining (like pretty much everything I’ve seen of yours). But I also find that Dave Winer’s experience with Wikipedia (and I’m sure he is not the only one who’s had such a frustration experience with it — how *could* he be?) does shed some light on the sort of trade-offs an enterprise like Wikipedia entails.
Delia
P.S. I liked your article but I didn’t find it particularly balanced. I got the feeling that you were subtly arguing *for* Wikipedia, not taking a detached look at it. Nothing wrong with that, of course… it’s just not the *whole* story, as far as I can tell… D.
I love Jon's patience...
I love your patience, Jon… I don’t know what your rate of getting a response on this site is (it’s gotta be better than mine as of late) but it may not be that much better… yet you are hitting almost every single entry…
Delia
P.S. good luck with it! I’m taking a break… D.
Delia
P.S. good luck with it! I’m taking a break… D.
Monday, March 3, 2008
(Facebook) bad incentives
Dan,
I think the real problem is that Facebook is for profit and, as long as it can get away with it, it's against its interest to let people easily move "their existance" elsewhere. So unless it MUST allow this (maybe some regulation? or serious competition), form the business POV, it makes no sense for them to do it...
Delia
P.S. As for the people joining these things, if they *want* to have the kind of "existence" Facebook provides, they don't have much of a choice, do they? Where are they going to go? Whatever other for profit alternatives might be around, they are going to have the same counterincentives.
I think the real problem is that Facebook is for profit and, as long as it can get away with it, it's against its interest to let people easily move "their existance" elsewhere. So unless it MUST allow this (maybe some regulation? or serious competition), form the business POV, it makes no sense for them to do it...
Delia
P.S. As for the people joining these things, if they *want* to have the kind of "existence" Facebook provides, they don't have much of a choice, do they? Where are they going to go? Whatever other for profit alternatives might be around, they are going to have the same counterincentives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)