Employee of NBC partner (possibly) fired for leaking news of Russert’s death on Wikipedia

There are some conflicting reports here, but the current story is that an employee of NBC partner Internet Broadcasting Services (IBS) updated Russert’s Wikipedia page before the official announcement of his collapse, adding his date of death and changing verb forms to the past tense. When this was discovered, someone at the same company reverted the changes. The NYT has reported that the employee was subsequently fired, although this last point is in dispute.

via Silicon Alley Insider

Google Wikipedia-killer in beta

According to the New York Times, Google is developing a web-publishing platform that sounds a lot like Wikipedia.

The project, which is in an invitation-only beta stage, lets users create clean-looking Web pages with their photo and write entries on, for example, insomnia. Those entries are called "knols" for "unit of knowledge," Google said.

The key difference from Google’s offering and Wikipedia will be that individual authors will receive credit for their material.

Google asserts that the Web's development so far has neglected the importance of the bylined author.

"We believe that knowing who wrote what will significantly help users make better use of web content," wrote Udi Manber, vice president of engineering, on the official Google blog

Additionally, users won’t be able to edit each other’s entries.

Based on that last fact, I don’t see how this service is going to rival Wikipedia’s 7 million articles. At this point in the history of the web, I’m surprised that a company as savvy as Google would ignore the clear benefits of distributed publishing. At best, the service will probably get a few thousand decent articles on niche topics.

Although I believe Google has a point in noting the neglect of attribution for web content, I can’t see how they’re going to succeed when they depend on individual contributors to provide and edit all of their own content. I just don’t think that there is that much individual expertise out there that will be willing to put in the time to write quality articles for the service.

Ubiquitous audio: “a heads-up display for your ears”

In a recent article, Peter Drescher argues that stereo cellphone headsets will make possible interactive communication experiences on the go.

I’m looking at wireless stereo headsets, and thinking that as they become more comfortable, more useful, more powerful, more commonplace, and more stylish, there will be fewer and fewer reasons to ever take them off. Eventually, you’ll just stick them in your ears and forget about ‘em. They will become like acoustic contact lenses, or a heads-up display for your ears. They’ll let you access and control a virtual audio reality that streams in from wireless networks all around you and is mixed with voice data from your phone and from everybody’s phone. And although the ubiquitous audio network I’m describing does not yet exist, you can actually listen to what it might sound like today.

It’s completely analogous to being in a recording studio, isolated by big headphones, auditioning multiple tracks, and talking to the control room via live mic. I remember my first time in a real studio: I put on the cans and was astounded by the sense of space, the detailed audio field, and the sound of my own voice—in my head, through the mixing board. Now imagine that feeling as a mobile experience, but instead of talking to the engineer on the other side of the glass, you’re walking down Broadway, talking to someone on the other side of the world.

In response, Tim O’Reilly points out that stereo headsets will be the first components of mainstream wearable computing.

I’m sure that at first, when only a few people are living in the mobile “heads up” auditory network, they will be quite “annoying” in public spaces, but eventually, I imagine we'll figure out how to deal with that. There's a lot that's compelling in this vision. I've always imagined heads-up visual displays being one of the harbingers of the era of wearable computing, but Peter makes a pretty compelling case that it’s in audio that we’re going to see the first signs of ubiquitous wearable computing.

“God” box

Jon Oltsik at the CNET News Blog posted a blog entry this week on the “god box,” a single device “packed with ridiculous amounts of functionality.”

Think of an all-in-one television, cable box, TiVo, and home entertainment speaker system and you get the idea. One “god box” always replaces numerous more pedestrian systems.

According to Oltsik, new developments in processors, hardware commodification, and software are going to make these god boxes a reality.

My problem with this idea, though, is that I’m not sure who would want this kind of functionality in a single box. One caveat: though he doesn’t come out and say this, I think Oltsik’s post might be directed at the business networking crowd. I can see why a business IT department might want to distribute god boxes as terminals. However, since he brought up the home entertainment example, I don’t see how a god box would be desirable in that context. I think consumers have made it clear that they don’t want certain kinds of hybrid devices: computers that connect to the television have never caught on, for example. Rather, what people want is ease of connectivity, a “god network,” if you will. They want to watch TV on their TVs and compute on their computers; but, when they are away from those devices, they want to access their music, documents, TiVo programs, or live TV on their MP3 players or phones.

I think it is far more likely that the technological innovations Oltsik describes are going to turn the phone into a god device. It won’t be one where the majority of users will choose to do all of their specialized tasks—that is, the phone is not going to replace computers, televisions, home stereos and the like. Rather, it will be one that can access the functionality of those other devices on the go.

(Of course, cellphones are replacing all of these devices in Japan, so I could be completely wrong about the above.)

Tim Berners-Lee on “the Graph”

Web-god Tim Berners-Lee posted a theoretical blog on the social graph early last week.

He argued that networked computing has gone through three stages. First there was the net, the network infrastructure of the internet. Once users were free from having to physically connect individual machines that they wanted to network, they were able to ignore the network, or the cables, and focus on the computers themselves. According to Berners-Lee, when users could focus on the more important half of this binary, they were able to get more use from the net, and their ability was even more enhanced by enabling the reuse of underused or forgotten resources.

The next level of networking was the web. Because it combined the resources of different machines and connected them together seamlessly, the world wide web allowed users to focus not on the computers, but on the documents. The document of choice, of course, was the web page, which, like the computers of the net, became the focal point of web browsing.

At the third level, Berners-Lee points out that users began to realize that it is what the documents are about, not the documents themselves, that was important. This level is similar to the semantic web, and Berners-Lee calls it “the graph.” (Actually, he calls it the “Giant Global Graph,” riffing on the WWW.) As users are able to capitalize on the graph, he argues, they will be able to exercise more power from their computing tasks, just as the innovations of the net and the web made computing more powerful at those levels. However, to make optimal use of the graph, designers will have to allow for the information stored in their documents to be able to freely interact with the information on other pages.

Letting your data connect to other people's data is a bit about letting go in that sense. It is still not about giving to people data which they don't have a right to. It is about letting it be connected to data from peer sites. It is about letting it be joined to data from other applications.

It is about getting excited about connections, rather than nervous.

Berners-Lee suggests that this can happen if designers make use of available semantic web tools. He sums up his vision in this penultimate paragraph:

In the long term vision, thinking in terms of the graph rather than the web is critical to us making best use of the mobile web, the zoo of wildy differing devices which will give us access to the system. Then, when I book a flight it is the flight that interests me. Not the flight page on the travel site, or the flight page on the airline site, but the URI (issued by the airlines) of the flight itself. That's what I will bookmark. And whichever device I use to look up the bookmark, phone or office wall, it will access a situation-appropriate view of an integration of everything I know about that flight from different sources. The task of booking and taking the flight will involve many interactions. And all throughout them, that task and the flight will be primary things in my awareness, the websites involved will be secondary things, and the network and the devices tertiary.

via Read/Write Web

Evolution of Wikipedia

Brock Read at The Wired Campus has made the argument that now that Wikipedia has grown to 2,000,000 articles, the site has switched from primarily adding content to policing and editing content. According to K. G. Schneider, Wikipedia has entered its “awkward adolescence” where, Read notes, “‘inclusionists’ (who argue that the site should continue to encourage new entries) and its ‘deletionists’ (who advocate cutting articles deemed fatuous or picayune) are now engaged in a pitched battle” over what kind of content should be in the encyclopedia. Read notes an interesting example where founder Jimmy Wales’s article on Mzoli’s, a butcher shop, was deleted and then reinstated in a flurry of debate.

Inclusionists may take the evolution of the article as evidence that some quality-obsessed administrators are overstepping their bounds. But deletionists could argue just as easily that the site’s rough-and-tumble editing worked: Wikipedians decided that Mzoli’s is noteworthy, so the article lived to see another day. Are Wikipedia’s editing wars signs of a looming crisis, as Ms. Schneider seems to suggest? Or are they just examples of healthy debate?

I would argue that the debate is one over what Wikipedia is, where deletionists are fighting to keep the site in the mold of the traditional encyclopedia, while inclusionists are open to seeing the site evolve into a new kind of information depository. I have a hard time believing that the deletionists are going to win this one, or that the growth of Wikipedia is going to stall for long. When the inclusionists win—as I think they will—the site will continue to add topics covering more informational ground—local information, cultural fads, obscure knowledge—perhaps changing what we think is “ fatuous or picayune.”

Web 2.0 v. laziness

Seth Porges at CrunchGear is arguing that the Web 2.0 “bubble” is going to burst when people get too lazy to continue to supply the sweet, sweet collective intelligence it needs to survive. As Porges points out, “without your neighbor/classmate/sister/girlfriend’s tireless devotion to keeping her profile up-to-date, MySpace would merely be a place for FOX to promote its properties.”

This is an interesting argument, but I’m not sure the examples Porges gives are all that convincing. The test case is Porges’s own migration through the social networking sites: Friendster used to be cool, but soon after joining up, Porges ignored his account there and moved over to MySpace. Then, when he grew too old for the highschool-yearbook vibe at MySpace, he moved over to Facebook, the country club of social networking. According to him, this same wanderlust and ennui is going to hit Digg and Wikipedia soon, causing them to fold.

This may be all well and good for Porges, but it doesn’t seem to fit the facts. As of this post, MySpace is ranked 6th in internet traffic. Additionally, Wikipeida just added its 2,000,000th English article. While I think the argument might apply to social networking sites—they depend on a critical mass of users, and if that mass moves somewhere else, they fold—it doesn’t appear to be affecting MySpace; both it and Facebook are continuing to grow. Further, and more importantly, what people do on Wikipedia and Digg is extremely different from what they do on MySpace and Facebook. I’m not sure that even a competing internet encyclopedia would cause users to leave Wikipedia. Porges himself points out that social networking sites appeal to different crowds—even Friendster is seeing a resurgance in Asia. If a competing encyclopeida emerged, it would likely have a completely different user base and produce a different kind of product. In short, I don’t buy Porges’s argument. Laziness isn’t going to bring down Web 2.0.

Open source law

New Zealand is using a wiki to create a publicly editable draft of its new police act. The draft is here while the homepage describing the project can be found here. According to the site, the project is being monitored by a review team, presumably to prevent vandalism. Here’s a description of the motivation for the project:

The Police Act Review has maintained an open process throughout, and wiki technology offers a novel way for people to have a say in the law-drafting process as well. This may well be one of the first pieces of legislation ever developed in New Zealand with the aid of such an online tool

This project appears to be incredibly open; the government is even soliciting alternative versions of the law:

To help get you started, we've included some headings and a few example clauses. But don't feel constrained. For instance, if you'd prefer to work offline and upload a complete Act for others to comment on, by all means add it beneath the one we've started (there's a space provided under the "Alternative versions" heading).

It will be interesting to see how this project is received and what it produces.

via Boing Boing