|
 Vate rated 24 months ago - From the page: "Is "popurls" any good? I am writing this on May 27, 2006. In the last few days an experimental approach to diabetes management has been announced that might prevent nerve damage. That's huge news for tens of millions of Americans. It is not mentioned on popurls. P...
|
|
14 Reviews
-
-
- virtualnite rated 4 months ago
- This treatise takes several explorations - focusing on first how to balance independence with dependence (hive) and arriving at interdependence and again just cause i can type the tags or key words, doesn't mean I've integrated them- just cause I can echo>paste collectivism or the constitution >its depictions>anthems, doesn't mean i have to move to Kuba>Berkeley>San Francisco>Houston to integrate them- Maoism is an aggressive label in the splintered states of the 21st
- marjaana rated 7 months ago
- Jaron Lanier on wikimania: "Why isn't everyone screaming about the recent epidemic of inappropriate uses of the collective? It seems to me the reason is that bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology."
- alexko rated 23 months ago
- From the page: "a new online collectivism ... is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise" I think this article is too emotionally loaded, so it fails to provide a constructive idea. Wikipedia is useful, while being not perfect. Wikipedia doesn't claim its correctness. In the language of computer science, Wikipedia is a heuristic, not strictly an algorithm. It would be not wise to avoid heuristics by any means as the author and some other computer scientists suggest. Also, collectives are not created equal. Pulling them all together and generalizing is exactly an example of thinking the author tries to criticize.
- habibmi rated 28 months ago
- attack on collective intelligence? still need to read.
- iandelaney rated 28 months ago
- The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?
- akarra rated 20 months ago
- This is an excellent rant that I do have disagreements with. Nonetheless, I don't mark something "thumbs down" because I disagree with it (I mention that because many people have been telling me nowadays that they do vote like that, and it bothers me). In any case, the middle of the essay has a passage or two that are exactly on target: he talks about how the ability of people to receive emoluments appropriate to their work online hasn't been figured out yet, and raises the possibility that hype about the future isn't just a trivial problem, but one that distracts from actual problems.
- communicatrix rated 21 months ago
- The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?
The problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it's been elevated to such importance so quickly. And that is part of the larger pattern of the appeal of a new online collectivism that is nothing less than a resurgence of the idea that the collective is all-wise, that it is desirable to have influence concentrated in a bottleneck that can channel the collective with the most verity and force. This is different from representative democracy, or meritocracy. This idea has had dreadful consequences when thrust upon us from the extreme Right or the extreme Left in various historical periods. The fact that it's now being re-introduced today by prominent technologists and futurists, people who in many cases I know and like, doesn't make it any less dangerous.
Extraordinary. Precision thinking, flawless communications skills and radical intellectual hawt-ness. If this guy is available, The BF better watch out...
- Daphoenus rated 26 months ago
- And I thought I was long-winded when it comes to ranting. This guy takes on everything from Wikipedia to American Idol to Linux in one verrrrry long essay. (Or maybe it's not that long - it just seems that way.) Basically all his ranting is to make the point that there is evil inherent in the collective. But really, anyone who watched any of the Borg episodes of Star Trek: TNG knows that already. I was going to give this article a thumbs-down, but this one line saved it for me:"Collectives can be just as stupid as any individual, and in important cases, stupider."Amen to that, brother.
- Vate rated 24 months ago
- From the page: "Is "popurls" any good? I am writing this on May 27, 2006. In the last few days an experimental approach to diabetes management has been announced that might prevent nerve damage. That's huge news for tens of millions of Americans. It is not mentioned on popurls. Popurls does clue us in to this news: "Student sets simultaneous world ice cream-eating record, worst ever ice cream headache." Mainstream news sources all lead today with a serious earthquake in Java. Popurls includes a few mentions of the event, but they are buried within the aggregation of aggregate news sites like Google News. The reason the quake appears on popurls at all can be discovered only if you dig through all the aggregating layers to find the original sources, which are those rare entries actually created by professional writers and editors who sign their names. But at the layer of popurls, the ice cream story and the Javanese earthquake are at best equals, without context or authorship.
Kevin Kelly says of the "popurls" site, "There's no better way to watch the hive mind." But the hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring. Why pay attention to it?"
- Essive rated 26 months ago
- The hive mind is not necessary the view of the world. Look at Nazi Germany in WWII - do you think they had a hive mind? It's really the voice of the most powerful. Good thoughts here.
|
