|
Atomized Links:
theUsual Suspects:
|
|
 |
Atomized junior
|
Sunday, February 26, 2006
|
|
| |
Logic Ports
I hate to agree with republicans, well agree with David Brooks and the President, at the least. Few are lining up on side 'a' of the ports security debate
Port insecurity, even the President is positioning himself to be able to say he wasn't fully appraised of the situation. I am having a hard time see the big deal here
Making Waves. When I first heard of this I heard it as a local story and thought it just pertained to the Port of Baltimore. My eyebrows went up, but after thinking about it they came back down. I admit to being surprised when this took on the its life as a major Washington crisis. I didn't think the story had legs
The Reaction: Panel Saw No Security Issue in Port Contract, Officials Say. Considering it again I can identify two questions I should have had. Adjacent but not identical to the Emirates being Arab counties. Would it be easier or harder for Al Qaeda to place a engineer or MBA sleeper agent into this company over any other similar company? The second question is; would doing this accomplish anything for al Qaeda? One way to look at this question is to ask would anyone working for this port management company be in a position to embezzle from the corporation or smuggle anything in or out of a port they manage? If the answer to both of these is yes, then there may be a problem. If the answer to one or the other is no, then let people get on with their jobs. Beyond this I along with many others see the administration hoisted on their own fear-mongering petards on this issue
Action on Port Deal Fails to Sway Critics.. I have zero sympathy for them. They have consistently taken the low road for six years. Simple justice desires they have a few random moments where they realize where they have placed this county
Outside U.S., Puzzlement Over Reaction to the Dubai Port Deal. Harold Meyerson ties it together with a column
Wanna Buy a Port? If you proceed under the banner of an absolute unencumbered free market, you will find that it really isn't possible to identify or introduce any other standard of value into your world view. There is only the maximal outcome. Getting the biggest bang for your buck.
11:51:21 PM  ;;
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, February 23, 2006
|
|
| |
the Art of Information Wars
It was just a week ago that WFMU's Kenny G sung Sun Tzu's Art of War in
its entirety over the air, and over repeated iterations of Ravel's Bolero
Intelligent Design with Kenny G playlist | 02.15.06.
This is not the sax playing Kenny G. but rather a dj G. known mostly
for frightening small children (his own). The performance stirred recollections
(I had actually read the Art of War at some point) and reminded me that Sun Tzu
can be used to illuminate many situations. For example (from Sun Tzu):
"XII. THE ATTACK BY FIRE 15. Unhappy is the fate of one who tries to
win his battles and succeed in his attacks without cultivating the
spirit of enterprise; for the result is waste of time and general
stagnation."
In the wake of reports that major US Internet corporations including
Google, Yahoo
Yahoo 'helped China to jail dissident', Microsoft, (but apparently not Cisco) have been
cooperating with the Chinese authorities in return for access and
business opportunities
Internet firms accused of 'evil' pact with China to hand over dissidents. The House International Relations Committee's
subcommittee on Africa, global human rights and international
operations held hearings on Tues. 14 Feb 2006. A sample of the rhetoric "Claiming that [Internet firms'] dealings
with China will make China a more liberal society and more democratic
is just playing games" with public perception, says Dana Rohrabacher
(R) of California
GOP rift over US firms in China | csmonitor.com. "Your abhorrent activities in China are a disgrace,"
Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) said. "I simply do not understand how your
corporate leadership sleeps at night." Rep. Christopher H. Smith
(R-N.J.)...said the companies' actions in China are a "sickening
collaboration."
Internet Firms Address China Practices The majority of the consternation on this issue seems
to be coming from the republican side of the aisle
GOP rift over US firms in China | csmonitor.com. Primarily because
they are viewed and view themselves as placing great stock in the
politics of engagement. Though this has not always been true nor is it
the case universally now. There is no engagement with Castro's Cuba. One issue is what laws or
expectation should American companies whose services extend into other
countries follow. Some of these companies in their testimony seemed to
be asking for guidance
Congress's dilemma: When Yahoo in China's not Yahoo: Do we follow our laws or theirs, one law or
two? What is clear is that there have been instances where American
companies have been prompted to drop dimes on dissidents. It is
necessary to pay particular attention to what is done. Shutting down
someone's web log because the the authorities deemed them a gadfly they
wished to swat down, is one thing. If you are running a web log you're not
truly incognito though perhaps operating under a nom de guerre, and if
people are being displeased they will try to kick your soapbox out from
under you. Providing information to police on a dissident who was being
more critical of the state and trying to remain anonymous for that,
resulting in that persons arrest and imprisonment is another. I do not like seeing
American companies trying to justify that. I don't want to use the
products of these companies. I look to the market to provide
alternatives to those who accommodate creeping totalitarianism. Many of the articles I read in the press seem to be trading
broadsides at the views of each other: censorship in China
In Rare Briefing, Chinese Official Defends Internet Controls
is
succeeding, Censorship is losing
China's web censors are losing the battle, (pirates)
Guardian Unlimited Technology | Technology | Pirates and bloggers beat China's great wall of propaganda and Bloggers
Let a thousand blogs bloomare winning.
Chinese leaders defend regulation regimes
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China defends internet regulation, former party leaders
criticize regulation
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Party elders attack China censors. China doesn't arrest web dissidents, Activists
doubt this
The Globe and Mail: Activists reject China's denial of Internet censorship. The Eviscerating of Freezing Points top editor is exemplar
of the censorship
Chinese Journal Closed by Censors Is to Reopen - New York Times, The reopening of Freezing Point is a victory for the
people. The London Times, BBC, CS Monitor all ran multiple stories on
this over the last few weeks. Most placing the drama at the weekly
supplement Freezing Point at or near the center. The Washington Post
weighed in with a formal series
About This Series. I note that while all the Posts
stories by Philip Pan while getting page one play they were categorized as
technology stories not Political. The series consisted of 3 or so articles starting last Sunday: Mass replication of Letter from Freezing Points
editor
The Click That Broke a Government's Grip, Wikipedia China
Reference Tool On Web Finds Fans, Censors , Web log Wars
Bloggers Who Pursue Change Confront Fear And Mistrust , & Tools
Free Software Takes Users Around Filters.
The CS Monitor in their own fashion wrote one of the more succinct
articles putting things in good perspective
China's media censorship rattling world image | csmonitor.com. They identified department
of propaganda (now department of Publicity) I imagine still within the
Ministry of 'Truth', as the active player in the recent bouts of
information suppression. And they note how all this will tie in to the
upcoming review of human rights in China by the US State Department.
This annual rite is the hole in the board into which the screw of
engagement turns. If that last metaphor seems strained I just want to
say; one more "great 'firewall' of China" joke
Breaching China's great firewall | csmonitor.com and I'm going to start a
cultural revolution of my own. Besides, whenever I am reminded of the
great wall of China, I usually end up thinking of a Franz Kafka story
The Great Wall of China, particularly the coda News of the building of
the Wall: A Fragment.
Sometimes on the bus ride home I talk to someone (hm. s.) who is a journalism
graduate student from China. she says she has a MSN blog, If she every
tells me what its name I will link it here. I recall she said before
entering the program at Maryland she worked for a magazine back in
China. She's not the only person from China in the journalism program at Maryland
either. Discounting my skepticism about the state of American
journalism. I would have to say there is something here that looks, to
me, like optimism.
11:48:35 PM ;;
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 20, 2006
|
|
| |
Philo Facts, or Against Interpretation.
In the course of moving this web log along I am led to consider the often cryptic comments left by the alter egos and/or associates of Rob [B]. Possibly the occasional stranger figuring this is how this game is played. I aim towards discussion where it is conceptually not possible to be off topic. Philo of Alexandria checked in about a month ago. Along with Augustine bishop of Hippo (for Christianity), and al-Farabi (for Islam), Philo of Alexandria (for Judaism) was an instrumental figure in harmonizing classic Greek thought with the monotheistic religious of the eastern mediterranean. This process occurred at different times, and established different traditions within each. One key element in packaging philosophic thought for the traditions lay in translating (and creating) vocabulary and concepts of the classical and neoclassical philosophers (Platonists, Plotinuians, Epicurites, and Stoicins) out of Greek and into other languages. Tracing this to gain comprehension of what was understood and being taught is difficult enough. Add to this an Attitude towards literal meaning, as superficial - the realm of allegorical interpretation being where the real intent is found. Most this ought be left to the graduate level. When you start to worry about every use or doubled use of a phrase, word substitutions and the like. You had better make sure that your analysis is sophisticated enough to determine between word play that is intended; to lead the reader through to a deeper understanding, and idle fascination which is just a will-of-the-wisp disappearing into the forest beyond you. This manner of exegesis remains a favored activity of the Straussians. Searching around for information on connections between these philosophical traditions I turned up an interesting discussion that had been on TPM Cafe (Josh Marshall's Community site) last November on the origins of Just War criteria. It's worth reading through, if like me you didn't catch it earlier. I also found that one of my professors from U. Maryland has a nice wikipedia entry of his own
Charles Butterworth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I've said it before and it bears repeating: Dr. Butterworth was one of the only teachers I had, that left me feeling I was learning something, that college had any purpose or worth whatsoever. Here's something Wikipedia didn't lift from the Francis Marion entry in the public domain 1911 ed of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Leslie Neilson once played the Swamp Fox on TV
"Swamp Fox" (1959). Sang the theme song too. On the matter of the Soo-phlux. I don't think I ever determined what Robert was getting at here. But this German suplex
Suplex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which I came across seems almost as much fun as get dropped on your head. Not the right word? Hey, Suplex, Suphlux, Schmuflux: what's the difference? All words are synonyms to each other anyway. As I close out here I would like to alert everyone that Michelle Malkin, Fox News Personality has a new book out. Unhinged: exposing liberals gone wild. It seems to be a highly partisan and breathless exercise dedicated to revealing partisanship across from her place of standing. The end result being exactly: nothing! Well, let's be charitable and simply say she went further afield to illustrate her premise than she needed to. Also note the book being published by Regnery should be available in the nation's bookstores as it is distributed to the trade by the National Book Network.
11:48:51 PM ;;
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
|
|
| |
Yes Virginia there is a Character Issue
He will admit to this. Vice President Cheney's first (and second inclination) was to say nothing. Unconcerned though cognizant of the responsibility of a public servant to serve transparently. The power is the publics power. Winning an election is not buying power, it is to gain the privilege to act upon trust. To insist on privacy, raises concerns of 'private arrangements.' A public servant caught up in a question of laws and public safety
Cheney Shoots Fellow Hunter in Texas Accident . is obliged to be forthcoming. Mr. Cheney not possessed of a great deal of extraneous and expansive imagination is perhaps too close to the reality that he is not the public's servant at all, but rather the servant of the interests that have placed him where he is. Back in Holliston where I grew up. Still in those days merely one of those towns out past Framingham, and living on the outskirts of that town towards Milford at that. You could hear gunfire out in the woods most weekends. I could never tell what they were shooting at. Most likely simply nothing, but if you went around later you would find shotgun shell casings and beer cans. Generally in a one to one ratio. Same was true of the duck blind out at Forges pond in Plymouth, where we had lived previously. It has never occurred to me to doubt that shooting and drinking formed a single unified activity. Katherine Armstrong's story, would have us believe differently. Yet this sort only tells the truth - to the masses - when they have no better reason not to. When they "got no dog in the hunt," but here she had a couple of dogs in this hunt. Something Cheney said this week, other than his "l'etate, c'est moi! assertions about being able to classify and declassify information at will
The Cheney Fallout. Rather it was when he tried to remind folk he was down there in Texas without his PR flacks. In truth he panicked without them, he had no native sense of how to act, no real idea of the right thing to do, or how to behave. None at all. Ran away like a coward or little boy. At the same time the intensity of modern media scrutiny is incredidibly caustic and has the ability to strip the persona off a person who is not behind the shield wall of public relations management. It can permenantely damage psychologically an average citizen caught up in directed light of some scandal. Most politicians are hardy types at this sort of media attention and can endure short periods unaided. Mr. Cheney, apparently, is not willing to take that risk. He will direct it against others but lacks what it takes to take it. As an aside I read an essay (in the book Japanese Horror Cinema) a while back that seemed to be arguing that the point of the Ring horror movies was the inability of current (I use current to avoid saying modern or postmodern) societies to reliably create a body of stable usable persona's. Ones that can withstand impersonal technological duplication, event and material replication, without dissolving into, dissolved by, chaos, here representing one facet or element of evil. This is why I keep a copy of Lafcadio Hearn next to my Henry Adams. You gotta read 'em together.
11:57:07 PM ;;
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 13, 2006
|
|
| |
With Gordon in Khartoon
Oh we make the standards and we make the rules
And if you don't abide by them you must be a fool
...We have the power to control the whole land.
Standards rule ok .
-- Jam, Standards. 1978
As the l'affaire cartoon unfolded one of the first things that I read concerning it was a post by Michelle Malkin. It was in Blogdex, I read Michelle when something of hers makes the first page of blogdex. THE STATE DEPT TAKES SIDES IN THE CARTOON WARS.
"To Denmark and the European newspapers that published the cartoons: I just want you to know that the State Department does not speak for me and countless other Americans.
It never usually does.
Contact the State Department here."
What part of the State dept's statement do you suppose antagonizes her the most? Perhaps "... We call for tolerance and respect". You have to distance yourself from that kind of talk. She often strikes me as possessed by a simple vanity: she must have enemies and they must be bad, for her to see herself as good. When one dismisses tolerance out-of-hand., and is so sure of the vile nature of their enemy that they seem to enjoy having enemies. That is the point where one is mistaking self-righteous for righteous. Confusing one's own opinions and prejudices for a thoughtless false appropriation of God's understanding. The right seems full of those holding the position that there are no Muslim moderates. Islam is Jihad Jihad is War. As I read through other online commentary two facets emerged quickly.
First those entities tied to bricks and mortar buildings capable of being fire-bombed were more sedate, or at least more circumspect, in their criticism. The other thing struck me as an apples and oranges issue. A certain vagueness to the debate. The issue is not run of the mill racist or blasphemous characterture. Or ridiculing of minor aspects of a belief. It is depicting Mohammed prophet of God under which the Islamic community is formed as a bomb throwing anarchist. This is like speaking the name of God, or doubting the virginity of Mary for others. More than mocking Christ, which is part of the passion, denying an uncorrupted Jesus. It is like denying Jesus ever said or wanted to say "get thee hence Satan." It is a forceful deliberate and hostile step that abrogates in its clear outright refusal of respect, that the other has genuine belief at all. It is a central provocation. Much of what I have read from commentators in defense of these cartoons being published has not presented truly analogous counter provocations (I thought this op-ed in the Jerusalem Post after a fashion.) Add also to the West's pious attitudes of detached objectivity towards these illustrations, trading hard on their own very recent arrival to the modernity which gives them such mannered presumptions of tolerance. If we in the west want to unburden our hearts of darkness by offering others advice, we should remember that while our fault lines and taboos are buried deeper now and harder to find, they still exist and will effortlessly overturn our frail edifice of reason if disturbed. When The White house and Condeleeza Rices reverse course, a curious correction to the earlier State Dept statements. Laying their criticism soley against the Isalmic world, for the recent destructive demonstrations. It is an example of the tin ear with which the West listens to the rest of the world. An ear predisposed to hearing only the worse voices. A repeated point in the assorted articles I read on the worldwide reactions is that this affair impacts more broadly than a simple freedom of expression (freedom of the press vs respect for religious taboos) debate. Commentary by Krauthammer Curse of the Moderates and Kinsely The Ayatollah Joke Book lay blame at the feet of Islamic moderates, (even as David Ignatious does not Hope Beyond the Rage? ) or pretend to indifference between moderate and radical islam. Moderates are painted by turns as liars or deceived and undercut by western liberals (the notion of victimhood), but never as agents of their own being and destiny. Nearer to their own voice the SF Gate article relays a key point for a great deal of the exasperation seen in the Islamic world comes from not merely the cartoons but just this: The enterprise of western voices telling muslims what they believe and know and what they don't. What Islam is and what it isn't. What they need to 'get over', because we say they don't own the right to feel as they do. All of which is being spun out of a damp mix of ulterior motive and a greater ignorance. Violence and rioting are illegitimate responses though. It should be remembered respect is thing earned not held innately as a birthright. The only world that exists is the one we all live in together now. A culture that insists that its boundaries and sensitivities trump everyone else's, cannot coexist in this world. It can only destroy and be destroyed, leaving nothing. The principle of free speech, should be embraced despite occasional thorns in handling; because in the end a greater and full freedom of the press will be the ultimate vehicle of, and guaranteer of mutual respect. The INQ7 link (sidebar) an editorial in a Philippine newspaper makes this point.
Irregardless of the uses this incident has been put to in Syria, Iran and other places in the mid and south east. It is centered in Europe, in the attitudes of western secular governance, the expectation that those living in western cultures ought live by western laws and western cultural norms. Understood principally as the egalitarian notions embodied by multiculturalism and pluralism. It is a point that can not be insisted on. In the end it is not a matter of law but of numbers. For Europeans it may mean the terms of immigration and guest worker policies need to be re-examined. Change, cultural synthesis, is the only outcome of merging populations. Pushing only slightly on this topic uncovers a dark body of discussion that can be found under the name Dhimmitude. This refers in its root Dhimmi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediato the historical legal regimes by which non muslims lived in islamic states. In the expanded form (see Bat Ye'or - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) it is used to refer to the replacement of Western law and norms by the lifting edge of sensitivity to islamic belief, while they offer none in return. A process this notion's adherents insist is deliberate and systematic. It is important that some ground rules or standards be established for the engagement that will carry us over this furor. What matters first for everyone is their own actions. Their own motivations. Not anyone else's. The actions of others do not exculpate our own. The middle-east is the "old country" of Europe's immigrants, towards which the binds of sentiment lead. When western nations do not walk the path of democracy as much as they talk it, in their dealings with the regimes of the region. Democracy will continue be seen as a diminished and self-serving thing. Less freedom than arrangement. In the combined tradition of Abraham, in theory at least, there are two rules, restating the others for brevity (and clarity). Love the good (God for those who prefer symbolic logic) with all your heart and mind. Then, (and only then) when you have the hang of that, as you would be considered and understood, so consider. Maintaining that this says "do to others as you perceive they have done or might do to you," captures neither the spirit nor intent of this. --- 03Mar06 : title is in reference to Gen. Charles 'Chinese' Gordon massacered in Khatoum, Sudan in 1884 while trying to put down and Arab/Islamic revolt. This might have been less obsure if I had spelled Gordon right,
11:35:28 PM ;;
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, February 9, 2006
|
|
| |
Following Up..
I had mentioned Michael J. Gerhardt briefly in the post on the Judge Alito hearing, My sister Ann tells me he has left William and Mary where he used to teach and is now at UNC
Carolina Law : Michael J. Gerhardt. Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law. She also said he had been up in Washington last month and did testify at the Alito Nomination hearings which I had missed. I can't dig up his testimony on Thomas yet, but Sen. Sarbanes quoted him into the Congressional record. "As Michael Gerhardt, distinguished professor of constitutional law at the University of North Carolina Law School, testified recently before the Judiciary Committee:
Neither the plain language of the Appointments Clause nor the structure of the Constitution requires Senators to simply defer to a President's Supreme Court nomination.
Let me repeat that quote:
Neither the plain language of the Appointments Clause nor the structure of the Constitution requires Senators to simply defer to a President's Supreme Court nomination.
In my view, the Senate's duty to advise and consent on nominations is an integral part of the Constitution's system of checks and balances among our institutions of government. A nomination alone does not constitute an entitlement to hold the office. " Also I notice the Hill Wikipedia scandal is not dying down. The Washington Post has written a second article
Wikipedia's Help From the Hill on this bruhaha. This one in the technology section, and the BBC has picked up on this as well
Congress 'made Wikipedia changes' . I have started to become more aware of the rules
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and disclaimers Wiki is putting on some of their pages, such as this one
List of internet search engines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Looking over my notes on that Wiki post I noticed the original working title I had for that was "Wikipedia agonistes: revenge of the gatekeepers." Dave Winer thinks web log posts don't even need titles. I can't imagine why.
11:51:11 PM ;;
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 7, 2006
|
|
| |
Wiki-love
A Librarian's observation: "Wikipedia Lies, Lies - "
This was a comment my friend Robert left on a post a few weeks ago A response to my rhetorical stance that librarians are the buggy whips of the 21rst century. He linked a Wikipedia stub on a list of honored librarians presented in a library journal. I assumed some of the information probably factually incorrect. I checked the names against the LC Authority file - didn't see any obvious discrepancies. Maybe they hadn't given the right citation, perhaps the list didn't exist that the stub was a hoax. Even with a stub article there were a lot of potential loose ends to chase down, and I'm not Jim Rockford. My immediate response was that Wikipedia does lie per se, because it does not intend to lie or foster untruth. This argument is supposed to echo the malice of intent standard often used in slander/libel cases. It stands as far as that goes. It fails insofar as the actual standard Wikipedia seeks to meet is presenting truthful facts, being a useful reference for facts. Being as good (or at least as useful) as the Encyclopedia Britannica or similar resources.
Two years ago I settled on the ways Wikipedia was being used as its main defense. Sidestepping accuracy, veracity or authoritative considerations. I felt its primary value lay in the fact that it collected soft information much faster and with more enthusiasm than such information would typically be examined distilled and tabulated. Standard reference works contain an irreducible bias towards hard information - facts, dates and other information that can be well represented by numbers. Sometimes with certain categories of ephemera, such as subcultures, the information may not - may never be included in common reference works at all. It may not get beyond the subculture itself and such supporting or peripheral media as exists; representation in works of social fiction for instance. Perhaps it may get academic treatment at some point, years later. I was thinking of the punk and the 'zine networks of the 80's, but you can fill your own more favored or current subculture. 100 years ago or more. One wouldn't have thought of subcultures - our society was just a myriad of cultures coexisting. If there was a dominant culture, it dominated precariously. Now we commonly believe we have one over-culture to which everything not it, is a subculture fascination. I recall I spent time in that previous post attempting to follow a distinction between highbrow and low brow cultures (or sub cultures) The phrase uni-brow I used to title that post was not attempt to find a synonym for middle-brow, as much as semiconscious speculation that high and low brow, are both categories of mass culture.
The standard argument of the Wiki's is captured by the nostrum 'with a thousand eyeballs all bugs are shallow' (carried over from open source programming with all its attendant cathedral and bazaar conceits).. This argument holds that all departures from the known truth will be edited back, and opinions will be labeled as such. As many people view and edit the node, and their myriad experience and expertise is accumulated. This concept was thought to be indifferent to antagonistic attitudes the process was congruent; an article or node would be edited down to what set of facts everyone could agree on. The need for the fact set to be self-evident or readily verifiable should not be overlooked. There is also an assumption that all players are on the same side. That everyone desires Wikis as trustworthy entities. In the face of twenty years experience with bulletin-boards, newsgroups, and community site trolls this certainly constitutes a leap of faith. One obvious problem is how one identifies the state of the information at any particular point in time. It is always possible to look at the history and discussion tabs to develop a judgement on the main entry. How confidently is the material presented, How well written is it. How many different editor/authors has the entry had, what have the edits been about, how extensive. Are there signs that the article's facts are see-sawing between a set of individuals. How much activity and how long since the last edit. Currently this information exists but is not distilled and must be looked for. Either through the above tabs or links in the toolbox sidebar. It would be better if a set of metrics could be generated to the main page of the entry to illustrate an article's degree of stability or flux.
Wikipedia's latest problems involve American politicians and attendant flacks rewriting their (and each others) bio pages. Activity ranging from obscuring, distorting through to vandalism. Original story on Meehan was broke by the Lowell MA paper
Staffers edit Representative Meehan's Wikipedia entry. There was commentary by Ars Technica
Congressional staffers edit boss's bio on Wikipedia and a Metafilter thread on this as well. I almost figured when a front page article in the Washington Post
On Capitol Hill, Playing WikiPolitics appeared on this there was little point inflicting further amateur chops on this. I am glad for the quick attention that has been focused on this, for galvanizing a response. After the Seganthaler incident Those who were just learning of Wikipedia then would be tempted never to bother with it. Wikipedia's solutions so far are to move to mandatory registration for edits. I can't see why anyone should have a problem with that. Anonymity may have its place, but an encyclopedia of current information is not that place. Additionally they have instituted time outs for bad behavior as they did with congress, block entire servers in Washington.
Casting about for further exculpations an important consideration lies in its nature as an open source, that it can be readily, openly and persistently linked and shared. The quintessential warehouse of information for wide ranging web conversations forming a shared common ground for these conversations. This would be a reason for Wikipedia to exist even if it did not already. It is why I feel the direction is to find a way to make Wikipedia work, because resources like the Encyclopedia Britanica may never be interested in providing this manner of service. Though the future of the book problably lies in this direction
The processed book. Another way of looking at this is to ask why people assume standard reference materials are immune from this. That they exist outside this flux. I don't believe they do. While from without the change may seem glacial, glaciers non-the-less do move; moreover, debate concerning the form and content of certain articles may be all the hotter for being behind the scenes. The example of book review assignments came to mind. Because it is the norm for book reviews to allow letters to the editor. The decision review editors make is somewhat transparent. Deliberately assigning books to be reviewed by individuals inclined to review sympathetically or sometimes in counterpoint. If a particular Wikipedia node (article) presents as having a troubled history Wikipedia's volunteer editors may request someone to review it to determine whether its current content should be kept After this the article would be locked down or a period. There is no need for for this person to impartial. The idea that jerking Wikipedia content around like a pack of kindergartners could generate permanent losers may bring clarity.
9:59:02 PM ;;
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 1, 2006
|
|
| |
Spelling Errors
Lord knows (and my friends tell me) I make enough spelling errors in Atomized jr. here that I shouldn't talk about others. However, I spotted an uncharacteristic spelling error for the Washington Post in yesterdays edition. At the end of the daily gossip column (last subhead: HEY, ISN'T THAT . . . ?) in reporting a story concerning a private dinner party between Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former secretary of state George Shultz, and Charles Krauthammer. The usually Reliable Source somehow managed to spell the word sycophant by the letters j-o-u-r-n-a-l-i-s-t. There is no telling how an obvious and egregious mistake like that happens, but I trust they won't repeat it.
11:43:14 PM ;;
|
|
|
|
|
|
