|
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Proof it's even worse than it appears 
| | Thanks to Dave for the link. |
The case for narroblogging
| | Thanks to Denise for the pointer. |
| | By the way, Denise points out that we'll nearly all be missing D:all Things Digital, unless we chip in to send our best on-the-spot blogging appellate attorney. |
Hoping I won't need her. Again.
Find your relatives
Just in time
Automated journalism
| | I thought David G's piece was a fair and straightforward piece, as this breed of story goes. Essentially, it aggregated the concerns and speculations of various sources among bloggers and search engine watchers, along with quotage from Ev. |
| | I point all this out because Dave Aiello says, "Midway through the article, it talks about the development of Google News in a way that is self-serving to The New York Times and establishment journalism — |
| | Google's attempt to automate news gathering on its news page (news.google.com) is still under development but has already earned some ridicule from journalists. Google News scans some 4,000 news sites and compiles a page of links, using clues like the content and placement of articles to arrange headlines. The page resembles other news sites, but there have been glitches. For example, Google News was more than an hour behind human-powered sites CNN.com and Yahoo News with word of the disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia." |
| | Dave A says David G is wrong about how far Google lagged behind on the curve on the Columbia shuttle story. Even if that's true, I believe David G's remarks in the piece were more consistent with his own interest in automated journalism (which Google News entirely is) than with some pro-establishment subagenda at the Times. |
| | But... I dunno. Maybe Dave A is right. |
| | From the FWIW Dept., last June I did some blogging about a different David G piece in the Times, not long before I ran into him at a blog party in New York City. Nice guy. |
| | [Later...] Read to the bottom of Dave A's piece for his additional thoughts, responding to mine, here. |
Cross examination
| | One of the things I like about geeks is our charming belief in the inherent goodness of human nature; this is also one of the things that annoys me about geeks. I like to make fun of the geeks who believe that some new widget is going to end world hunger, liberate the human spirit, and usher in a new era of utopia. Not that technology doesn't improve and extend human life in all sorts of ways, but there's always some element of self-deception in the most extreme of these utopian fantasies. Interestingly, the self-deception generally rests on the assumption that the great mass of humans are basically just as clever and just as compassionate, sensitive, and generous as the nerds engaging in the utopian exercise. As errors go, this is an especially interesting one to make, sort of a false humility to the max, only maybe it's not false. |
| | The latest and clearest example of nerdly utopianism is Joi Ito's essay on Emergent Democracy. I'm not exactly sure what Emergent Democracy is, even after reading the paper, since he doesn't exactly bother to define it, but it seems to have something to do with ant colonies, blogs, and the excitation of columns of brain cells by these things called "thoughts", which turn into "understandings" when enough of them are set in motion... |
| | So I'd like to suggest an exercise for our utopian technologists: show how your technology can affect the passage of a legislative bill on a measure close to your heart; then try to make it happen in real life, and analyze why your expected result didn't materialize. Then let's talk about world hunger. |
Retry at work
| | This entry starts phase three. It will focus on questioning assumptions and definitions and trying to get to the roots of disagreement. But it will be without anger, with respect and civility. At least that is my goal, I ask my friends to take me to task (privately, if possible) if I fail to reach those goals. |
| | I try not to hold grudges, so anyone who wants to start or restart a friendship, you know where to reach me. |
Sell what?
| | What I love about blogging is the way we inform each other. As a knowledge-expansion system, it scales like nothing else in the world. |
| | But that's not what we always do. Sometimes we flame as hard as any Usenet group. |
| | In his first paragraph, Steve says, Who knows what plans Google has for the company, or more importantly the over 1 million registered users of the service. |
| | In the next he says, It's just one company deciding they can take out the little guy for some printed paper, and the little guy gets released from his silicon handcuffs. It's just another company that you thought was different proving that they're just like all the other sell outs. |
| | Then he compares the sale of Pyra to Google with Ben & Jerry's $326 million sale to Unilever — an Xtreme analogy at best. |
| | When it comes to world news and opinion, he or she who gets the most links, wins in the world of weblogging. Those with the pareto charts and your esoteric algorithims of popularity tend to prove this out. According to the charts, rather than a new form of connectivity, we're really just another instance typical of medieval community: with the indifferent, smug supremacy of the elite at the top and rule by the mob at the bottom (we know about the viablity of mob rule for fair and ethical treatment of either person or subject). |
| | Within this view, occasionally the mob and the elite might join forces, briefly, and we might help with a story, such as Trent Lott and his big mouth. For the most part, though, we're a bunch of editorialists without much concern for research, fact checking, or accuracy. That's okay, though, because I didn't start writing this to become yet another journalist-wanna be. Nor an elite. Nor part of a mob. |
| | I happen to think we have neither elites nor mobs here, esoteric research notwithstanding. But I agree with BB that our conclusions should follow some facts. The "who knows" in Steve's first paragraph does not support all the supposition that follows. |
| | We know approximately nothing about the Google-Pyra deal. In fact, we know less than nothing, in a way, since Ev has sadly stopped blogging for awhile. Sez he, I'm a little busy right now, retooling for a different life. So I've taken the blog offline to clear my head. |
| | If Google fucks up Blogger, or screws over its users, they'll get plenty of well-deserved shit from all directions — including mine. But, as far as I know, Google hasn't done anything significant yet, stupid or otherwise. Until they do, what should our response to Ev and Google's silence be? |
| | Hey, I'd love it if they'd think out loud about what to do next. That would be the Blogging Way. But it's easy to understand why they're not ready for that yet — and won't be until the honeymoon is over. |
| | Until then, I say take the lead from Ev. Give the subject a rest until we know more. Or at least confine our editorializing to thanks for the good work Pyra has done and suggestions for the better work we'd like to see Google start doing. They'll need them. |
| | [Later...] I've been pointed to Googlers, a "global google wishlist" blog. |
| | Also to back-and-forth between Dave and Ev. |
| | And now Steve MacLaughlin steps in to explain The Finer Print some of us (especially I) didn't get: ...anyone who believes that my blog about the folks at Blogger selling out was anything but satire is non compos mentis. Which should take the heat off the teapot. |
There are responses to this message:
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
