Tag Archives: The Boston Globe

Enough Mainstream Silliness, Please: The Social Web Works

I’m a big fan of mainstream media — course I am, I work for them — but I’m also a big fan of the other stuff. Like Wikipedia. It’s usually the first place I start if I’m trying to familiarize myself with a new subject, even a new one.

Which is why I get uppity when mainstream media disses Wikipedia with the kind of broad-brush strokes it usually accuses the online world of making. Like this one from The Boston Globe, in a story (not a column) about social finance sites:

The wisdom of the crowd may be a fine way to discover the most amusing YouTube video, but Wikipedia has been vilified for inaccuracies, and the online world hardly has a reputation as a trustworthy source.

In one short sentence the writer manages to dismiss

  • YouTube as a mere site for “amusing” videos,
  • the “wisdom of the crowd” as a mere mechanism for finding stuff,
  • Wikipedia as apparently the mere butt of vilifiers, and
  • the online world as, basically, untrustworthy.

Sources? Examples? A measure of balance? Er, none.

Now I like the Globe, and I love the IHT, where I read this, so I’m guessing this might just have been a bit of sloppy editing or last-minute “background” so enamored of editors. But frankly I can find very little vilifying of Wikipedia, at least if one counterbalances the criticism with the praise  — and the sheer numbers: nearly 2 million articles in English, in the top 10 websites. (The best source, by the way, for criticism of Wikipedia is, er, Wikipedia; the piece has 125 external references.)

So, come on, mainstream journalists. The time is past for sniffy, unsubstantiated asides about things like Wikipedia. The social web has already established itself and proved itself. It ain’t perfect, but neither are we.

Sharing the wealth – The Boston Globe

Content Killer

Good piece by Publishing 2.0 » (Google Is Killing the Economics of Content) on how Google’s AdSense is killing the internet by driving the creation of sites that exist solely to squeeze money from AdSense. Here’s how it works in brief, based on Robert Weisman’s piece in The Boston Globe :

A company amasses hundreds of thousands of Internet domain names — and not just silly names, but ones like photography.com, bookstore.com, or jobfinder.com — and then puts a few links on it that look like content but aren’t (new term: “content-light”) . Users go there by typing in the name (rather than searching on Google, as many users apparently do; another new term: “direct navigation”) and then click on AdSense links on the site. As Scott Karp puts it:

The sites were talking about here are NOT about content and they are NOT about serving web users in any meaningful way — they exist for one purpose — pay-per-click ad revenue. …

Why bother with the expense of creating content? Google certainly doesn’t care. And the advertisers dumping billions of dollars into AdWords and similar ad networks don’t seem to care where their ads appear. It’s all about the click.

Companies involved: NameMedia, Marchex. According to alarm:clock, which monitors new tech ventures, NameMedia has acquired a leading domain reseller, BuyDomains, GoldKey, and dozens of smaller domain collections over the last year to create a portfolio of more than million domain names. It was formerly called YesDirect, and claims to have more than 25 million visitors a month.

The End of Airport WiFi?

An interesting battle is going on in Boston over airport WiFi. If one side wins it may spell the end to WiFi in airports — at least those not operated by the airport itself. The Boston Globe reports that Logan International Airport officials’ ongoing quest to ban airline lounges from offering passengers free WiFi Internet services is angering a growing array of powerful Capitol Hill lobbying groups, who say Logan could set a dangerous nationwide precedent for squelching wireless services:

Soon after activating its own $8-a-day WiFi service in the summer of 2004, the Massachusetts Port Authority, which runs Logan, ordered Continental and American Airlines to shut down WiFi services in their Logan lounges. Massport also ordered Delta Air Lines Inc. not to turn on a planned WiFi service in its new $500 million Terminal A that opened last March. […]

Massport has consistently argued its policy is only trying to prevent a proliferation of private WiFi transmitters that could interfere with wireless networks used by airlines, State Police, and the Transportation Security Administration. WiFi service providers are free to negotiate so-called roaming deals, Massport officials say, that would let their subscribers who pay for monthly access use the Logan network. But major providers including T-Mobile USA have balked at Massport’s proposed terms, saying the airport authority seeks excessive profits.

It all sounds a bit lame to me. My experience of Logan’s WiFi in late 2004 was woeful, although perhaps that has changed, as Massport’s PR later said they were having teething troubles as it had just been installed. But it seems weak to argue that one WiFi service may not affect communications whereas others might;to charge excessively for it seems to suggest the real motive. If interference is the problem, will all those in-office WiFi networks in terminal offices be closed down, and will all onboard WiFi networks be banned too? What about buildings close to the airport?

The scary thing is that if Massport win this other airports are bound to leap aboard. And not just in the U.S. If airport authorities think they can make money out of this, I’m sure they will follow suit. I’m worried. Unless it means better and free WiFi in airports, in which case I’m all for it. Let’s face it, sometimes WiFi services are so bad in airports you feel as if it’s too important a commodity to be left to small bitplayers. More discussion of the issues here and here.

How to be a Inventor

The Boston Globe writes about Ron Magers, a toy designer for the past 28 years. It’s no game:

Magers’s shop produces 20 prototypes per year; there have been years when he has sold none. His average is one to two toys per year, and there is a storage area filled with things that never sold. Included in that is a Merry-Go-Round, a radio-controlled dynamic one-wheeled vehicle, and a painting shooting gallery. ”There’s not a lot of enthusiasm about shooting anything these days,” Magers said.

And it is important to be prolific, he said. ”I always give young inventors a piece of advice: ‘Never marry one idea,’ ” he said. ”If you continue to put ideas on the table and produce, eventually an idea will sell. For every 20 prototypes that I do, I’m happy to put two into the marketplace that are actually selling and producing royalties.”

Encyclopedia Britannica Fights Back?

I don’t know whether this is the right response to the challenge of Wikipedia, but Encylopaedia Britannica seems to think so, according to The Boston Globe :

To respond to competitive challenges from Google, Yahoo, and the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia, Britannica today will announce it is returning to an old practice after a lapse of a decade by naming an advisory board, whose 15 members top editor Dale Hoiberg calls ”some of the smartest people on earth.” The Chicago-based publisher hopes that the prestige and knowledge of the members — four Nobel laureates and two Pulitzer Prize winners among them — will help reassert the authority of an encyclopedia first published in 1768 but buffeted in an age when the Internet has loosened the definition of what is factual.

Librarians, teachers, and scholars say they are increasingly alarmed at the way students pull information from anywhere online and accept it as valid, without much consideration of the source. Wikipedia, for instance, allows anyone to make entries and yet draws 5 million visitors a month.

”You can’t do something so authoritative easily. It’s hard work,” said Hoiberg, a Britannica senior vice president.

Loosened the definition of what is factual? I’m guessing this is not the same Encyclopaedia Britannica that recently acknowledged one schoolboy was able to spot five errors in two entries. The issue is not whether people are redefining what is factual, it’s whether they so readily accept something as more authoritative than other sources because it has a long history behind it, or because the author of the piece, and those editing it, have titles before their name and initials after it. As I wrote in a recent column on the accuracy of Wikipedia, it’s not about the contributor’s qualifications, but about their contribution. The folk putting together Wikipedia don’t sit around making stuff up — if they did, they’ll quickly find their entries altered, deleted, or put into some sort of side-channel while the matter is earnestly debated. It’s peer review on steroids.

There’s some good recent history of EB in The Boston Globe’s piece. And the author, Eric Ferkenhoff, talks to Jimmy Wales as well for balance. But I think he may have allowed EB to put a bit too much of their spin on the story. The hiring of an advisory board sounds to me less about ‘reasserting authority’ and more about wondering how the hell to create a product that can compete with the collective wisdom of thousands of Wikipedians. No one is claming that Wikipedia is perfect (at least as far as I know), and that it should not be used merely as one of several sources, but experience should probably teach us that the same is true of other reference books, including Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Of course, there is concern more generally about students taking stuff from the Internet and accepting it as fact. As Eric writes:

It is such uncertainty about the accuracy of Web-based information that troubles many traditionalists. ”I think it would be impossible to find a librarian, or even a teacher, in the country that’s not concerned,” said Jo Sommers, head librarian at The Latin School of Chicago, an elite private school. ”The kids, they gravitate to the Googles, and they don’t understand the issue of going to sources that are authoritative, sources that have been vetted. They just assume that everything they find on the Internet is right.”

But that’s a problem for teachers to explain to their students and to help them distinguish from rubbish and fact (and the importance of confirming information elsewhere). But it’s disingenuous to imply from that that there is EB on one side of the fence and then there’s Googe/Yahoo/Wikipedia and all the rest. After all, EB is on the Internet too. Does that make it rubbish?