it's impossible to tell them appart unless you know already most of everyhing already published on the subject.
I see. The paradox of expertise. Formally, of course, what you say is true. By definition, if you're not an expert, then you can't, strictly speaking, knowingly distinguish experts from non-experts.
Two quick replies: 1) I think you can do so by knowing something about the process by which people are declared experts; as far as possible, this process can be made public (in the U.S., various forms of professional certification work this way: for doctors, lawyers, etc.--mostly, the institutions that rely on practitioners having such expertise function well enough). Here, wikipedia's process passes the test of publicity, but not of discrimination (you may, of course, disagree with this assessment). 2) You can test what an expert says against what other experts say and against whatever of the reality being described you can perceive for yourself. So, again, what the expert says is not something handed over to you with no more warrant than their bare, authoritative assertion that it is so.
I never said all books were great or all authors knowledgeable. I said that those that (or who) are (and there are some) provide something that Wikipedia can't and likely never will. That is all. And hey, I still eat at Mickey D's sometimes.
Lastly, wikipedia better for scholars? Now it's my turn to say "bwahahaha.":-p
This argument has been used several times in this thread and I think I must be missing something.
In what way are two vendors that provide the same thing (referenceable information about a topic) not to be compared on the quality of their products? It's a bit like saying "McDonald's is not 'better' or 'worse' than a fine restaurant; it's just different." Occasionally, I eat at McDonald's; my reasons are speed, price, cheesy goo, and crunchy fried bits. But you'll never catch me claiming that McD's food is somehow better. And even though I have different reasons for going to McD's than to a fine restaurant, I still don't think that entitles me to say that the respective quality of the food at the two places cannot be compared.
If I have a passing fancy to familiarize myself with something that I know nothing about and expect to be able to learn a little about in a short time... then I might turn to Wikipedia. If I want to learn about a rapidly evolving story or technology concerning which the facts are clear and uncontroversial and about which there is sufficient interest to motivate multiple contributors to enhance and refine one another's writing on the subject... then I might turn to Wikipedia.
If I need to know about something that requires an apprenticeship of learning, that demands a lifetime of expert study, something that is to be savored like a fine wine by an evolved palate, then I will read a book. People spend decades of their lives making themselves expert enough to write a book. There can be no substitute for that, and it is indisputably 'better' (by the measures of knowledge and truth) than the most diligently researched Wikipedia article.
they DO want to segregate blogs from their normal search function.
Interesting. However, I searched on their blog and couldn't find a post on that. Got a link?
After doing a little more searching, I did read at least one good reason why blog search might be separated. It's actually done using the RSS (or whatever) feeds of the blogs; to use the usual spiders would mean blog posts take days to get indexed, which would not be so good for the timeliness of the usual blog posts. So, having a separate search makes sense.
What I still wonder, however, is whether they will also index blogs in the normal way.
Does the introduction of blogsearch.google.com mean that content on whatever Google deems a blog is being segregated from the rest of the Internet? Try cutting and pasting a phrase from your favorite A-list blog into Google's regular search: nada. Try putting it in blogsearch: voila!
obTinfoilHat: This has happend because pressures from mainstream political parties (you know who you are) drove Google to make blog content effectively invisible to your average searcher after truth, given how influential (and unregulated, forsooth!) political blogs have become.
Could you develop your own method to detect the same gene? How many distinct methods can there be? Can I patent the licking-your-fingertip-and-holding-it-up-in-the-br eeze method for estimating wind velocity?
True enough. Maybe, then, the goodness of a political system could be gauged by the degree to which it makes abuses impossible, or at least practically prosecutable. I'm thinking of "sunshine laws" as one example.
While you do have a point that music and other content could still be produced in a non-Capitalistic society and that it is easy in a Pre-Napster world to confuse Universal, BMG, etc. with the artists, I don't think you can generalize this to other areas of the economy. Certainly, for example, the film studios rely on a larger level of corporate infrastructure than the rock musicians, so separating, say, Dreamworks from the films they produce is not as valid as separating Universal from the music CD's they produce.
I think I see your point, but I guess my assumption is that the kinds of things for which studio capital is necessary are also goods and services made valuable through labor of one kind or another.
About history, I surely wouldn't argue it's moving inexorably forward, like the old Soviet and Chinese ideologues. Finally, I'm not sure how what you're calling "Free Market Capitalism" represents the communalization of the means of production, but if that's the result, that would be great.:-p
Wait, a *possible* criminal will say "eh, screw it, there's a hospital nearby" and shoot someone they otherwise wouldn't have? If people thought about the consequences of their actions, a lot fewer guns would be fired - so that's simply not the case.
I don't think the analogy is terribly good, but here's my attempt to defend it, not in terms of individual decision-makers, but in aggregate terms:
If there is no hospital to "clean up the mess," the streets will fill with dead bodies or visibly injured or crippled people. This will eventually be intolerable to the majority of people and they may take stronger steps to fight against those who fill their streets with broken bodies, thereby raising the opportunity costs for potential criminals. In the end, perhaps, crime goes down because there are no hospitals.
I don't know if even I believe this, but I thought I'd give it a shot.
Capitalism is also what brought you all that content you're stealing.
No, my friend. That would be workers.
Capitalism's Big Lie is that it is responsible for production. Once upon a time, this was true: capitalism freed productive forces from the grave inefficiencies and baseless impediments of the feudal system. But now it merely does a better and better job of siphoning profits to those who own, and contributes no productivity. It serves the interests of the parasites.
It's worth remembering that what you know you had to learn. These technical terms are not "too difficult." They are merely unknown or unfamiliar, and many people couldn't give a rat's ass what they mean, because they don't have to. Danish is not "too difficult for English-speakers," it's just not what they speak. If I said "crocheting patterns and terminology are 'too difficult' for IT workers," you'd spot the fallacy right away.
Slashdot Mirror
I see. The paradox of expertise. Formally, of course, what you say is true. By definition, if you're not an expert, then you can't, strictly speaking, knowingly distinguish experts from non-experts.
Two quick replies: 1) I think you can do so by knowing something about the process by which people are declared experts; as far as possible, this process can be made public (in the U.S., various forms of professional certification work this way: for doctors, lawyers, etc.--mostly, the institutions that rely on practitioners having such expertise function well enough). Here, wikipedia's process passes the test of publicity, but not of discrimination (you may, of course, disagree with this assessment). 2) You can test what an expert says against what other experts say and against whatever of the reality being described you can perceive for yourself. So, again, what the expert says is not something handed over to you with no more warrant than their bare, authoritative assertion that it is so.
Lastly, wikipedia better for scholars? Now it's my turn to say "bwahahaha." :-p
In what way are two vendors that provide the same thing (referenceable information about a topic) not to be compared on the quality of their products? It's a bit like saying "McDonald's is not 'better' or 'worse' than a fine restaurant; it's just different." Occasionally, I eat at McDonald's; my reasons are speed, price, cheesy goo, and crunchy fried bits. But you'll never catch me claiming that McD's food is somehow better. And even though I have different reasons for going to McD's than to a fine restaurant, I still don't think that entitles me to say that the respective quality of the food at the two places cannot be compared.
If I have a passing fancy to familiarize myself with something that I know nothing about and expect to be able to learn a little about in a short time ... then I might turn to Wikipedia. If I want to learn about a rapidly evolving story or technology concerning which the facts are clear and uncontroversial and about which there is sufficient interest to motivate multiple contributors to enhance and refine one another's writing on the subject ... then I might turn to Wikipedia.
If I need to know about something that requires an apprenticeship of learning, that demands a lifetime of expert study, something that is to be savored like a fine wine by an evolved palate, then I will read a book. People spend decades of their lives making themselves expert enough to write a book. There can be no substitute for that, and it is indisputably 'better' (by the measures of knowledge and truth) than the most diligently researched Wikipedia article.
Interesting. However, I searched on their blog and couldn't find a post on that. Got a link?
After doing a little more searching, I did read at least one good reason why blog search might be separated. It's actually done using the RSS (or whatever) feeds of the blogs; to use the usual spiders would mean blog posts take days to get indexed, which would not be so good for the timeliness of the usual blog posts. So, having a separate search makes sense.
What I still wonder, however, is whether they will also index blogs in the normal way.
I'll bite.
Does the introduction of blogsearch.google.com mean that content on whatever Google deems a blog is being segregated from the rest of the Internet? Try cutting and pasting a phrase from your favorite A-list blog into Google's regular search: nada. Try putting it in blogsearch: voila!
obTinfoilHat: This has happend because pressures from mainstream political parties (you know who you are) drove Google to make blog content effectively invisible to your average searcher after truth, given how influential (and unregulated, forsooth!) political blogs have become.
Q: Where in the parent post is it denied that AS is real?
A: Nowhere.
A.W.E.S.O.M.E.-O.: Umm...OK...how about this? Adam Sandler is, like, in love with some girl.
This reminds me of a Zen koan: what is the output of diff on a single file?
Could you develop your own method to detect the same gene? How many distinct methods can there be? Can I patent the licking-your-fingertip-and-holding-it-up-in-the-br eeze method for estimating wind velocity?
I say this in all sincerity, sir. Your ideas interest me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I'm in a frelling cult, you insensitive clod!
Barbara Bush would agree that it's working out pretty well for the refugees from New Orleans: they now get to live in the Superdome!
No. That would be Trent Reznor, according to Tori Amos.
Y'all should read Book 6 of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics--some good thoughts there about different kinds of intelligence and skill.
Peeping up windows is illegal in most municipalities.
True enough. Maybe, then, the goodness of a political system could be gauged by the degree to which it makes abuses impossible, or at least practically prosecutable. I'm thinking of "sunshine laws" as one example.
Profiteer!
About incentive, I'm sure you're industrious, but do you think the poor are poor because they're lazy?
I think I see your point, but I guess my assumption is that the kinds of things for which studio capital is necessary are also goods and services made valuable through labor of one kind or another.
About history, I surely wouldn't argue it's moving inexorably forward, like the old Soviet and Chinese ideologues. Finally, I'm not sure how what you're calling "Free Market Capitalism" represents the communalization of the means of production, but if that's the result, that would be great. :-p
I don't think the analogy is terribly good, but here's my attempt to defend it, not in terms of individual decision-makers, but in aggregate terms:
If there is no hospital to "clean up the mess," the streets will fill with dead bodies or visibly injured or crippled people. This will eventually be intolerable to the majority of people and they may take stronger steps to fight against those who fill their streets with broken bodies, thereby raising the opportunity costs for potential criminals. In the end, perhaps, crime goes down because there are no hospitals.
I don't know if even I believe this, but I thought I'd give it a shot.
No, my friend. That would be workers.
Capitalism's Big Lie is that it is responsible for production. Once upon a time, this was true: capitalism freed productive forces from the grave inefficiencies and baseless impediments of the feudal system. But now it merely does a better and better job of siphoning profits to those who own, and contributes no productivity. It serves the interests of the parasites.
OK. I could have read the fine post title. Idiocy strikes again.
ObTranslation: "Cemeteries are full of indispensable men." ObSnark: Your mother!
Is that you John Wayne? Is this me?
First they came for the pornographers, and I did not speak out because I was not a pornographer.
It's worth remembering that what you know you had to learn. These technical terms are not "too difficult." They are merely unknown or unfamiliar, and many people couldn't give a rat's ass what they mean, because they don't have to. Danish is not "too difficult for English-speakers," it's just not what they speak. If I said "crocheting patterns and terminology are 'too difficult' for IT workers," you'd spot the fallacy right away.