Comments on: Missing the Point Department http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/ Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:52:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: MiniMediaGuy » Blog Archive » Bloggers are furious http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-150078 MiniMediaGuy » Blog Archive » Bloggers are furious Thu, 31 May 2007 15:05:33 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-150078 [...] get used to democratic media,” found on Unmediated.org, that captures the outrage of Dan Gillmor, Terry Heaton and J.D. Lasica, and tosses a sneer at cyber-elitist Andrew Keen. The bloggers focused [...] [...] get used to democratic media,” found on Unmediated.org, that captures the outrage of Dan Gillmor, Terry Heaton and J.D. Lasica, and tosses a sneer at cyber-elitist Andrew Keen. The bloggers focused [...]

]]> By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149952 Delia Sat, 26 May 2007 00:14:02 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149952 Seth: Jon said: "My time would probably have been better invested in April 2005 had I written Digg then" -- this only makes sense if the code was a significant ingredient in the success... (unless Jon could also get the audience) D. Seth: Jon said: “My time would probably have been better invested in April 2005 had I written Digg then” — this only makes sense if the code was a significant ingredient in the success… (unless Jon could also get the audience) D.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149951 Seth Finkelstein Fri, 25 May 2007 23:35:34 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149951 Digg's key ingredient is not the code, but the *audience* from Rose's being a minor geek TV star. The story of digg is much less a mystic emergent crowds phenomena, but an admittedly successful way a niche celebrity monetized his fan demographic. Without that audience, your site isn't going anywhere. Digg’s key ingredient is not the code, but the *audience* from Rose’s being a minor geek TV star. The story of digg is much less a mystic emergent crowds phenomena, but an admittedly successful way a niche celebrity monetized his fan demographic. Without that audience, your site isn’t going anywhere.

]]> By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149950 Delia Fri, 25 May 2007 23:07:50 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149950 Jon - if your idea was different enough (and for the better) it may still be worth writing your version of Digg (Digg's system doesn't appear to have much for IP protection -- I mean there seem to be so many copycats and I'm not aware of legal challenges by Digg....) D. Jon - if your idea was different enough (and for the better) it may still be worth writing your version of Digg (Digg’s system doesn’t appear to have much for IP protection — I mean there seem to be so many copycats and I’m not aware of legal challenges by Digg….) D.

]]> By: Jon Garfunkel http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149949 Jon Garfunkel Fri, 25 May 2007 21:41:37 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149949 Delia-- yes, my work foreshadowed Digg. My time would probably have been better invested in April 2005 had I written Digg then. I would have written it differently, though. Fabrice has some great ideas, and his multivariable approach is on the far side from the Digg binary system. Seth-- 11. Delia– yes, my work foreshadowed Digg. My time would probably have been better invested in April 2005 had I written Digg then. I would have written it differently, though. Fabrice has some great ideas, and his multivariable approach is on the far side from the Digg binary system.

Seth– 11.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149948 Seth Finkelstein Fri, 25 May 2007 16:42:09 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149948 Delia, unfortunately, in practice, there's a need to take various inductions and reputation-based shortcuts. It's just not workable, or at least exceedingly difficult, to be a purist, given how much of society relies on information relayed from other (very self-interested) people. Note this is where I think Dan and other A-listers do a great disservice, in dismissing the problem by putting the onus on the reader in terms of a "buyer-beware" credo. That's just a license for systemic propaganda and corruption, and it's exactly what we see happening (but, sigh, it's <em>profitable</em>). But note with "Harriet Klausner", the better handling goes to the bloggers, and it's a easy call. You look at how much time would be required, and skepticism is clearly in order. Right, the issue is if the lower-quality drives out the higher-quality. One way of dodging this issue is for the blog-evangelist to pretend it was a categorical assertion that nobody outside of the protected preserve of professional pundit is even capable of high-quality, and to go into a populist sermon on the topic. Hence why I suggested about that we should just number the arguments to save time and typing. Delia, unfortunately, in practice, there’s a need to take various inductions and reputation-based shortcuts. It’s just not workable, or at least exceedingly difficult, to be a purist, given how much of society relies on information relayed from other (very self-interested) people. Note this is where I think Dan and other A-listers do a great disservice, in dismissing the problem by putting the onus on the reader in terms of a “buyer-beware” credo. That’s just a license for systemic propaganda and corruption, and it’s exactly what we see happening (but, sigh, it’s profitable).

But note with “Harriet Klausner”, the better handling goes to the bloggers, and it’s a easy call. You look at how much time would be required, and skepticism is clearly in order.

Right, the issue is if the lower-quality drives out the higher-quality. One way of dodging this issue is for the blog-evangelist to pretend it was a categorical assertion that nobody outside of the protected preserve of professional pundit is even capable of high-quality, and to go into a populist sermon on the topic. Hence why I suggested about that we should just number the arguments to save time and typing.

]]> By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149947 Delia Fri, 25 May 2007 15:35:30 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149947 Seth, it seems to me that IF you are evidence based, you wouldn't be granting presumptions to anybody -- you would just look at the stuff (on an *individual* basis) and decide if it's good or not -- if you already have the thing in front of you, what good are presumptions? (the time those would have been useful has already passed). Jon, I think it all depends... I can think of a number of circumstances where "the new gatekeepers' values" (according to you) would do just fine... : for instance, not all useful information requires a lot of pondering and getting something quick may be essential Delia P.S. The real issue seems to be whether the "non-credentialed reviews" (that *overall* appear to be a mixed bag -- well, more so than the "credentialed reviews") are just something EXTRA that is available... or whether their existence does in fact result in less available quality reviews ("credentialed" or not)... and if this is the case at the moment, is this something that's temporary or not... P.P.S. Jon, I agree that too much information to sort through can be a problem (I took a quick look at your article) : rating by those who have already read the stuff seems to be a promising solution (but it needs to be more than just a popularity rating a la Digg -- I think Fabrice Florin's idea is on the right track and can be applied to a lot more things) D. Seth, it seems to me that IF you are evidence based, you wouldn’t be granting presumptions to anybody — you would just look at the stuff (on an *individual* basis) and decide if it’s good or not — if you already have the thing in front of you, what good are presumptions? (the time those would have been useful has already passed).

Jon, I think it all depends… I can think of a number of circumstances where “the new gatekeepers’ values” (according to you) would do just fine… : for instance, not all useful information requires a lot of pondering and getting something quick may be essential

Delia

P.S. The real issue seems to be whether the “non-credentialed reviews” (that *overall* appear to be a mixed bag — well, more so than the “credentialed reviews”) are just something EXTRA that is available… or whether their existence does in fact result in less available quality reviews (”credentialed” or not)… and if this is the case at the moment, is this something that’s temporary or not…

P.P.S. Jon, I agree that too much information to sort through can be a problem (I took a quick look at your article) : rating by those who have already read the stuff seems to be a promising solution (but it needs to be more than just a popularity rating a la Digg — I think Fabrice Florin’s idea is on the right track and can be applied to a lot more things) D.

]]> By: Jon Garfunkel http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149946 Jon Garfunkel Fri, 25 May 2007 04:12:31 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149946 yup. see <a href="http://civilities.net/TheNewGatekeepers-Values" rel="nofollow">The New Gatekeepers: Their Values</a>: quantity over quality; anonymity over traceability; immediacy over thoroughness; breadth over depth; etc. In other words, hackwork. new topic. yup. see The New Gatekeepers: Their Values: quantity over quality; anonymity over traceability; immediacy over thoroughness; breadth over depth; etc. In other words, hackwork. new topic.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149945 Seth Finkelstein Fri, 25 May 2007 03:44:59 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149945 I am neither credentialist nor populist, but evidence-based (this may sometimes seem like credentialism as I grant a slight presumption to a working journalist over J. Random Ranter, but it is weak and easily overcome with any expertise - it certainly doesn't take much to be more expert on a topic than the average hack). So, did any of the puff-piece writes apply any sort of verification? I didn't see it. If what she does for "reviews" is simply to paraphase the blurb and promotional material, that would be a workable "explanation". Otherwise, the time required simply strains credibility. Schickel specifically made the point that he's not objecting to <em>commercialism</em> _per se_ - and it would be ignoring history to do - he's basically objecting to superficial hackwork being touted as the replacement for thoughtful analysis, because hey, everybody's got an opinion. And lurking under here is the issue that blog-evangelism rewards and encourages superficial hackwork (you've written a piece yourself on this, e.g. being fast is better than being deep). I am neither credentialist nor populist, but evidence-based (this may sometimes seem like credentialism as I grant a slight presumption to a working journalist over J. Random Ranter, but it is weak and easily overcome with any expertise - it certainly doesn’t take much to be more expert on a topic than the average hack). So, did any of the puff-piece writes apply any sort of verification? I didn’t see it.

If what she does for “reviews” is simply to paraphase the blurb and promotional material, that would be a workable “explanation”. Otherwise, the time required simply strains credibility.

Schickel specifically made the point that he’s not objecting to commercialism _per se_ - and it would be ignoring history to do - he’s basically objecting to superficial hackwork being touted as the replacement for thoughtful analysis, because hey, everybody’s got an opinion. And lurking under here is the issue that blog-evangelism rewards and encourages superficial hackwork (you’ve written a piece yourself on this, e.g. being fast is better than being deep).

]]> By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149944 Delia Fri, 25 May 2007 01:06:57 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/05/20/missing-the-point-department/#comment-149944 Jon, Dan appears to be *more* than a credentialist: looks like, for him, if you'd rather not share your name with the whole world, you might just as well shut up... (you are NOT standing behind your words...) And nope, it's not an issue of privacy! After all, why *shouldn't* the whole world know? (from here to eternity...) you MUST be hiding *something*! ;)... Delia P.S. (if you haven't noticed) I'm mostly kidding, Dan... Jon,

Dan appears to be *more* than a credentialist: looks like, for him, if you’d rather not share your name with the whole world, you might just as well shut up… (you are NOT standing behind your words…) And nope, it’s not an issue of privacy! After all, why *shouldn’t* the whole world know? (from here to eternity…) you MUST be hiding *something*! ;)…

Delia

P.S. (if you haven’t noticed) I’m mostly kidding, Dan…

]]>