Over the last year or so my internet browsing habits have changed considerably, mostly because of Wikipedia. Before this change started to take place, my starting point when approaching the world wide web was to visit the Google homepage. Google, probably the most used and effective search engine in the world provides listings for virtually every web site on the planet - but she has her dark side too.
I started to become a little dissatisfied with the results that Google was producing. They are now so riddled with adverts and that distraction feels a little force-fed. The results were also becoming more inaccurate, for example the top twenty highest ranked pages for any given search appear to be attributed to the sites who make the most effort to engage in ‘Black Hat Search Engine Optimization’ rather than the sites which most deserve to be ranked based on the search engine’s criteria. That is not to say that because I think these techniques are wrong, that they are not inevitable. The internet is as much about marketing as it is an information resource.
Which leads me on to Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia. Or for me not really an encyclopedia as much as just an information resource. After discussing Wikipedia with a friend of mine studying Medicine, he admitted using the website as the first port of call for the answer to a quick question - whether this related to his course or not. We discussed the pros and cons of the website as a resource, as well as the influence of vandals within the community. Our pros ran along the lines of constant praise based on how great is was to have a one-stop source of concise information dealing with topics as diverse as quantum computing and Richard ‘the hamster’ Hammond’s dragster crash. Our cons basically went along the lines of how little work we can get done once we start clicking on the links from one article to another.
Which leads on to vandalism or rather the mis-documentation of it. I’ve been getting a little frustrated with the number of news reports documenting vandalism on Wikipedia, and not because the vandalism is happening, but because they consider it to be notable news. The traditional encyclopedias may be keen to market the inaccuracies within Wikipedia, but the news websites really seem to have jumped on the bandwagon. I use Wikipedia every day for about a year, and to my knowledge I have updated a dozen Wikipedia entries at the most. These have been mostly because of slightly out-of-date articles or bad grammar or text. Most of the vandalism within Wikipedia has passed me by because these instances get corrected so quickly I don’t notice them.
What the news sites fail to acknowledge is the concept of a community based project, where errors are corrected by the community. With a website like Wikipedia anyone can edit it and everyone who uses it should! If a user finds inaccuracies they should be corrected by the user since there seem to be more genuine users than vandals. What we are actually seeing is visitors finding inaccuracies and publishing them rather than correcting them - thus missing the point. Their hype is a fallacy!
So, if I need to find out about a new piece of software and don’t want to read the commercial hype, my first stop is my friendly free online encyclopedia. I say ‘my’ because it belongs to me, and everyone else who uses and contributes - not the news websites who constantly miss the point. However, as I have seen with google, not every big thing stays big for ever - so I will keep my judgement eye wide open - I just can’t see any problems yet.
The BBC have recently published a news artificial on the neuromotor prosthesis. A sensory chip embedded in the brain is used to capture a movement command which in turn is connected to a computer used to interpret these commands accordingly. So Matthew Nagel who has been paralysed from the neck down is now able to operate a computer using his brain. This is quite something! The relative freedom he now has is something he must be very grateful for.
This is very cool, very sci-fi, and the potential for this technology is really only just beginning. When you look at a keyboard and a mouse, there aren’t that many variables to control… so it will just take time for the technology to be improved much further and provide help to many similar people. For example Stephen Hawking struggles to write papers because of the limited use of his limbs. This technology would allow him to work.
But I have my concerns… There will always be people who will misuse this kind of technology. As a race we must be careful of our advances and always consider the ethics behind our inventions. Imagine your mind directly hooked up to the internet, and the havoc you could cause with it… much more powerful than a computer alone.
I find this report from BBC news very interesting on two counts.
Firstly, it highlights the BBC’s inept ability to report news. I know that this is a minor point, but both sides of the coin should be highlighted when reporting. Such as the difference between consumers wanting greener PCs and consumers actually paying £64 - £108 more for a PC because it’s an environmentally friendly one.
Which leads to my second point. Everyone agrees (except stupid white men) that we are suffering from a global climate change crisis which we must act upon to sort out. One of the ways of reducing CO2 emissions would be to have more wind farms and become less reliant on fossil fuel technology. So we want wind farms… Oh, unless they are built anywhere near where these people live. If one of the fields near us were building wind farms I might put up with it, but would my neighbours? As one of the most respected men of our time once said: “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.” - Agent K
The same issue applies to these environmentally friendly, but more expensive PCs. Another options of course, would be if the PC manufacturers gave us no option but to buy these PCs - but that will not happen!
Last night I watched a little TV (I think it was called Tank Man) on the Chinese governments hush-hush attitude towards media, and the imprisonment of those that break these rules.
I have a beast of an assignment due by Thursday, and I’ve barely started it… But despite all this I’ve been surfing the interweb this morning, nothing specific just wasting time. But I found this and this and it really makes me want to take some action. Grrrrrr.
Maybe I’ll just put a little green box in the top right hand side of this page and have a look at this.
Boing Boing has linked a really intresting talk by MPAA to a group of high-tech suppliers, attempting to sell to them the concept of plugging the analoge hole in media hardware. This is seriously stupid and is summed up well by one of the questions addressed to the speaker.
One questioner asked who would be responsible for the extensive
consumer education needed. Hunt’s answer — that he hoped retailers
would do it — drew dubious groans.
The final question summed up the problem: “This is a room full of
people whose living depends on this working. You’re getting pushback to
the point of hostility. If you can’t sell this to us, how are you going
to sell it to the target 16-45 demographic?”
Hunt said the marketplace would ultimately sort it out.
I hope that this is the beginning of the end for the MPAA!
Also…
