Sigh.... I've really gone and done it now...

In a recent flurry of increased connectedness to the Internet world, I've been looking at social networking sites like Del.icio.us, Digg and Technorati (all discussed in a prior post, below).

To date, I've been flying this blog well below the blogosphere radar. Nearly everyone who's come here has done so from word-of-mouth direction from me: mostly family and some friends. There have been occassional visits by others who arrived God-knows-how (I think they flew in from Blogspot.com)

Well, for better or worse, I've listed this site at Technorati. I haven't tagged it yet (mostly because I don't know how to categorize it and I don't really have an area of focus), nor have I listed it with their BlogFinder service (for the same reasons). However, I have opened the door a bit more to scrutiny by a broader audience. Yikes!

To quote an delightful four-year-old I once knew: "Ooooh. Scawy" (Which, accompanied, as this statement often was, by an affected, over-dramatic shiver that only a 4yo can properly muster, was much better in person than in print. Thanks for the memories, Casey.)

It shouldn't be that bad, right? After all, I'm just one tiny little voice whispering through the din of millions. Who's even going to notice....?

Insights into evolution explain why RSS humanizes the Web

RSS, social networking sites, podcasting and other web technologies fit our cognitive view of social groups -- likely due to evolutionary pressure.

This ZDNet article tells why we favor groups of about 150 and how some web technologies fit this world view. It's a good intro, but The Economist's article is where you'll find the beef.

read more | digg story

Digg this: Open Letter espousing alternative Intelligent Design

In the science classroom battleground, where the "scientific theory" of Intelligent Design (aka Creationism) recently lost an important skirmish in a Pennsylvania federal court, a cry is heard asking for equal time for an alternative Intelligent Design "theory."

One Kansas citizen has decided that if Intelligent Design can be taught in science class, so can his beliefs: Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. And, absurd as it might seem, Kansas State School Board members have responded to his open letter.

Go figure.

read more | digg story

Is the Web really fun, or am I just an incurable nerd???

I'm continually amazed at the stuff you can find on the web. Much of it is self-perpetuating, self-organizing and self-enhancing. Google.com, Yahoo!, and (self-serving tendencies aside) MSN.com all try to help us get a handle on this monstrosity called the Internet -- all with varying degrees of success.

This damned Internet-thing grows by mega-scads every day. That growth is caused by sites like this one, of no known redeeming value, by sites like Microsoft.com, Linux.org, Apple.com, NBC.com, NPR.org, NYTimes.com, NASA.org, Nature.com, DrWeil.com, SlashDot.org, Wikipedia, GrokLaw.net, Seth Godin's Blog and by millions of others that actually have something valuable to say, as well as by little-known sites that touch us, the visitors, in strange, enchanting and useful ways.

In the past couple of days, being the incurable nerd that I am, with a bit of time on my hands and no family gatherings to attend (the family is on the left coast, whilst I am on the right), I naturally turned my attention to the web. I've made some interesting discoveries.

Sadly, I'm not on the bleeding edge with these finds; I can't stick a flag in the ether and claim them for God and Country. Others got there long before I. Still, I found the sites in my own good time and, like those who went before me, I've adopted these sites as my own. Now I share them, kind visitor, with you.

In case you haven't noticed, Blogging is Big. Big, I tell you. Everyone seems to be doing it. Even me (obviously). Even Microsoft, Google, and others. Your Aunt Bessie might even have a blog to share her favorite recipes with her Bunko Buddies. You should ask her.

But how to do you find all the good Blogs? Depends what you're looking for. However, a great place to start is Technorati.com. I've known about this site for a couple of years, but haven't used it -- until recently. It's a site that indexes and displays information about the hottest blogs in the blogosphere. Interested in some topic? Search for it at Technorati.com and you'll likely find a blog or 100 that focus on that very topic. Your Aunt Bessie's blog may even be listed there.

If you're looking for technology-related news, you could also use Digg.com. Digg is a technology news site where the user community takes an active role in the editorial process, deciding what's hot and what's not. The community posts articles and the community votes for articles they deem Worthy. Articles that are successfully vetted by the community get promoted to the site's home page; articles that don't make the grade quietly and ignominiously fade away.

Digg has even spawned a blog and a podcast whose sole purpose is to watch what's hot on Digg.com: Diggnation. Caution is advised for the pure of ear -- the hosts are excitable and boistrous lads who tend to use colorful language now and again.

"Podcast," you ask? Sit tight; I'll get to that.

First, surely you've heard of this iPod thing. It's a little white (or black) bit of plastic and metal that records your music after you've "ripped" it (no, it doesn't hurt you or your music) from CDs to your computer's hard disk, allowing you to haul around 15,000 of your favorite tunes to listen to at your leisure and on your schedule. It's time-shifting for tunes. It's very cool. I have an iPod. I love it. But that's not really news anymore. Everyone loves their iPod. It's the current hot-story we tell each other.

So, have you also heard of this PodCast thing? iPods and Podcasting are related. Podcasts are web-based audio and video content that you download to your PC, copy to your iPod (or other portable listening device) and listen to at your leisure and on your schedule. More timeshifting. PodCast sites are also growing by mega-scads. Which, of course, leads one to the obvious question: how do you find the good ones? PodCasts, that is.

Well, if you have an iPod, you could use iTunes. The PodCasts there are submitted by users and the popularity ratings are based on user subscripton activity. You could also try Yahoo! Podcasts.

While I'm generally not a big proponent of much of anything Yahoo! does, in this case I like the way they've organized their podcast content. They group podcasts by popularity, subject area and with tags, and you can search by all of these. I like tags (more about tags later). It's the way they use tags that I like. Popular tags get big fonts, less popular tags get smaller fonts -- intutive and obvious. It works for me.

So, what are tags? Tags are all-the-rage on the Social Networking Sites, a category of web site that's also all-the-rage. Essentially, tags are descriptive words that the user communty assigns to things that are important to the community. Funny thing is, we all tend to think somewhat alike, so we tend to assign the same tags to similar things. As a result, by counting and grouping the tags, we can see what things are important and popular (they have lots of tags) and we can see what they're about (the tags are similar).

Take Flickr.com. Flickr may be one of the best-known tagging sites going. Essentially, Flickr is a place to store and share pictures. Once uploaded, you apply tags to your pictures so people can find them.

For instance, after you upload pictures of your Holiday-decorated ficus plant, you tag it with the words "ficus holiday decorated." Anyone who wants to compare their decorated ficus with yours need only search for "holiday decorated ficus" and all the pictures that share these tags are returned. You can then add comments to all the other pictures heaping praises on the other users for their creativity. Plus, you've just found a bunch of folks who share a passion similar to yours. Social networking in action.

Another site that uses tags is del.icio.us (yes, that's its complete web address. No www, nor .com or .org). This is a site where the user community uploads and tags their browser bookmarks. Like Flickr, if you're looking for a topic of interest, you'll find it by searching for tag words. Del.icio.us works like Flickr in this sense, but it also allows you to store your bookmarks in a central location for you to access from anywhere: home, work, or Starbucks. An additional benefit is that you can make all or part (or none) of your bookmarks public, sharing them with everyone, or just your close friends and family. Very cool. Very convenient.

The last tidbit I recently found is a site from a guy named Chris Hill. The site is called Ubergeek. Chris is a graphic artist by training, who has also picked up some of the programming skills often related to web sites, as well as some decent animation skills. He also has a slightly twisted sense of humor.

One item on his site really got to me. It's a recording of his mother, Jean, to which he's added animation. He calls it "Geeks In Love." it's part of an interview he did with his mom, initially to find a way to embarass her on the 'Net. After hearing this partcular story, however, he was moved to take a serious approach to the subject, and to treat it with the respect it deserves.

In this interview Jean (Chris' Mom) recounts how she met, and later lost, Walter (Chris' Dad). It's a great piece of work. Jean's narration is funny and earnest and the annimation suits it well. It's well worth the 25 cents Chris charges to see the second half. Yes, you read that correctly: $.25US. One quarter of one dollar. The first half is free, the second half will set you back 5 nickels.

Before I give you the address to the page with the animation, there are some things you should know.

First, dial-up users need not apply. It's Flash animation and it won't play well with your pokey download speed. Next, despite the fact that the animation will start immediately, I suggest that you click the link to pay the 25 cents. You'll be able to use either a credit card or PayPal (my choice). This will allow you to watch the piece uninterrupted and you'll enjoy it all the more. Finally, bring a hanky. You might need it.

Here's the URL to the animation page (it will start right away, but go ahead and pay the 25 cents): http://www.ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=48 . Please take a minute after you watch this to tell me what you think in the comments to this article, below.

Merry Day-After Christmas and all the best for the new year.

Wikipedia: on which side are you?

Every few months, it seems that some contentious issue or another rages across the Internet until it dies from lack of interest, is beaten down by common sense or a new hot topic displaces it. This month, the hot topic is Wikipedia bashing, judiciously mixed with Wikipedia FUD (FUD: "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt").

I'm tired of the Wikipedia bashing. I think it's time for a constructive discussion that presents the facts of the matter, along with some solutions, rather than inflammatory rhetoric.

Here are the facts about Wikipedia:

1. It's a community-supported repository of knowledge.

2. Contributors can be anyone, from topic experts to non-experts, to vandals (though the vandals are relatively scarce). Even you can contribute.

3. The contributors are human, with human strengths -- and human frailties.

4. The content is not refereed, though most contributors try to be as accurate as they can be. There is some oversight in some areas, but contributors are rarely held to account for the accuracy of their contributions. Accuracy is mostly guided by conscience, and most peoples' sense of fair play and a desire to Do The Right Thing.

5. The content, while it may be useful, should not be treated as the End All, Be All, Final Source for any topic. It should be used, as with any research source (even the Encyclopedia Britannica) as one source among many, all of which are cross-checked for agreement and consistency.

6. There are nearly 900,000 articles in English (that's a lot of information)

7. Use common sense when reading Wikipedia.

The rhetoric that contends that Wikipedia isn't Open Source or that it's full of errors, inconsistencies and personal agendas is true -- up to a point. In reality, most of the articles are accurate, some are not, and the vandals are a small minority of the community.

As with most things on the Web, we need to temper our use of Wikipedia with common sense. When you use it, bear in mind that the articles might not be accurate. Read the articles with a discerning eye. Apply the "smell test" (if it smells bad, it probably is bad). Cross-check anything important. Don't use Wikipedia for anything of substance (school papers, legal briefs or newspaper articles) without cross-checking the facts (just as you would for most other research sources).

Now what about solutions? The solution is so obvious, I'm amazed no one's mentioned it yet (at least from what I've seen). Everyone seems to have staked out positions in defense of, or in condemnation of, Wikipedia. Neither side seems to have grasped the real solution.

When I was in the military my first sergeant once asked me a question that, at the time, I thought was deeply profound. It was the first time in my young life I'd heard the question, though it's since become a cliché: "Are you part of the problem, or part of the solution?" This firestorm of rhetoric over Wikipedia brings to mind this question. The Wikipedia-bashing and the rhetoric is definitely part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Wikipedia is a new, unique, and I believe, valuable form of media. But it's having growing pains. It needs help, guidance and nurturing, not (destructive) criticism (I'm all for constructive criticism).

Whining about a flat tire won't make it magically patch itself and fill itself with air. Likewise, whining about Wikipedia won't make it any better. The exciting thing, though, is that its very nature allows its problems to be easily remedied. All you have to do is change your perspective a bit. To wit: stop whining, go there and fix what's broken.

Contribute to Wikipedia. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. The idea behind Wikipedia is for the community (the world, really) to simply and easily build a public repository of knowledge. If Wikipedia is inaccurate, anyone can fix the inaccuracies -- even you Mr. or Ms. Whiner. If there are problems, they can be repaired.

The power to fix Wikipedia is in everyone’s hands. Whining about the problems doesn't make them go away. If you feel strongly enough to write an article that bashes Wikipedia, perhaps you should put that energy to good use. Find a Wikipedia article that's "broken" and fix it.

Unfortunateley, it takes less energy to point fingers, complain, whine and trash-talk a revolutionary, if flawed, concept than it does to roll up your sleeves, dig in and help improve Wikipedia. Dare I say it? Bashing Wikipedia is the lazy person's way to "fix" the problems. If enough of people whine loudly enough and long enough, someone else will fix the problem -- or maybe Wikipedia will just collapse under the barrage of whining.

If you care enough to complain, maybe you should care enough take some initiative and get involved. As so many of the bashing articles are so quick to point out, the barriers to entry are miniscule. They malign this as a weakness, when, in fact, it's probably Wikipedia's greatest strength. If you have a constructive perspective on the matter, you'll see that this "weakness" could be Wikipedia's salvation -- if only people would quit whining and start editing.

If you don't use Wikipedia, never go there, can't be bothered, but you've jumped on the Wikipedia-bashing band wagon, what good are you? Try being constructive, rather than critical. By climbing aboard the bashing bandwagon your voice is getting lost in the din. Better to get involved and make a difference. Or is that too much like work? Whining is so much less work -- and so much less valuable.

So, are you part of the problem, or part of the solution? In this particular matter, with Wikipedia's virtually non-existent barriers to entry, there's really no middle ground.

Part of the problem, or part of the solution: you know which you are.