In two completely unrelated posts, I saw today that two of my favorite pieces of software (Linux and WordPress) had beautiful pumpkins carved in their honor: WordPress Pumpkin and Linux Pumpkin. Happy Halloween!
Google Android: Android App Review Marathon Liveblog. I’m very much looking forward to buying an Android-based phone in the next year. The apps are looking to be very well done so far. I haven’t decided whether I’ll be getting a G1 or if I’ll wait for AT&T to come out with one, which is unlikely. I don’t like going to T-Mobile’s network, but considering I’m in Chicago, I may still be ok. We’ll see how the year progresses. Whatever I get is going to double as my PDA for M3 and M4, so it’s gotta be good!
I’ve heard a lot talk recently about how Wikipedia is bad because “anyone can change anything they want” in an article. A friend of the family has said it, and even one of my teachers said it. I actually become very frustrated by this every time I hear it. It’s mainly because I find Wikipedia to be an incredibly powerful tool and one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the “success” of the Internet. And I’m not alone. I know a number of students and young people who feel the same way. The problem with this mistrust seems to be stemming from some adults who have lived without Wikipedia for much of their lives. I’ve been pondering this over the past few weeks, and then I came across an article today in Technology Review about this very subject.
It was an interesting read for sure, and it brings up some interesting issues about citations. I think the avid nay-sayers generally do not fully understand Wikipedia and the fact-checking that’s involved with the website. I think they generally believe that some 15 year old kid is sitting there filling what he knows about argumentum ad populum (thanks /.) or some crazy person is injecting extreme ideas into a serious article. The fact is simply that this isn’t the case. If an article is found to have something disreputable in it, it’s tagged as such (which is clearly visible to the reader). Since Wikipedia is not willing or able to judge truth from fiction, they rely on the verifiability of questionable statements. As the article notes, this can cause problems because even if a Wikipedia entry is about you, a verifiable reference must be found that can corroborate your claim. They have no way of proving that you are who you say you are, and thus they need evidence. A significant point for the scientific community is that trustworthy evidence is largely based on journal articles, university publications, and university-level textbooks before things like fact-checked sections of newspapers and magazines.
Even with citations, however, things can be wrong or misrepresented, so of course it’s always necessary to take you read on Wikipedia (or anywhere) with a grain of salt. Still, I find that Wikipedia articles tend to be more accurate and less biased than some news agencies’ work. References even act as a way to remove bias by limiting your assertions to something with verifiable proof. Then people can base judgment on the quality of the proof, not on the persuasiveness of the Wikipedia writer.
I guess the underlying point of this post is that you shouldn’t judge something unless you fully understand it. Wikipedia is highly accurate, and the proof that it’s based on is one of its strongest qualities. Question it. Critique it. But, please, don’t just dismiss it because “it can be edited by anybody.” “Anybody” still needs to have verifiable proof of their statements. Wikipedia has made a more profound impact on my life than probably anything else on the Internet. Knowledge should be free, and Wikipedia has aggregated mountains of knowledge that is both easy to access and free for the taking. Gone are the days of lugging out a 20 volume set of Encyclopaedia Britannica only to find out that your version is out-dated. Typing a simple wp Reyes Syndrome into my Firefox address bar brings up most of the latest information instantly. I have gathered immense knowledge over the past half-decade from the giant brain that is Wikipedia. I am (and will be) indebted to it forever, and I hope it never goes away. I have made a promise to myself that once I’ve graduated from school, I will make a significant financial donation to the Wikimedia Foundation and probably another one once I’ve finished residency. The world needs Wikipedia. Go read a few of its articles on something you’d like to know more about. You’re bound to catch a glimpse of how wide its berth of knowledge is. Wikipedia is not just some little tool that can be brushed aside and ignored. It’s a “Google”; it’s a game-changer. And it deserves to be. Please, don’t take it for granted.
I noticed an interesting article on ifacethoughts stating “Linux Education Is The Key To Popularity.” I agree to an extent, but there are some caveats. This started off as a comment on his blog, but I decided it was long enough to merit its own post here.
I agree that Linux should be sold on being different than Windows, but I disagree that it’s entirely an education problem. I think there are 2 large issues that make things difficult for new users, and they’re quasi-related. First is that 99.9% of user’s tasks (even complicated ones) need to be GUI-fied for a Windows migrant to feel comfortable. This is quickly gaining momentum (for example, xorg.conf is all but eliminated in Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex), but it’s still not quite there.
The second, and even more important, piece of the puzzle is the need for a central, well-maintained, well-written set of instructions for how to do anything and everything imaginable in Linux. I think one of the hardest things for new users is when they don’t know how to do something, they don’t know where to go next. They can do a quick Google search or a forum search, but these are often filled with outdated information and they can be hard to sift through, especially when you don’t know what you’re doing. Plus, when you don’t really know what you’re doing, you might just go with the first thing you read, which many times is not a good idea. I also think it’s important for the OS itself to be integrated with these instructions and “Help” should point directly toward them.
I say the 2 issues of GUI and documentation are quasi-related because many times there are GUI options available for something, but instructions are given by old-school experts who find terminal commands quicker and easier. While that may be, to most Windows and Mac users, it’s intimidating. A good example would be adding Medibuntu repositories in Ubuntu. The wiki guide is all command-line, despite the fact that things are basically just as easy in the GUI to complete the same task. Even better might be to just supply repository and GPG key links and then link to a fuller article about how to install external repositories and what their advantages and disadvantages are.
I also feel like proper documentation could help users learn a lot more while they’re doing this stuff. Interspersed with the instructions could be brief descriptions about some of the inner-workings and why things are the way they are. In the previous example, maybe mentioning GPG keys and why they’re used or a link to learn more about external repositories. Some of this has been done with Ubuntu, but it needs to be more comprehensive, clear, and up-to-date. It also needs to be written for lay people and not by developers unless they’re very effective communicators.
It’s one thing to say that people need to “learn Linux” if they’re going to use it. It’s another to expect them to do it without the proper tools and guidance, especially since many aspects are non-intuitive to non-native users.
A Shared Culture. If you publish anything online (writing, photos, videos, etc.), please license your work under the Creative Commons. It couldn’t be any easier. If you know someone else who creates, spread the word.
President Bush signed into law a new cabinet-level position whose sole responsibility will be to monitor and enforce IP violations. This mainly includes copyright violations, which is putting the Executive Branch in the pocket of the RIAA, MPAA, and more. What this means for the illegal file-sharing crowd is still up in the air, but it isn’t gonna be good. I’m glad I’m no longer part of that “bridge to nowhere.” Armed with things like the “Patriot Act”, does the government even need an excuse to snoop on each and every person’s Internet connection in the country?
This sucks. So now instead of copyright reform and mending this incredibly broken IP situation, we break it even more by reinforcing the RIAA and MPAA. To some, this may sound like a good idea. “We’re defending the creative minds in the country and their Intellectual Property, and we’re taking the ‘War on Piracy’ seriously.” The problem is that most of the people who make these arguments don’t actually understand the situation. I wish I had more time to write about this now (maybe after midterms). All I can say is that if you think our current copyright policy needs stricter enforcement to protect our artists, you’re wrong! Check out Free Culture.
On a side note, one thing I don’t like, which others have pointed out, is that Joe Biden loves this sort of thing (stricter enforcement of copyright), and he’s got pals at the RIAA and MPAA that tell him the “truth about copyright.” This is in contrast to Obama’s position. Joe needs to wake up and smell the coffee on this.
YouTube – From Naught to Sixty in 5 seconds [via /.]. Don’t blink; you just might miss it. Now I hope that’s something like what Ubuntu’s striving for in Jaunty Jackalope.
Wellington Grey — On The DMCA. This is a brief and easy to understand slide show depicting what would happen if the DMCA applied to “real life”. If you don’t know what that is, it’s basically a law that makes it illegal to circumvent copyright protection for any means. Very interesting.
I sure hope so. If so, respond here so I know I’ve passed on the message. Then, you pass it on too. Side note: I loved Sarah Silverman and Jonah Hill in this video.