I see nothing but discouragement, pessimism, and obstructionism here (in
Stephen's post). We could be performing and teaching constructive
problem-solving, in relation to historical contexts, instead of engaging
in entertaining Bulverisms.
Google = predator; googlers - prey. Wikipedia = a construct designed to
empower the prey (more the better).
The process of predator vs. prey has characterized all destructive human
relations throughout history, from bad personal relationships (and
"bosses") to the most extreme examples of perfidy imaginable, all
because the potential prey want to ignore overall situations and
potentialities based upon the experiences of others, and predators
encourage it.
Godwin's law is effectively a glib neoconservative red herring: I'm not
saying it was designed to (it might have been, or Godwin is a tool), but:
"Godwin's law can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as
censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole
when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate."
[Wikipedia]
Cheers!
jgm
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Stephen Paling wrote:
>> First, Wikipedia is the only open egalitarian, online information source available, in that real people participate in it (as they should also in government and public institutions like libraries)),
>
> There are a LOT of egalitarian communities on the Web, e.g., StackOverflow, although many of them are far less general than Wikipedia.
>
>> Libraries could participate in the editing of Wikipedia pages and in helping Wikipedia find ways to prevent that editing from being corrupted (which is not the fault of Wikipedia).
>
> So can virtually anyone. What exactly could we offer that no one else can? Take this article as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor. What do we know as librarians that would allow us to contribute to the maintenance of that page any more effectively than any number of people with greater technical training?
>
>> OTOH, Libraries could develop (collaboratively) more efficient non-profit search engines that would put Google's lack of ethics to shame.
>
> I'm sorry, but do you have any what idea kind of funding and resource availability libraries would need to compete with Google? And given that so many librarians refuse to learn programming in any depth, they would need to hire outside programmers. Who cost money. A LOT of money. Whose salaries would have to come from a steady revenue stream... like ads...
>
> Further, in what sense would we make search engines more efficient? Efficiency is, roughly, about lowering the ratio of input to output. Who in librarianship is going to beat Google at that game?
>
>> Maybe the trains did run on time, but no one cared about or had the courage to look at where the trains were going or what they carried... or why... or to what possible consequences such efficiencies might lead.
>
> Is this a comparison to Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy? I hope not. But if it is, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
>
> Steve Paling
>
>
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
californiastop_at_hushmail.com
** Forget the "self"; forget the "other"; just
consider what goes on in between. **
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Mon Jul 29 2013 - 17:26:17 EDT