53: Brad Pitt Gets to Contribute


  you are listening to hypercritical [TS]

  weekly talkshow ruminating on exactly [TS]

  what is wrong in the world of Apple and [TS]

  related technologies and businesses [TS]

  nothing is so perfect it can't be [TS]

  complained about by my co-host John [TS]

  siracusa I'm Dan benjamin today february [TS]

  3rd 2002 12 i showed this as being [TS]

  episode number 53 and we would like to [TS]

  say thank you very much to our two [TS]

  sponsors today [TS]

  MailChimp calm and fresh ebooks.com will [TS]

  tell you more about those as the program [TS]

  continues we also want to mention [TS]

  bandwidth for this episode is provided [TS]

  by Mac Mini colo low cost high [TS]

  performance the perfect Mac server we [TS]

  use these things and so can you check it [TS]

  out Mac Mini Colo net / 5x5 how are you [TS]

  doing John [TS]

  I'm doing fine man hmm [TS]

  what are you doing I'm trying to get [TS]

  everything organized here trying and [TS]

  failing okay cuz I got a lot of stuff [TS]

  here a lot of feedback yeah there was a [TS]

  lot of email alright well we're just [TS]

  gonna have to give it a go here all [TS]

  right I'm game if you are is gonna be a [TS]

  mess no old boy you're ready to help me [TS]

  save me from myself no I don't know if [TS]

  that's something one person alone can do [TS]

  maybe right I'll take a small army of [TS]

  people working together for several [TS]

  years special team yeah special teams as [TS]

  they say in NF oh yeah we'll talk about [TS]

  the NFL after dark we have time oh great [TS]

  it's a big game this weekend I know [TS]

  you're a football fan one day a year I'm [TS]

  barely yeah barely one day a year or [TS]

  barely a fan barely if and I'm mostly [TS]

  what trying to watch these those good [TS]

  commercials you can watch a lot of those [TS]

  ahead of time yeah now that kind of [TS]

  ruins it for me [TS]

  I like the one I was surprised you know [TS]

  yeah sure all right we better get going [TS]

  let's do it I mean the show already [TS]

  began this is the show that should be a [TS]

  name of some show you should make be [TS]

  called this is the show this is the show [TS]

  let me make a note of that a very good [TS]

  idea [TS]

  this is the show yeah because that's [TS]

  that not copyright attorney I don't know [TS]

  but that's that's the question and on [TS]

  this show on anything it's just a [TS]

  podcast are we doing it is this it and [TS]

  you say yeah this is it this is the show [TS]

  right for once you should just say no [TS]

  actually this instant the show this is [TS]

  something totally different [TS]

  hmm we haven't begun the show yet I'll [TS]

  tell you when we begin the show all [TS]

  right follow up so we have a little bit [TS]

  of follow up from the stuff about iBooks [TS]

  Author and education yeah actually we [TS]

  continue to have a lot of that but I'm [TS]

  only going to put a little bit of it in [TS]

  here I begun one of those podcasts I [TS]

  mentioned I think it was in my sort of [TS]

  Maslow's hierarchy of needs for [TS]

  education thing where I was talking [TS]

  about the [TS]

  important several things were above and [TS]

  beyond the materials and one of them was [TS]

  that the importance of good teachers and [TS]

  I think I referenced the idea that good [TS]

  teachers can have a profound impact on [TS]

  the lives of students which you agreed [TS]

  with but I didn't have any sort of link [TS]

  in the show notes for that but there was [TS]

  something ahead read about it and after [TS]

  the podcast someone sent it to me it's a [TS]

  New York Times article the title is big [TS]

  study links good teachers to lasting [TS]

  gain and it's a study that looked at 2.5 [TS]

  million students over 20 years so it's a [TS]

  pretty broad study and they showed that [TS]

  they had to find a way of qualifying [TS]

  like what counts as a good teacher so [TS]

  they just said elementary middle school [TS]

  teachers who help raise their student [TS]

  standardized test scores those are like [TS]

  the good teachers right and I said that [TS]

  those teachers had a lasting positive [TS]

  effect on those students lives they had [TS]

  them lower teen pregnancy they graduated [TS]

  college more often they made more money [TS]

  as adult stuff like that so they linked [TS]

  to it in the show notes and you can read [TS]

  all about another article I cited I [TS]

  think it was on a second iBooks Author [TS]

  show was that article from Mackay Thomas [TS]

  that we discuss high schools are step [TS]

  one of to reproduce was a stepping stone [TS]

  to getting into colleges and he [TS]

  presented a bunch of arguments then I [TS]

  talked about how that would be a similar [TS]

  approach to how Apple was getting it [TS]

  stuff into the enterprise by sort of [TS]

  going through the executive back door [TS]

  and getting the employees and executives [TS]

  to want it even not trying to convince [TS]

  the IT department directly of many many [TS]

  people sent feedback basically [TS]

  disagreeing with Mackay Thomas's blog [TS]

  post I didn't respond to most of those [TS]

  simply because I didn't feel it was my [TS]

  place to just defend Mackay Thomas's [TS]

  blog post and I think these people [TS]

  should have ridden him and complained [TS]

  about the blog post that he wrote but [TS]

  apparently he is very mistaken about [TS]

  according to the feedback I received [TS]

  very mistaken about how easy it is to [TS]

  get into high schools versus how easy it [TS]

  is to get into college I linked to one [TS]

  other one of the earlier articles about [TS]

  that from the ever-present Kieran Healy [TS]

  called no one cares about College [TS]

  Bookstore that points out that basically [TS]

  the college bookstore stocks whatever [TS]

  the professors tell it the stock and [TS]

  there's not sort of a cabal of college [TS]

  bookstores that have the power over the [TS]

  curriculum if a college professor says [TS]

  he want needs a particular book for a [TS]

  course then the bookstore gets it and [TS]

  the students buy it and the teacher has [TS]

  no idea what the profit margins are on [TS]

  that Booker who sells it or anything [TS]

  like that versus public schools where as [TS]

  I think I mentioned and as many people [TS]

  pointed out as if we didn't mention we [TS]

  didn't talk about this right like how [TS]

  getting books into public schools in the [TS]

  u.s. is this big bureaucracy full of [TS]

  crazy people and you know the Texas [TS]

  Board of Education is dictating textbook [TS]

  policy for the whole country cuz did the [TS]

  biggest state I could swear that we [TS]

  mentioned this but maybe I just had it [TS]

  as an assumption in my head you have any [TS]

  recollection I don't remember you man go [TS]

  and play bounce ads are back the tale I [TS]

  read it many people wrote us in to say [TS]

  you know judge you guys don't seem to [TS]

  understand the getting into public [TS]

  school is really hard and there's these [TS]

  big boards and everything right I at [TS]

  least definitely did understand that I [TS]

  think their complaint is that they think [TS]

  Mackay Thomas is not taking that into [TS]

  account if he thinks that getting into [TS]

  high schools is a good way to do it [TS]

  other people took exception to what I [TS]

  said specifically about how cares if you [TS]

  if you educate a generation of kids [TS]

  through high school and elementary [TS]

  school where they used to like books on [TS]

  their iPads that's not going to change [TS]

  how colleges act because kids the [TS]

  students have no influence over what [TS]

  textbooks are selected in colleges only [TS]

  professors do ah but just a little bit [TS]

  reductive I mean like yes they don't [TS]

  have any the students don't directly [TS]

  pick their textbooks but as I think I [TS]

  said on the show if all your incoming [TS]

  students have an expectation of things [TS]

  being on the iPad and you don't offer it [TS]

  that way then it's a competitive [TS]

  advantage to universities to not [TS]

  confound that expectations that you know [TS]

  the universities are competing for [TS]

  incoming freshmen they want the smart [TS]

  good freshmen you know what I mean or [TS]

  maybe just the ones with lots of money [TS]

  or whatever there's a competition for [TS]

  college students among colleges and [TS]

  colleges want to attract you to them all [TS]

  colleges and so if these two incoming [TS]

  students are used to books on their iPad [TS]

  or electronic books or whatever and you [TS]

  make them buy textbooks you're not going [TS]

  to look as cool to them as another [TS]

  school that does all that curriculum the [TS]

  way they've had it for their entire [TS]

  education so yes the students don't [TS]

  directly influence [TS]

  which books you you know how the the [TS]

  textbooks work in a college but the [TS]

  indirectly influence because they're [TS]

  basically the customer for this [TS]

  education in the college college [TS]

  colleges in the US are very competitive [TS]

  in attracting freshmen so in case that [TS]

  was an obvious that was the point that I [TS]

  was making are we talked about [TS]

  gamification education and immediately [TS]

  after the podcast I started getting some [TS]

  feedback on Twitter and email saying you [TS]

  kept saying game theory is that really [TS]

  what you went and I said that I say game [TS]

  theory once or twice there I'm gonna [TS]

  listen to the podcast I said game theory [TS]

  like 80 times so as many people pointed [TS]

  out correctly I'm not quite sure why I [TS]

  kept saying this game theory is [TS]

  different than using game design skills [TS]

  in in a different context gamification [TS]

  right game theory is a thing with [TS]

  mathematical models of conflict and [TS]

  cooperation and it's it's a it's like if [TS]

  you ever seen a beautiful mind [TS]

  that's what hit this was his big theory [TS]

  before he went nuts or maybe he was [TS]

  already debatably a little nuts but this [TS]

  is what his his whole thing was that had [TS]

  changed the way people think about this [TS]

  but that's not what you were that's not [TS]

  what you were referring to yeah that's a [TS]

  totally different thing and most people [TS]

  have no interaction with game theory and [TS]

  their regular lives except for the fact [TS]

  that they might have seen a beautiful [TS]

  mind and it gave that typical movie [TS]

  overview of the the you know what it's [TS]

  all about the are you implying that the [TS]

  way things are represented in movies is [TS]

  not completely accurate especially where [TS]

  science and math is concerned I think it [TS]

  was accurate enough to give you an idea [TS]

  of what game theory is not accurate [TS]

  enough to give you an idea of what this [TS]

  guy's particular idea was or why it was [TS]

  revolutionary or whatever uh but yes [TS]

  that's not what I was talking about but [TS]

  I kept saying game theory is is because [TS]

  I don't have a good word for like you [TS]

  know other than using the word [TS]

  gamification again I kept saying like [TS]

  using game theory to help make learning [TS]

  better blah blah blah you're not using [TS]

  games you're not using the ability to [TS]

  calculate to end to analyze the [TS]

  circumstances of game and calculate [TS]

  possible outcomes and you know it's not [TS]

  that it's not game theory very clearly [TS]

  so all the people sent in that [TS]

  correction about game theory they're [TS]

  right I should have used the word [TS]

  gamification or talked about using game [TS]

  design techniques in education [TS]

  or other applied game design suggestion [TS]

  from it from the chat room that's better [TS]

  applied game design is better than game [TS]

  theory so I apologize for incorrectly [TS]

  using game theory many times if you want [TS]

  to learn about what actual game theory [TS]

  is a spoiler alert it's math and if you [TS]

  don't like math you probably won't like [TS]

  game theory but you might like [TS]

  gamification don't you mean maths Carl [TS]

  mm-hmm yeah [TS]

  was that a sling sling played thing just [TS]

  yeah hey you know I've been a long [TS]

  before that movie came out I've never [TS]

  seen that movie but I have seen them any [TS]

  clips that involve that type of thing [TS]

  mmm so one final piece before we get to [TS]

  the inevitable heavyweight follow-up [TS]

  okay so the other thing I wanted to talk [TS]

  about was I listened to Marcos last [TS]

  episode of build analyze I was number [TS]

  sixty-two frustrated by the invisible [TS]

  person where he yes extensively about [TS]

  the nest thermostat right I like to [TS]

  podcast I should I linked to the nest [TS]

  thermostat to suggest nest comm there [TS]

  and they're not a sponsor and maybe [TS]

  we'll never be after listening to that [TS]

  yeah and I pretty much agree with [TS]

  everything he said there but have you [TS]

  used one you have one well I think I [TS]

  skipped all the part where he that he [TS]

  retold about buying the thing and trying [TS]

  to hook it up and finding out that it's [TS]

  not what he wants I skip right to the [TS]

  end part where when when I saw the nest [TS]

  thermostat I went to the website watched [TS]

  a little video and I understood what [TS]

  they were trying to do and quickly [TS]

  surmise that it's not for me right so I [TS]

  skipped that middle part where you get [TS]

  all frustrated and buy them and hook [TS]

  them up here I also I also skip that far [TS]

  yeah um but what I wanted to do is just [TS]

  summarize the the issue here is when I [TS]

  looked at the nest thermostat I saw that [TS]

  what what they were doing what this [TS]

  product was doing was you know they saw [TS]

  the problem that thermostats [TS]

  programmable thermostats exist but the [TS]

  hard to program right and rather than [TS]

  making a thermostat that was easy to [TS]

  program you know somebody has to hard to [TS]

  program I'm going to make a start-up I'm [TS]

  going to make it so much that's it [TS]

  really easy to program their solution [TS]

  was to bypass that and so let's think [TS]

  outside the box how about a thermistor [TS]

  that you don't have to program there's [TS]

  no program like that's that's what they [TS]

  were trying to do like not make your VCR [TS]

  easier to program like to use the old [TS]

  example of you know people bought VCRs [TS]

  right with that twelve always flashing [TS]

  on the screen yeah and how many people [TS]

  even knew how to set it to record [TS]

  something right and the solution you [TS]

  know the next solution to that is well [TS]

  how about we make a seed you know you [TS]

  don't have to program it at all there's [TS]

  no programming like and what people [TS]

  consider to be programming you know [TS]

  people know how to turn the dial to make [TS]

  the temperature the temperature they [TS]

  want it to be right they know how to [TS]

  turn it one direction when they're cold [TS]

  in the other direction when they're hot [TS]

  and we want that to be the only skill is [TS]

  required of the users of our product but [TS]

  we also wanted to have the typical [TS]

  advantages of a programmable thermostat [TS]

  and that you save energy by not putting [TS]

  the heat on when you're on the house and [TS]

  stuff like that so I think that's a [TS]

  pretty interesting or good idea is [TS]

  interesting and they're not trying to [TS]

  improve program ability about like home [TS]

  making a cool web interface to for [TS]

  programmability but you could slide [TS]

  these sliders around look at these [TS]

  graphs that would be one way to go and I [TS]

  bet there are products like that out [TS]

  there they said we are going to assume [TS]

  that the current level of thermostat [TS]

  using skill a general population is [TS]

  unchangeable pretty much and that all we [TS]

  can rely on is the fact that they know [TS]

  how to turn the dial to make themselves [TS]

  feel better and we're going to use that [TS]

  input to try to surmise what it is they [TS]

  would really like if they actually knew [TS]

  how to program a thing but they don't [TS]

  and the key to understanding why this [TS]

  product may not be for you is ask [TS]

  yourself the question do I know how to [TS]

  program my thermostat and the second [TS]

  question have I programmed my thermostat [TS]

  if the answer to both those questions is [TS]

  yes you probably don't need nest and not [TS]

  only do you not need it but you'll be [TS]

  angered and from that you may become [TS]

  furious at it yeah because like the [TS]

  problem it's solving you don't have now [TS]

  there's this other problem which is [TS]

  probably why mark or bother your other [TS]

  problem is my thermostat is ugly but [TS]

  that's a very different problem you know [TS]

  what I mean this thermostat is not ugly [TS]

  it's cool-looking you like how it looks [TS]

  he bought it and he solved the problem [TS]

  of I have an ugly thermostat or the [TS]

  potential thermostats and I buy are ugly [TS]

  but the main problem this is trying to [TS]

  solve is the one where you can't program [TS]

  your thermostat or you [TS]

  don't program your thermostat so I think [TS]

  that's that's kind of ships passing in [TS]

  the night maybe maybe the next people [TS]

  have like an untapped market of like [TS]

  seven uber nerds who are willing to [TS]

  spend lots of money for a really [TS]

  cool-looking thermostat that is [TS]

  nevertheless just a boring traditional [TS]

  programmable thermostat so they could [TS]

  sell that tomorrow in a second perhaps [TS]

  they should consider that [TS]

  yes The Learning Thermostat and also [TS]

  nest the non alarming but still [TS]

  cool-looking thermostat it's a mouthful [TS]

  for slogan all right his well one thing [TS]

  one thing I want to add and I'm not [TS]

  speaking for Marco here I'm just saying [TS]

  that his at the end of it what what he [TS]

  was kind of saying was he really does [TS]

  like the things that you identified that [TS]

  as being nice which is it's very [TS]

  attractive it it looks really cool [TS]

  there's tons of benefits of like he can [TS]

  update it from his iPhone or whatever [TS]

  and say oh man we're on vacation we [TS]

  forgot to change the thermostat you can [TS]

  change it remotely all this great stuff [TS]

  that it does he wishes that they just [TS]

  had everything that it had except the [TS]

  part where it tries to learn and figure [TS]

  out what you want to do and it just for [TS]

  the flagship feature right the flagship [TS]

  II and and and yeah that's funny but [TS]

  there really isn't a good way to [TS]

  override the flagship feature because [TS]

  that's what it but I think and I think [TS]

  this is I've thought about a lot since [TS]

  he and I recorded that it seems to me [TS]

  that yes that is the flagship feature [TS]

  but maybe it shouldn't be because I [TS]

  would love to get these things for my [TS]

  house but same as you I I don't want it [TS]

  to learn about my habits you know how to [TS]

  perm I know I know how to tell it what [TS]

  and and in fact I'd be fine just when I [TS]

  want a little cooler just turn the dial [TS]

  make it cooler that's enough for me um [TS]

  but of course it doesn't it doesn't do [TS]

  that I don't I don't know if they'll [TS]

  ever come out with anything but what he [TS]

  did basically say is that he likes it he [TS]

  just doesn't he just doesn't feel that [TS]

  it's ready to go yet completely it's not [TS]

  exactly you know there's still some bugs [TS]

  even in doing what it is doing but if [TS]

  they were to come out with an update [TS]

  that that made it you could just say [TS]

  don't be so smart be dumb that it would [TS]

  be an amazing [TS]

  product you know the kids call that [TS]

  these days know the pivot the piston up [TS]

  redo the pivot I realize the thing you [TS]

  were making all right you learnt you [TS]

  know learning thermostats turns out [TS]

  that's not such a great idea because [TS]

  really the world is cut into two camps [TS]

  people who want to be able to program it [TS]

  and people who don't care about that and [TS]

  so if we just simply made for examples [TS]

  do the pivot and say we're going to make [TS]

  the same kind of cool thermostat with [TS]

  all these cool features but instead of [TS]

  trying to take away programming we're [TS]

  going to change our tack and concentrate [TS]

  on making programming it so easy that [TS]

  anybody can do it but we won't we're not [TS]

  going to limit them beside and all they [TS]

  know how to do is turn the temperature [TS]

  to the temperature they want like a [TS]

  monkey and we'll try to figure out what [TS]

  the heck ya meant by that like when they [TS]

  come in the room at 6:25 a.m. and turn [TS]

  the temperature up to you know 68 [TS]

  degrees [TS]

  we will surmise aha it appears that they [TS]

  want the temperature to be you know and [TS]

  this is assuming so ministers working [TS]

  appears they want the temperature to be [TS]

  68 degrees it's 625 well in order to do [TS]

  that I've determined that I have to turn [TS]

  the heat on that you know five forty [TS]

  eight to get it up to that you know like [TS]

  it's trying to be smart and failing and [TS]

  as you discussed it like that's that's [TS]

  frustrating so they can do the pivot and [TS]

  say we we've learned this is not such a [TS]

  great idea we're going to you know don't [TS]

  be too ashamed to say don't stick to [TS]

  your guns and say oh well our whole idea [TS]

  is to take away programming entirely if [TS]

  that doesn't work out just say okay now [TS]

  our new idea is to make a really [TS]

  cool-looking thermostat with lots of [TS]

  cool features that's easy enough to [TS]

  progress easier to program than those [TS]

  annoying ones it's a little you know LCD [TS]

  display is that right and you know what [TS]

  and I think I think most human beings [TS]

  are used to the concept of saying at [TS]

  this time of day [TS]

  you know because most of us who own [TS]

  homes have I don't know about up there [TS]

  where you are but a lot of us have [TS]

  irrigation systems so we're very used to [TS]

  the concept of saying on this day at [TS]

  this time do this and that's pretty [TS]

  straightforward and it's the same way we [TS]

  program our TiVo's our VCRs and yeah [TS]

  they're connected to a show but you know [TS]

  it's not that weird to go and program a [TS]

  light timer to say yeah at 7:00 p.m. [TS]

  turn on 10:00 p.m. turn off and I think [TS]

  if this if this device if this nest just [TS]

  made it easier and more elegant to do [TS]

  that [TS]

  thing to make it a simple way to say [TS]

  yeah now when I want to change the time [TS]

  that it comes on at this temperature I [TS]

  just twist a dial I don't have to hit 20 [TS]

  different buttons and switch different [TS]

  mode like just make it better make the [TS]

  experience of doing what we're already [TS]

  doing better instead of kind of taking [TS]

  away the control that we have yeah and I [TS]

  think it remains to be seen whether [TS]

  whether they need to pivot because just [TS]

  because people like mark or a subset by [TS]

  it doesn't mean that it won't still find [TS]

  its audience so we'll see but now I have [TS]

  to get to Wikipedia which is our big [TS]

  follow up yeah big follow up big follow [TS]

  lots of lots of feedback whoo at the [TS]

  beginning like my normal feedback thing [TS]

  I do is free emails that I get I have a [TS]

  label in Gmail and and I star the ones [TS]

  that I think I'm going to want to follow [TS]

  up on directly but the number of stars [TS]

  quickly got to the point where I says [TS]

  you know it's the The Princess Bride [TS]

  thing you know I know there is too much [TS]

  let me sum up I can't go through [TS]

  individual emails and address the [TS]

  individual points because it would take [TS]

  17 shows so I'm going to try to group [TS]

  the feed back into themes and then I'm [TS]

  going to use one particular piece of [TS]

  feedback as kind of a stand-in from any [TS]

  other so if you wrote in with feedback [TS]

  rest assured that I read every single [TS]

  piece of feedback that comes either [TS]

  directly to me or through that form just [TS]

  because we don't cite you directly or by [TS]

  name on the air doesn't mean we didn't [TS]

  read you and just because I don't reply [TS]

  to you doesn't mean I didn't read it and [TS]

  absorb it but there's a certain point [TS]

  you just you know you can't so don't [TS]

  feel like I'm ignoring your point even [TS]

  if we do skip over because I may get to [TS]

  it in a future show but I have to lump [TS]

  this together so the first theme for the [TS]

  feedback which is a boring one but it's [TS]

  it was there was people sharing similar [TS]

  stories about their encounters with [TS]

  Wikipedia and these are probably the [TS]

  same people who are tweeting listening [TS]

  to the show and saying you know positive [TS]

  things like right on or you know that's [TS]

  exactly what I think about capito so [TS]

  that they're sharing stories where [TS]

  they'll say I you know jumped onto [TS]

  Wikipedia and I tried to do something [TS]

  and I was repelled by the similar things [TS]

  and they like of course hearing someone [TS]

  else echo their same experiences in a [TS]

  wider venue so the person whose feedback [TS]

  I'm going to use as sort of a guy [TS]

  through this section here I wish I had [TS]

  looked at peda pronounce his name hmm [TS]

  it's William Beutler bu T lar and I'm [TS]

  citing his article in the both the [TS]

  section and the other sections where we [TS]

  talk about more negative things and so [TS]

  one of the things that he wrote quote he [TS]

  wrote a blog post about this is why I'm [TS]

  putting it up is because his his [TS]

  feedback was public and so I can put it [TS]

  in the show notes and everybody can read [TS]

  it rather than me trying to retell the [TS]

  emails that people sent us individually [TS]

  so he agrees on this this positive [TS]

  feedback thing he says and by the way [TS]

  his website is called like the Wikipedia [TS]

  now or something like that [TS]

  the Wikipedian comments me this shows [TS]

  how unprepared I am a demon have the [TS]

  shownotes open you're doing a good job [TS]

  though the Wikipedian so clearly he's [TS]

  coming from you know perspective he's [TS]

  coming from perfectly right William [TS]

  Bueller on on Wikipedia he has some [TS]

  vague familiarity with Wiccan right and [TS]

  early on the article he says many people [TS]

  try to get involved Wikipedia who have [TS]

  no idea what it's really about and they [TS]

  tend to have really a really bad [TS]

  experience Wikipedia struggles to [TS]

  explain itself to outsiders and probably [TS]

  always will so I think the universal [TS]

  consensus on the shared experience of [TS]

  trying to participate in Wikipedia and [TS]

  bouncing off of it and by far that was [TS]

  the the theme behind the vast majority [TS]

  of the positive feedback whether it's [TS]

  you know direct emails or Twitter things [TS]

  or people you know just saying nice [TS]

  things about the podcast that they were [TS]

  hearing me tell a story that was similar [TS]

  to their experience and I think a lot of [TS]

  the positive feedback also comes from [TS]

  the fact that in in forums that are not [TS]

  specifically about Wikipedia like this [TS]

  podcast it's not specifically about [TS]

  Wikipedia you rarely hear people saying [TS]

  anything but good things about Wikipedia [TS]

  including you know I can hear my link to [TS]

  Wikipedia like crazy in the show notes [TS]

  and I as I think I said in the show I [TS]

  love that it exists and it's often the [TS]

  only place you can find any kind of link [TS]

  like that and we relied on all the time [TS]

  you very rarely hear negative things [TS]

  about Wikipedia outside of sort of the [TS]

  wiki the circle of Wikipedia so I think [TS]

  all these people who weren't involved [TS]

  with Wikipedia but it just tried to [TS]

  participate in and it bounced off [TS]

  finally felt like some vindication that [TS]

  is all it's not just me I'm not the [TS]

  crazy one that everyone says Wikipedia [TS]

  is great but I have this bad experience [TS]

  and a Wikipedia in here also saying the [TS]

  same thing yes this is a real phenomenon [TS]

  it happens now I want to add that and [TS]

  this is not something that William added [TS]

  I'm gonna keep calling William doesn't [TS]

  want to keep trying to pronounce his [TS]

  last name that he didn't say this but [TS]

  I'm going to say it that's not [TS]

  necessarily a bad thing the fact that [TS]

  people try to participate in Wikipedia [TS]

  and and don't have don't understand it [TS]

  and have a bad experience and then [TS]

  decide not to do it you know you [TS]

  Wikipedia I assume or any institution [TS]

  wants people to get involved in it who [TS]

  are on board with his mission you know I [TS]

  mean so if you think you know if you get [TS]

  involved with it and find out but this [TS]

  is really why I want well you know like [TS]

  they want the people who are gung-ho on [TS]

  Wikipedia and learn about and say yeah [TS]

  that's exactly what I get want to get [TS]

  involved in and you don't need every [TS]

  single person in the entire world to [TS]

  participate in Wikipedia you just want [TS]

  the best people you know what I mean [TS]

  so I'm not saying this as if it's some [TS]

  sort of negative and it shows see how [TS]

  bad Wikipedia is people try to [TS]

  participate in and then they they run [TS]

  away screaming [TS]

  ah that may be a neutral thing but it is [TS]

  it is a phenomenon and that was one part [TS]

  of what was expressed on our last [TS]

  episode when I discuss Wikipedia um the [TS]

  other thing is that the Wikipedia of [TS]

  course expects newbies to comment people [TS]

  who don't understand anything about [TS]

  Wikipedia and they and they do want to [TS]

  indoctrinate new people and say you keep [TS]

  keep you know fresh blood in the project [TS]

  you want to get people up to speed and [TS]

  stuff like that and I think Chadwick [TS]

  Severn was the first person to point [TS]

  this up that we just got scam [TS]

  application education Wikipedia uses a [TS]

  similar form of gamification in its [TS]

  structure so there are there levels to [TS]

  Wikipedia where you come in you start [TS]

  out as an editor and then later you [TS]

  become an administrator and then you [TS]

  become a bureaucrat and then an [TS]

  arbitrator that's their sort of loveling [TS]

  system right and apparently there's [TS]

  something that's very similar to badges [TS]

  or like achievements on people's user [TS]

  profiles something that I don't I don't [TS]

  know what those orbs I didn't have time [TS]

  to look it up but Jack wick also points [TS]

  out in it's his estimation that [TS]

  Wikipedia has a virtual currency as well [TS]

  and that's the number of edits you have [TS]

  I'm not involved enough in the system to [TS]

  know if that's an act [TS]

  representation of would you consider [TS]

  that the virtual currency that [TS]

  definitely you can tell that the [TS]

  Wikipedia and most sort of like groups [TS]

  or online systems [TS]

  do employ gamification in some way to [TS]

  help make participation more attractive [TS]

  so I think Wikipedia does want new [TS]

  people to come in and does want them to [TS]

  get enthused for about the project and [TS]

  level up and go through it and there is [TS]

  a learning process but it's also true [TS]

  that many people you know are repelled [TS]

  that Wikipedia rather than attracted [TS]

  when they attempt to participate and I [TS]

  think there's so many of these similar [TS]

  stories because of something that I also [TS]

  talked about in last show is that [TS]

  there's a mismatch between what [TS]

  Wikipedia is and what people think it is [TS]

  that was kind of one of the main reasons [TS]

  I brought up the talk topic at all [TS]

  because I impression was that my [TS]

  experience where I didn't understand it [TS]

  as similar to other peoples it's not [TS]

  it's not so much that they decide not to [TS]

  participate because they know what [TS]

  Kapiti is not for them they think it's [TS]

  for them that's it they think they know [TS]

  what Wikipedia is and I said yeah what [TS]

  could be use that thing where everyone [TS]

  writes down stuff and and I have [TS]

  stuffing to contribute that let me try [TS]

  it and then when they learn what it [TS]

  actually is they're you know it's two [TS]

  things at once it's the fact that they [TS]

  don't like what it is and the fact that [TS]

  it what it is is not what they thought [TS]

  it was and those two combine very [TS]

  quickly to make you know as a repulsive [TS]

  force to make you go away oh you know [TS]

  wait wait a second this isn't this is [TS]

  what I thought I was signing up for you [TS]

  know again william saying that syracuse [TS]

  are correctly observes wikipedia is not [TS]

  a place where you can write the write [TS]

  down stuff that you know what capilla [TS]

  writes about other people writing about [TS]

  things and i really do feel that that's [TS]

  not what most people think Wikipedia is [TS]

  that's why I start Alessio asking a [TS]

  Wikipedia was that it just ripped this I [TS]

  mean maybe if you were to present it to [TS]

  them in the right way they would agree [TS]

  with it but if you just ask them to come [TS]

  what do you think Wikipedia is they [TS]

  think of it as a place where people [TS]

  smart people go to write stuff that they [TS]

  know or people with knowledge put their [TS]

  knowledge but that's not what it is [TS]

  right and that that big mismatch is what [TS]

  I think forms this whole repulsive [TS]

  problem and that gets to mostly the [TS]

  heart of my complaint [TS]

  and I think we sort of came to it and a [TS]

  roundabout way in the last show but my [TS]

  complaint is that Wikipedia is a [TS]

  tertiary source I mean it's not you know [TS]

  and that I would like to allow the [TS]

  direct contribution of knowledge in [TS]

  other words I want I would rather it be [TS]

  the thing that everyone thinks it is and [TS]

  so the question is why why do you why do [TS]

  I not why do I want it to be that thing [TS]

  that everyone thinks is well one reason [TS]

  obviously is that I think it you know [TS]

  there would be more participation [TS]

  because this is what most people think [TS]

  it is and when they're shocked to find [TS]

  out the difference that is something [TS]

  different than they don't they're not [TS]

  interested in contributing or they have [TS]

  a bad experience or it frustrates them [TS]

  and that limits the number of people can [TS]

  contribute again that may not [TS]

  necessarily be a bad thing it depends on [TS]

  how many people you want to contribute [TS]

  but I like the idea of more people to [TS]

  contributing so why why do I want it to [TS]

  be something different the reason for [TS]

  that is tied up in lots of different [TS]

  aspects of the problem that's why it's [TS]

  hard to talk about in a clearer way and [TS]

  we went off on many different tangents [TS]

  last show but sort of broadly speaking [TS]

  my the reason I wanted to be different [TS]

  is that people who want to contribute to [TS]

  its knowledge to Wikipedia are thwarted [TS]

  in the currently and they're thwarted by [TS]

  several different things they're sorted [TS]

  by first expecting to be able to write [TS]

  down what they know like the [TS]

  misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is [TS]

  not understanding as a tertiary source [TS]

  not understanding this is where you [TS]

  really record knowledge that you have [TS]

  they're sorted by the notability thing [TS]

  which we touched on the last show but I [TS]

  think maybe I deserve more emphasis but [TS]

  there's a topic where a whole bunch of [TS]

  people want to make some sort of public [TS]

  record of and they are upset to learn [TS]

  that the fact that a whole bunch of [TS]

  people want to make a public record of [TS]

  this is not sufficient for it to be [TS]

  deemed important enough to be included [TS]

  in Wikipedia so notability in the [TS]

  deletion is type thing and then finally [TS]

  there's the rules lawyer ring by people [TS]

  with opposing views like if you're [TS]

  talking about some issue that has you [TS]

  know opposing views on one side of the [TS]

  other even if you're not doing advocacy [TS]

  at all the fact that you're just trying [TS]

  to if the issue is like has it [TS]

  inherently has some sort of advocacy in [TS]

  it or is contentious in any way if the [TS]

  people who are on the opposite side of [TS]

  the [TS]

  the debate from you know the system [TS]

  better than you do they can use the [TS]

  things that we they can use those things [TS]

  that both the things we just talked [TS]

  about that the fact that its tertiary [TS]

  source and the notability requires that [TS]

  anything else they can use that to [TS]

  prevent you from contributing your [TS]

  knowledge and these are the things that [TS]

  I don't like about that then I want [TS]

  someplace where everybody can put all [TS]

  their knowledge and it's more inclusive [TS]

  more and more able to accept the input [TS]

  from people who want to provide it and [TS]

  less sort of less elitist and less less [TS]

  constrained so that was the heart of [TS]

  what I was talking about the heart of [TS]

  most listener complaints from both [TS]

  Wikipedians on now non Wikipedians was [TS]

  how can that possibly work how can [TS]

  that's said swell and all you identified [TS]

  instances where people are frustrated [TS]

  with Wikipedia and you say you wish it [TS]

  was this different thing but how can [TS]

  that different thing possibly work you [TS]

  know and I think the well before I get [TS]

  into the specifics look implies that [TS]

  that's that's kind of the shape of of [TS]

  the the feedback I think was that was [TS]

  the the main thing that I was saying and [TS]

  then there are many different ways to [TS]

  express the idea that the things that I [TS]

  wanted uh sound good in theory but in [TS]

  practice are not feasible and therefore [TS]

  like it's kind of like saying well many [TS]

  people actually some people use this [TS]

  exactly example well democracy is the [TS]

  worst system of government except for [TS]

  all the other ones like that yeah it's [TS]

  got lots of problems and it's bad and [TS]

  it's very easy to point out the problems [TS]

  but what can you do it's the best thing [TS]

  that we have and that gets all tied up [TS]

  into the into my where's your better [TS]

  movie thing where I like to be able to [TS]

  complain about something without being [TS]

  told that I have to have the solution to [TS]

  it but in this case I don't think that's [TS]

  the same that applies 100% because the [TS]

  heart of my complaint is that I think it [TS]

  could be better if done differently so I [TS]

  think there is some requirement to at [TS]

  least Express [TS]

  well why do things are bad and what the [TS]

  possible alternatives could be [TS]

  especially with something as successful [TS]

  as Wikipedia and many people want to [TS]

  know about that I we will get to it that [TS]

  eventually but a lot of people got tied [TS]

  up in knots in their feedback assuming [TS]

  that what I'm suggesting by implication [TS]

  if not explicitly is taking Wikipedia [TS]

  and changing its rules and so if you [TS]

  take the existing Wikipedia and remove [TS]

  for example verifiability and allowing [TS]

  direct contribution allowing original [TS]

  research it's very easy to see that that [TS]

  would be a mess and that's what I need [TS]

  you will point out so you can't you know [TS]

  that that that wouldn't work right and [TS]

  it's kind of the case with the existence [TS]

  of a successful entity in this space the [TS]

  existence of Wikipedia as this big thing [TS]

  and this institution pins in the [TS]

  thinking about this entire issue it's [TS]

  kind of like when the iPhone comes out [TS]

  and if the entire thing is made of a [TS]

  screen suddenly that sort of draws the [TS]

  borders of what the future of phones is [TS]

  and everybody else starts thinking about [TS]

  all right well obviously we're going to [TS]

  have a big rectangular thing with the [TS]

  screen and then in the only place we can [TS]

  make different decisions is what's on [TS]

  that screen how many buttons do we have [TS]

  you know what I mean [TS]

  whereas before the iPhone phones look [TS]

  like all sorts of crazy things so the [TS]

  success of the iPhone has sort of hemmed [TS]

  in the thinking of all the other phone [TS]

  makers for good or for ill it's you know [TS]

  it's a fact and they are working within [TS]

  that framework now I think wikipedia [TS]

  defines the framework for a [TS]

  collaborative collection of knowledge [TS]

  and so anytime anyone wants to think [TS]

  about that issue at all like for example [TS]

  I was saying you should allow direct [TS]

  contributions and these people shouldn't [TS]

  be kept from from doing what they're [TS]

  doing instead well you know and [TS]

  verifiability over truth and stuff like [TS]

  that said well they immediately think of [TS]

  Wikipedia and they remove the [TS]

  requirement for verifiability [TS]

  and then they extrapolate and they see [TS]

  that doesn't work it's chaos it's you [TS]

  know it becomes a fortune for it isn't [TS]

  it no it's not it's not it's not useful [TS]

  anymore [TS]

  all right so now finally I'm going to [TS]

  walk through [TS]

  this article by Willing Beutler on his a [TS]

  blog the Wikipedian all right before [TS]

  before you walk through let's do our [TS]

  first sponsor have been talking for 30 [TS]

  minutes and we've got to get him in [TS]

  because it's a cool sponsor you'll prove [TS]

  it the sponsor I wish you would in fact [TS]

  I wish you would use this sponsor [TS]

  personally you John sir I wish you would [TS]

  use it it's fresh books fresh books calm [TS]

  painless billing now they came up with [TS]

  that sounds like something I would say [TS]

  they did that on their own so this is [TS]

  this is what they're about there it's [TS]

  the fastest way to track time organize [TS]

  expenses invoice your clients I let you [TS]

  focus on your work not your paperwork [TS]

  you know so when you invoice somebody [TS]

  what do you do right now you fire up [TS]

  pages you fire board you type it into an [TS]

  email and then you immediately lose [TS]

  track of that what happened it did I [TS]

  send it that were they able to open it I [TS]

  don't know they say they never got it [TS]

  did they did they get and just not pay [TS]

  this happens all the time [TS]

  if FreshBooks eliminates that you create [TS]

  it they handle sending it they send out [TS]

  a special private URL to the person you [TS]

  see in their list did they read it yes [TS]

  they did they received it you can see [TS]

  that it was sent you can see that it was [TS]

  received you can see that they viewed it [TS]

  if they pay you with paypal or something [TS]

  like that and this supports all kinds of [TS]

  payment gateways then it'll show is paid [TS]

  right there you know that they've paid [TS]

  it if not they send you a check you just [TS]

  go in click the box that it's marked as [TS]

  paid it's great but they do a lot more [TS]

  than that they do a whole lot more than [TS]

  than just that I mean they've got it [TS]

  aside from the online payments they have [TS]

  all the built-in follow-up stuff the [TS]

  professional invoicing they let you pull [TS]

  your time and expenses into your [TS]

  invoices and break it all out it's got [TS]

  time tracking you can invoice in [TS]

  different currencies I mean it tuns us [TS]

  that they even have a thing where you [TS]

  can print out the invoice and mail it if [TS]

  these people you're dealing with people [TS]

  who don't know what email is they've [TS]

  thought of everything real human beings [TS]

  answer the phone when you call or send [TS]

  an email these guys are great new thing [TS]

  that they have going now which is this [TS]

  one take an extra second to type out [TS]

  because this is really cool it used to [TS]

  be you'd sign up and you just basically [TS]

  just be you you could be you and three [TS]

  clients and you could use it like that [TS]

  you can still do that they've still got [TS]

  that free plant thing tucked away but [TS]

  this [TS]

  is what they have now for the first 30 [TS]

  days okay you can have unlimited team [TS]

  members staff members using it tracking [TS]

  time sending invoices for you everything [TS]

  unlimited unlimited clients now that [TS]

  ends after 30 days they scale you back [TS]

  down but that you get to really use this [TS]

  the way you would really use it in the [TS]

  enterprise I love these guys [TS]

  longtime sponsor of us if you if you do [TS]

  anything with time tracking or sending [TS]

  invoices you need to check out [TS]

  freshbooks comm thanks very much to them [TS]

  for making this show possible I want you [TS]

  to start using to Cheung music because a [TS]

  beautiful handmade invoices I do like [TS]

  that your personal signatures is on them [TS]

  that's a very nice touch that's [TS]

  something I believe you could probably [TS]

  do with this too but no because if you [TS]

  invoice me with fresh books I get it [TS]

  right in my own system and I can pay it [TS]

  right through the system anyway just an [TS]

  idea I'm just planning for it you just [TS]

  planting a seed okay alright let's walk [TS]

  through then yeah so this article the [TS]

  title of this article is verifiability [TS]

  and truth what john siracusa doesn't get [TS]

  about Wikipedia so very provocative [TS]

  title then it makes you want to at least [TS]

  makes you want to read it yeah I like [TS]

  the site design to it it's very very [TS]

  clean I like the the font choices and [TS]

  everything alright so here's a here's a [TS]

  section from this it's a very long [TS]

  article and it has lots of stuff in it [TS]

  some stuff hi gruesome stuff I don't [TS]

  we'll go through some of it here he's [TS]

  and in case you didn't guess I'm using [TS]

  him as a stand-in for all the negative [TS]

  feedback [TS]

  I guess it's mostly what his point is as [TS]

  the title suggests so he's talking about [TS]

  what I said on the podcast by privilege [TS]

  Nkrumah verifiability both of these are [TS]

  in quotes one gets the impression that [TS]

  he is describing a Rashomon like [TS]

  wikipedia where all possible viewpoints [TS]

  are explored and somehow eventually [TS]

  Wikipedia just makes the right call this [TS]

  assumes a lot not not least that [TS]

  contentious topics would sit wouldn't [TS]

  simply devolve into edit wars of [TS]

  unchecked aggression in a world where [TS]

  Wikipedia aims for truth but issues Vera [TS]

  verifiability there are no footholds [TS]

  upon which a study to study an argument [TS]

  there is no way to know what should be [TS]

  considered credible or otherwise so that [TS]

  I think is a nice summary of listener [TS]

  feedback about my idea of not having [TS]

  Wikipedia be of tertiary so it's now [TS]

  first I want to point out [TS]

  that the framing is still there right a [TS]

  Rashomon like Wikipedia where all [TS]

  viewpoints are explored so it's a it's a [TS]

  descriptive modifier wikipedia you know [TS]

  somehow eventually Wikipedia would just [TS]

  make the right call it's it's the [TS]

  assumption that you have Wikipedia but [TS]

  it's modified all right and we'll get [TS]

  we'll get to that more later but I want [TS]

  to see that that's inherent in the [TS]

  discussion of this topics that we're [TS]

  assuming that we're talking about the [TS]

  institution of Wikipedia and what we're [TS]

  talking about or modifications to and [TS]

  here's why they won't work you know and [TS]

  it's obviously in a world where [TS]

  Wikipedia a mess for truth which is what [TS]

  I was talking about I thought truth [TS]

  should be the number one but but issues [TS]

  is it eschews es I like yeah I'm good [TS]

  let's go with that I love it yeah I [TS]

  don't not upon sittin you know it works [TS]

  but no it's that that you're doing it [TS]

  right but issues verifiability there are [TS]

  no footholds upon a wish to study an [TS]

  argument which i think is nicely written [TS]

  so that here's one thing that apparently [TS]

  I didn't make clear I didn't mean [TS]

  suggest that citations should not exist [TS]

  and uh what all I wanted was that truth [TS]

  be the ultimate goal no this obviously [TS]

  is a loaded question I kept circling [TS]

  back to it and waffling to say well you [TS]

  know so then what is truth truth is a [TS]

  loaded word what's how can you even [TS]

  discuss this issue I didn't just didn't [TS]

  like the fact that the the goal was [TS]

  truth not verifiability but it didn't [TS]

  say and by the way you're not even [TS]

  allowed to cite sources [TS]

  there's no citations lab no verification [TS]

  allowed right of course in in the [TS]

  scenario that I'm imagining citations [TS]

  would still exist and be encouraged but [TS]

  there would simply be other ways to [TS]

  contribute in other words it wouldn't [TS]

  strictly be a tertiary source and that [TS]

  opens the door to other ways to [TS]

  contribute besides citing something that [TS]

  was written in a reliable source so and [TS]

  so forth doesn't mean you can't use [TS]

  citations doesn't mean you can't be do [TS]

  things that would be valid in Wikipedia [TS]

  you know and in fact I imagine that [TS]

  would still be the majority of content [TS]

  the feedback on Prince EA is SQ like [TS]

  letter s and the word qu so I was close [TS]

  I just have trouble saying that word all [TS]

  right now this gets into a sidetrack [TS]

  that that I want to talk about [TS]

  verifiability first I think that's [TS]

  that's a loaded word all right so here's [TS]

  the section [TS]

  the Williams blogpost Niner [TS]

  he was discussing the fact that I had [TS]

  said that Wikipedia seemed to be prefer [TS]

  paper sources and old-world things and [TS]

  the rules of sort of the bygone era that [TS]

  defined you know the very fact that they [TS]

  want to be tertiary source because [TS]

  that's what encyclopedias are and the [TS]

  fact encyclopedias were important they [TS]

  think they're the new encyclopedias [TS]

  their adopt they use as a springboard [TS]

  the starting point of like well what is [TS]

  an encyclopedia working to be a new [TS]

  version of that right but specifically I [TS]

  talked about a preferring paper [TS]

  magazines to online even went online [TS]

  gets more traffic and all that stuff [TS]

  like that so he says he hopes that that [TS]

  I don't that helps it John Syracuse [TS]

  doesn't actually think that Wikipedia [TS]

  editors prefer paper if anything they [TS]

  actually prefer online sources which are [TS]

  easier to check but he completely misses [TS]

  a key dynamic but ties back to [TS]

  verifiability the paper magazine with [TS]

  poor circulation at least will have [TS]

  editors who are presumed to care about [TS]

  fact-checking and accuracy a web forum [TS]

  however popular may be it may have [TS]

  moderators that's not the same thing as [TS]

  having an editor a discussion group is [TS]

  not an editorial operation period the [TS]

  forum is a primary source and so should [TS]

  only be used to support reliable sources [TS]

  right so there a couple of issues with [TS]

  this passage that as he kind of gets to [TS]

  at the end the specific example of ft FF [TS]

  was a case where as he notes the forum [TS]

  was a primary source the foreign web [TS]

  forum wasn't reporting on a topic so as [TS]

  far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter [TS]

  that they have no editorial oversight in [TS]

  a webstorm is they're the primary source [TS]

  they are the people discussing a topic [TS]

  and the many different web forums are [TS]

  like well here's some people talking [TS]

  about this here's but you know if you're [TS]

  going to show that a term has become has [TS]

  gone into widespread use within the [TS]

  Apple community citing 17 different [TS]

  Apple forums and whole bunch of [TS]

  different websites and citing back to [TS]

  the original Apple forum where this term [TS]

  came from was a way to support your [TS]

  argument right but that's original [TS]

  research if you're hopping around to ten [TS]

  different forums and finding a lots of [TS]

  instances of where this word is you are [TS]

  becoming secondary source you could use [TS]

  that to write an article for your [TS]

  publication to say you know I'm you know [TS]

  a reliable a considered a reliable [TS]

  source in the Mac community and I'm [TS]

  going to write for Mac world magazine or [TS]

  something and I'm going [TS]

  write an article about you know [TS]

  dissatisfaction with the Mac os10 finder [TS]

  and in it I'm going to reference this [TS]

  term and I'm going to cite the fact that [TS]

  it is a peer in X Y & Z form or whatever [TS]

  right but were you to do that directly [TS]

  and Wikipedia that they would say you [TS]

  know we would prefer to be a tertiary [TS]

  source so you shouldn't be doing [TS]

  original research and then writing down [TS]

  the results of your research on a [TS]

  Wikipedia page let's see where we are [TS]

  here so the second point on this thing [TS]

  is the the bit where he says the paper [TS]

  magazine with poor circulation at least [TS]

  will have editors who are presumed to [TS]

  care about fact-checking and accuracy [TS]

  and it's the presumed to care about [TS]

  business that was getting my dander up [TS]

  about how how Wikipedia was just a you [TS]

  know built on a house of sand and it was [TS]

  just one giant appeal to Authority [TS]

  fallacy and we'll get more appeal to [TS]

  Authority more later so for instance New [TS]

  York Times The Wall Street Journal are [TS]

  presumed to be reliable sources now and [TS]

  it it's kind of like the depilatory is [TS]

  you know they've said things in the past [TS]

  that have been correct [TS]

  they said this new thing therefore this [TS]

  new thing is probably correct because in [TS]

  the past this publication has been [TS]

  correct right and for things like the [TS]

  New York Times The Wall Street Journal [TS]

  said like there are things that we all [TS]

  that they have like unassailable [TS]

  Authority where no one is questioning [TS]

  where did you see that you just see it [TS]

  in some random blog on some tumblr thing [TS]

  or no I saw it in the New York Times [TS]

  right and that lends a weight to that [TS]

  content because this institution has a [TS]

  history of fact-checking and they have [TS]

  rigorous you know blah blah like you're [TS]

  not you don't have to prove that there's [TS]

  like a history behind it and it lends [TS]

  weight to the content and on the flip [TS]

  side of that is you know like that's [TS]

  just some random person's blog or [TS]

  something like that where even before [TS]

  you can sit you you have to have some [TS]

  way to to decide whether this [TS]

  information is reliable right the tricky [TS]

  bit about the word verification is and [TS]

  verified and verifiability is that it's [TS]

  not I don't think it's the right word [TS]

  they need [TS]

  somewhere to encapsulate this statement [TS]

  but I'm not sure verified is the word [TS]

  because verified is like conclusive you [TS]

  know what I mean like is that definitive [TS]

  verifiable the the concept I think the [TS]

  correct concept it may actually be the [TS]

  right word just people taking it the [TS]

  wrong way when they say verifiability [TS]

  they're not saying verify that this [TS]

  statement is true they're saying verify [TS]

  that this institution that we trust [TS]

  actually said this that's my guess maybe [TS]

  because obviously it's not just because [TS]

  the New York Times printed that doesn't [TS]

  make it true I mean no one's going to [TS]

  say that you're not verifying the fact [TS]

  of it print something says is that true [TS]

  or not well it's verified the New York [TS]

  Times printed it all you verified is [TS]

  that the New York Times printed it and [TS]

  then by extension you've had this set [TS]

  this this culture in the set of rules [TS]

  that says end of the New York Times [TS]

  printed it we're able to cite it and if [TS]

  it's cited its verifiably cited [TS]

  therefore it is it is pet you know it [TS]

  can be included in his Wikipedia page [TS]

  because then wikipedia is not about the [TS]

  pursuit of truth they just merely want [TS]

  to say we can show that you know where [TS]

  is your evidence to support this one New [TS]

  York Times said this in this person says [TS]

  that and this person's is that word [TS]

  tertiary source and that's what we do we [TS]

  show you these people say that and these [TS]

  people say that and these people say [TS]

  that and we cite everything that we say [TS]

  we explain the topic and people say well [TS]

  how do you know that why you know [TS]

  citation needed where are you getting [TS]

  the information well I got that [TS]

  information from readings New York Times [TS]

  article and here's a citation [TS]

  uh but verified doesn't mean that it's [TS]

  true and so lots of people saying how [TS]

  can you have something without [TS]

  verification how you know if anything's [TS]

  true well how do you know of anything is [TS]

  true with verification verification [TS]

  doesn't mean that it's true that's the [TS]

  the difficult thing about this truth [TS]

  concept is that it all it all decides [TS]

  what you consider is an appropriate [TS]

  threshold is that without verifiability [TS]

  it's just chaos well you have [TS]

  verifiability now and i don't think that [TS]

  really gets you any closer to truth as [TS]

  someone in the in the chatroom PETA has [TS]

  repeatedly said verifiability is [TS]

  achievable and Wikipedia is trying to [TS]

  use something that they can actually [TS]

  achieve they don't want to set a goal [TS]

  they can't achieve they're never going [TS]

  to get the truth because you know what [TS]

  is truth so they said well we're not [TS]

  going to set that as our goal we're [TS]

  going to set our goals verifiability [TS]

  and I think Wikipedians you know do and [TS]

  have acknowledged there are many [TS]

  problems with with with the threshold [TS]

  being verifiability [TS]

  but it you know again like democracy is [TS]

  like well is it the best you know it's [TS]

  the best system we have except for all [TS]

  the others um so we will talk more about [TS]

  that eventually but I just want to [TS]

  continue exploring this [TS]

  so the presume to care thing is like [TS]

  that's that kind of rubs you the wrong [TS]

  way especially since as many people have [TS]

  pointed out to me and I don't know if [TS]

  this is true or not but I assume that it [TS]

  is wikipedia has come a long way in its [TS]

  policies on what is considered a [TS]

  reliable source or is it used to be more [TS]

  hostile to online things and is starting [TS]

  started to come around a little bit in [TS]

  recent years so many people said well [TS]

  when you had this bad experience with [TS]

  with FD FF and stuff like that think [TS]

  that you know the rules are not hard and [TS]

  fast it's all guidelines and the [TS]

  consensus among the Wikipedians has been [TS]

  shifting to be more permissive rather [TS]

  than less which I imagine probably is [TS]

  true but for verified a better word [TS]

  might be like cited you know it you [TS]

  can't have a wikipedia you know you [TS]

  can't put information on Wikipedia it's [TS]

  not cited if you say you can't put [TS]

  information we could be does not verify [TS]

  it makes it seem like well you can't put [TS]

  in stuff that's not true and verified [TS]

  stuff is true I crazy for this making [TS]

  this connection you know in my head it [TS]

  makes sense to me I see where you going [TS]

  with it and everyone who talks about it [TS]

  wants to talk about ver it's verified [TS]

  like you know your voice is your [TS]

  passport oh it's verified you know it's [TS]

  not but I it's much better to say it's [TS]

  cited because that that is like you know [TS]

  cited just means you you have Europe [TS]

  created a record of someone else saying [TS]

  that you're kind of saying there is no [TS]

  such thing truly as as verified you're [TS]

  saying that people can go out there and [TS]

  say this is where I got my information [TS]

  from and where I got it from is a [TS]

  legitimate source right and well that [TS]

  second thing is an implication it's not [TS]

  explicitly stated as you can't do the [TS]

  exhaust thing to keep saying that you're [TS]

  just saying like here's the citation and [TS]

  this thing stands if the citation is one [TS]

  of the valid things that I'm allowed to [TS]

  cite in this in this forum and I think [TS]

  most of the listener complaints tended [TS]

  to very quickly construct a strawman of [TS]

  Wikipedia quote unquote without any [TS]

  verification which of course sounds [TS]

  crazy right or Wikipedia without any [TS]

  citations like you just write whatever [TS]

  the hell you want and somehow that like [TS]

  it's supposed to converge on goodness [TS]

  alright so before I delve further into [TS]

  the where's your movie [TS]

  side of this thing uh just to recap what [TS]

  my main complaint is that Wikipedia is a [TS]

  tertiary source and I wanted to allow [TS]

  the direct contribution of knowledge I [TS]

  didn't I don't like it when people with [TS]

  knowledge are unable to contribute and [TS]

  that is a common in phenomenon the [TS]

  people go there thinking this is the [TS]

  place where people with knowledge pull [TS]

  it together and that's not what it is [TS]

  and furthermore I don't think the rules [TS]

  that prevent them from doing that the [TS]

  many many different rules which all of [TS]

  which have important justifications I [TS]

  don't think those are strictly necessary [TS]

  to have a useful successful repository [TS]

  of shared knowledge on the net now I did [TS]

  eventually I was trying so hard to avoid [TS]

  as I usually do putting myself on the [TS]

  line for having to come up with a better [TS]

  thing but eventually it devolved into [TS]

  that and became as as a william points [TS]

  out a slightly incoherent rant towards [TS]

  the end and i apologize for that but [TS]

  we'll try to do better this time so this [TS]

  this concludes the portion where I'm [TS]

  trying to Risa memorize the previous [TS]

  podcast in a better manner I hope I've [TS]

  done a better job well you do definitely [TS]

  need to listen to previous podcast for [TS]

  any of us to make sense but now I would [TS]

  not like to actually discuss so how [TS]

  would how would this work if you think [TS]

  that the current rules are not ideal and [TS]

  not strictly necessary that it is [TS]

  possible to have something that [TS]

  functions as well or better than [TS]

  Wikipedia with a different set of rules [TS]

  what are those rules and let's discuss [TS]

  them I'll start by saying I don't have [TS]

  all the answers I don't have a [TS]

  five-point plan or 999 plan or anything [TS]

  that tells you this is how your place [TS]

  Wikipedia this is this awesome thing [TS]

  mostly what I have and mostly my point [TS]

  in the previous show was to moralists [TS]

  spread I mean that many wicked beings [TS]

  wrote in to say that they appreciated [TS]

  the fact that I was spreading you know [TS]

  that is spreading more information about [TS]

  what Wikipedia actually is because I [TS]

  think they want people to understand [TS]

  what it is and they want people to be on [TS]

  board with this mission and not to [TS]

  misunderstand it and come and be [TS]

  frustrated by the experience and by the [TS]

  way a sidebar on Wikipedians I should [TS]

  have known like I was expecting all [TS]

  sorts of angry email and everything [TS]

  because I'm not involved in the [TS]

  Wikipedia world deeply and anytime [TS]

  anyone rants about anything that they're [TS]

  not deeply involved in inevitably [TS]

  they're going to get things wrong and I [TS]

  did [TS]

  and you know just overreach and anger [TS]

  the people who know more that's a common [TS]

  phenomenon I'm much safer ranting about [TS]

  things that I have more knowledge of [TS]

  than I expect the average listener but [TS]

  as I said if they're booked opinions [TS]

  listening of course they're going to [TS]

  know way more than I do and I expected [TS]

  they're all going to come in flaming but [TS]

  I should have known better because to be [TS]

  a successful Wikipedian requires a [TS]

  certain unrest a detachment but a [TS]

  certain surrendering of your more base [TS]

  impulses otherwise you won't be it you [TS]

  won't be a successful Wikipedian if you [TS]

  you know if you can't get in perspective [TS]

  for anything and that I mean so [TS]

  Wikipedia I think tends to attract [TS]

  people who are not very honest either [TS]

  you know Dean D rules lawyers but people [TS]

  who would like like to have a structure [TS]

  and like to make things conform to that [TS]

  structure and are not emotionally [TS]

  invested in the content but can be [TS]

  emotionally invested in the structure [TS]

  but I mean basically the kind of chill [TS]

  group of people is what I'm saying okay [TS]

  so all the who rode in and wrote blog [TS]

  posts and everything we're just so nice [TS]

  and polite and very deferential and [TS]

  there was no like like if I had [TS]

  something said something that wasn't [TS]

  nice about like I don't know I can't [TS]

  think of a controversial topic off my [TS]

  head but like lots of tech topics if I [TS]

  had done a similar podcast about I would [TS]

  have been getting hate mail telling me [TS]

  that they're going to find me and murder [TS]

  me and that you know questioning my [TS]

  parentage and all sorts of horrible [TS]

  terrible things that people say on the [TS]

  net none of that for this Wikipedia [TS]

  thing so because that's just not that [TS]

  type of person is not successful within [TS]

  the Wikipedia community and so I didn't [TS]

  get that email so that was that was [TS]

  refreshing [TS]

  alright um so back to William Beutler [TS]

  again he says this is from reading Carl [TS]

  he referring to me he repeatedly says [TS]

  Wikipedia should be something different [TS]

  area first - what's different about [TS]

  online but he never gets prescriptive [TS]

  and never actually says but why the old [TS]

  methods are outmoded it does say his [TS]

  Wikipedia was seek to arrive at the [TS]

  truth using every tool necessary and [TS]

  would for example allow original [TS]

  research but what then is the mechanism [TS]

  for dare I say verifying it there's that [TS]

  word again so you know all these things [TS]

  that I said that I think would be better [TS]

  than Wikipedia but then what's the [TS]

  mechanism for verified [TS]

  it's like i think the most supportable [TS]

  definition of verifying is verifying [TS]

  that a reliable publication said this [TS]

  but in that context is so hard not to [TS]

  read it's hard not to read that as [TS]

  saying what's the what is the mechanism [TS]

  for determining whether this is true [TS]

  like verifying is like what what then is [TS]

  the mechanism for determining whether [TS]

  it's true or not and it's like they're [TS]

  not concerned about they just want it to [TS]

  be a bear have a verify like they can't [TS]

  see any other system other than the one [TS]

  they have verifying equal citation equal [TS]

  from a reliable source equals the thing [TS]

  that we're using instead of truth and [TS]

  that that is the achievable goal that [TS]

  we've chosen and any other system has to [TS]

  use choose that same goal and if you [TS]

  don't use that then how you know it's [TS]

  like saying how can you cite something [TS]

  without citing it well it's it's like a [TS]

  tautology or you know it's a it's it's a [TS]

  different what I'm getting at is a [TS]

  different mindset for a different goal [TS]

  and so if you if you take the old rules [TS]

  and apply to it of course it's not going [TS]

  to work so would would that statement [TS]

  have sounded a strong if you said [TS]

  something like uh finding someone who [TS]

  said in a publication that has a good [TS]

  track record of reliability finding [TS]

  someone who said this right what then is [TS]

  the mechanism you know so saying [TS]

  arriving the truth using every tool [TS]

  necessary and would for example our [TS]

  original research but what then is the [TS]

  mechanism for finding someone who said [TS]

  this in a publication that has a good [TS]

  track record or reliability well the [TS]

  mechanism for finding someone who said [TS]

  this in a publication that has a good [TS]

  record of reliability is citations of [TS]

  course you're going to arrive at what [TS]

  Wikipedia does right but when you say [TS]

  what then is the mechanism for verifying [TS]

  it it makes it sound like you are [TS]

  implying that what Wikipedia does is the [TS]

  only way to arrive at the truth or [TS]

  anything close to the true now what you [TS]

  mentions this I think he mentions us in [TS]

  his thing and many other I'm surprised [TS]

  that many more people didn't mention it [TS]

  I expected just immediate feedback on [TS]

  this can you think of another common [TS]

  venue in life where truth is not the [TS]

  goal entertainment no I mean like relate [TS]

  where it's surprising the truth is not [TS]

  the goal because obviously true it's not [TS]

  the only chamber but it's you know the [TS]

  same way it's might be surprising to [TS]

  somebody the truth is not the the goal [TS]

  of Wikipedia another venue where it [TS]

  seems like truth is the goal [TS]

  is really not mmm tell me so I'll give [TS]

  you a hint a venue where truth doesn't [TS]

  matter well only all that matters is [TS]

  what you can prove what's that uh you [TS]

  would probably be saying law right court [TS]

  of law [TS]

  right I mean most people are familiar [TS]

  with that from you know from [TS]

  entertainment from courtroom dramas and [TS]

  stuff and they know the big part of law [TS]

  is not pursuing the truth it doesn't [TS]

  matter what's true in a court of law it [TS]

  only matters what you can prove [TS]

  and that isn't that's a venue where I [TS]

  don't think people are surprised about [TS]

  that just because from so many [TS]

  television shows and movies in it you [TS]

  know that people are not shocked that's [TS]

  the way things are they're shocked the [TS]

  first time that they see it and then [TS]

  then they get outraged and then they [TS]

  realize it's just the way it is yeah and [TS]

  is the reason I thought courts would [TS]

  come up because it's if you're going to [TS]

  support the idea that we should have [TS]

  verification not truth why not cite [TS]

  another institution that has a similar [TS]

  policy where we don't we're not even you [TS]

  know we're trying to pursue the truth [TS]

  but it's not our goal and we don't [TS]

  really care what the hell is true it [TS]

  only matters what you can prove right [TS]

  and that's that's a court of law [TS]

  and now courts are instructive I think [TS]

  because in courts primary sources are [TS]

  what you want you don't want hear say [TS]

  you don't want secondary sources you [TS]

  don't want tertiary sources you want [TS]

  primary sources so how is it that this [TS]

  is institution where they're not [TS]

  pursuing truth they only care about what [TS]

  you can prove which is their version of [TS]

  the word verify ability but they don't [TS]

  want secondary or tertiary sources they [TS]

  only want primary sources they want I [TS]

  witnesses how does how does that work in [TS]

  a court that's a question for you Dan [TS]

  hmm well I you need to have the direct [TS]

  witness you can't have the here say you [TS]

  can't have third party stuff it all has [TS]

  to be exactly I was there I saw it [TS]

  otherwise you can't even enter and how [TS]

  does that how does that help them arrive [TS]

  at anything approaching the truth well [TS]

  I'd it doesn't that's where you're going [TS]

  with this it won't know but that's their [TS]

  goal is to try to figure out what [TS]

  happened this is the mechanism they [TS]

  chose and do it it's like the exact [TS]

  opposite mechanism what wikipedia is [TS]

  chosen but their goal is both like you [TS]

  know figure out what happened in the [TS]

  case of a court or record record facts [TS]

  ah you know how can that possibly work [TS]

  having a dude go up there and say yeah I [TS]

  saw him do this and have a different [TS]

  dude go up there and say [TS]

  I saw him do that and it like it seems [TS]

  like as many people said look if you [TS]

  don't have if you're not reliable lying [TS]

  on citations from sources that meet some [TS]

  criteria that we set as a collective and [TS]

  you just have a bunch of people write [TS]

  down what they think they know how is it [TS]

  not descend into chaos and one example [TS]

  is well how do you have a whole bunch of [TS]

  different witnesses a whole bunch of [TS]

  different primary sources testifying in [TS]

  a court of law [TS]

  and you know how how does how does that [TS]

  help them or you're saying that totally [TS]

  can't work online but it does work in a [TS]

  court about what's the difference all [TS]

  right [TS]

  well there are a couple aspects here one [TS]

  is that the is it you know in case of a [TS]

  jury trial the jury gets to decide who [TS]

  is credible right that's part of the [TS]

  whole part of the trial like they see [TS]

  the person saying something and a Jerry [TS]

  a jury of your peers and they don't they [TS]

  don't necessarily take what that person [TS]

  says at face value they are making a [TS]

  judgement in the context of that case of [TS]

  who they believe right and this this [TS]

  different you know in civil criminal [TS]

  that the civil criminal split so there's [TS]

  another detail the thing where the the [TS]

  standard of proof is different in those [TS]

  different contexts so you've got like [TS]

  beyond a reasonable doubt that we're all [TS]

  familiar with from criminal cases on TV [TS]

  and everything and then civil you have [TS]

  the preponderance of the evidence and I [TS]

  don't want to go more into this law [TS]

  stuff because I'm clearly not a lawyer [TS]

  if you thought your guy getting emails [TS]

  before forget it if you talk about law [TS]

  forget it right well but I mean mainly [TS]

  I'm just [TS]

  I'm just [TS]

  pointing out is its this is a system [TS]

  where it works almost entirely on [TS]

  primary sources primary source is the [TS]

  preferred mechanism and it has developed [TS]

  a system very different system from [TS]

  Wikipedia that helps it use primary [TS]

  sources to arrive the truth what I'm [TS]

  trying to point out is that being a [TS]

  tertiary source is not the only way not [TS]

  the only system for trying to arrive at [TS]

  something that gets close to the truth [TS]

  all right so now how how would we allow [TS]

  primary sources in an online [TS]

  collaboration like what if we're [TS]

  building some new thing and we say I [TS]

  don't want there to be a barrier to [TS]

  entry where people are are you know [TS]

  kicked out because all you can't [TS]

  contribute the knowledge you have like [TS]

  if they're and you know and again it's [TS]

  so hard to talk whether it just gets [TS]

  wrapped up in like a row is it is it [TS]

  because their primary sources they're [TS]

  being kicked out well in some contexts [TS]

  primary sources are allowed well is it [TS]

  because they're not notable well you [TS]

  know then it's inclusions versions [TS]

  elitist you know it does all get wrapped [TS]

  up in there's many different aspects so [TS]

  this particular debate but talking about [TS]

  this new thing I'm trying to identify [TS]

  what would allow original research what [TS]

  would allow primary sources and still [TS]

  arrive at a product that is a shared [TS]

  repository of knowledge I don't want to [TS]

  use the W word because anytime soon as [TS]

  you mention it it's like how can we [TS]

  change Wikipedia can we make a Wikipedia [TS]

  like thing I'm just trying to blue sky [TS]

  it here right so the first thing that a [TS]

  lot of people I mean actually I don't [TS]

  know if a lot of people pointing this [TS]

  out some people excursion around it or [TS]

  assumed it was impossible as part of [TS]

  their argument but it immediately sprung [TS]

  to mine I think I thought I'd mentioned [TS]

  in the past show maybe not is that you [TS]

  need to have some sort of identity [TS]

  system the someway I mean you have that [TS]

  in a court of law because you go up [TS]

  there people see the person the person [TS]

  testifies to be you know some sort of [TS]

  it's it's a lot different than online [TS]

  where it's just completely anonymous you [TS]

  need some way to identify the [TS]

  participants now one way one type of [TS]

  identity is real identity so for example [TS]

  if you want to provide first-hand [TS]

  knowledge of something you may have to [TS]

  identify yourself with your actual [TS]

  identity your actual name who you [TS]

  actually are in some way that we decide [TS]

  is acceptable so Twitter tries to do [TS]

  this too they've got those verified [TS]

  accounts there's that word again [TS]

  unfortunately where they say you know [TS]

  this is really Brad Pitt like we've [TS]

  totally verified this is Brad Pitt and [TS]

  Twitter I think is also shown how hard [TS]

  it is to do that because I think they've [TS]

  had accounts that had been quote-unquote [TS]

  verified and then later they find out I [TS]

  was totally not the celebrity we said it [TS]

  was it was somebody who tricked us so [TS]

  this is hard to do and and can be gamed [TS]

  but I think you know it's it's possible [TS]

  so for example especially for things [TS]

  like celebrities it's pretty easy for a [TS]

  celebrity to conclusively verify that [TS]

  they are who they say they are assuming [TS]

  the security of the system and their [TS]

  password is not hacked in yadda yadda [TS]

  all the things that we deal with in [TS]

  every other system that has any kind of [TS]

  verification online a celebrity can just [TS]

  put a statement on their website that [TS]

  they control upload a video of themself [TS]

  that you know I mean we haven't quite [TS]

  reached a point where it's trivially [TS]

  easy for people to fake a video of Brad [TS]

  Pitt saying a bunch of stuff that still [TS]

  requires you know a little bit more [TS]

  effort than those people willing to go [TS]

  through with it I think this is a [TS]

  solvable problem and I think identity [TS]

  online is something we've always dealt [TS]

  with right so that's real identity and [TS]

  for example if you wanted to provide [TS]

  first-hand knowledge of you know an [TS]

  event that you witnessed or some [TS]

  information about yourself or whatever [TS]

  it having doing so using your real [TS]

  identity that was validated according to [TS]

  some set of rules that you know [TS]

  continues to evolve and gets worked on [TS]

  it's one way to do that that's certainly [TS]

  not allowed in Wikipedia according to [TS]

  their rules because they would rather [TS]

  have you talk to a reliable publication [TS]

  have the reliable publication [TS]

  quote-unquote fact check that or be [TS]

  reliable based on past evidence or just [TS]

  be something that their grandparents [TS]

  read I keep getting into that which is [TS]

  you know I'm being snarky [TS]

  but I have trouble letting go the notion [TS]

  that but make something reliable [TS]

  publication does have an in can do with [TS]

  reliability but just has more to do with [TS]

  like past events and past events are not [TS]

  necessarily indicative of future events [TS]

  so anyway there's a second kind of [TS]

  identity which is I call it fake [TS]

  identity in my notes here but that's [TS]

  kind of a bad thing what if you want to [TS]

  allow people to contribute but they [TS]

  don't need to identifies who they really [TS]

  actually are how can that possibly work [TS]

  I mean if we're not it [TS]

  you know the people on the witness stand [TS]

  have to be who they say they are and [TS]

  there's the concept of perjury where if [TS]

  you lie you're held accountable for that [TS]

  but if you're not actually identifying [TS]

  yourself as your real self how can you [TS]

  ever be held accountable for anything [TS]

  now there's no such thing as perjury if [TS]

  you're allowed to go on the witness [TS]

  stand with the mask and despise your [TS]

  voice you know is that when they say oh [TS]

  you've perjured yourself you're going to [TS]

  jail well who's going to jail come and [TS]

  find me you don't even know who I am [TS]

  right so the concept of perjury can't [TS]

  exist without real identity but online [TS]

  real identity is a non-starter you can't [TS]

  require that everybody look like Google+ [TS]

  trying to do it it's just it's not going [TS]

  to happen so how can you have a system [TS]

  with direct contribution with [TS]

  quote/unquote fake identities or like [TS]

  you know people merely say well if you [TS]

  don't have real identity you're [TS]

  anonymous well is it in between where [TS]

  you know pseudonyms or fake identities [TS]

  and the the model that I point to for [TS]

  that actually working is Stack Overflow [TS]

  Stack Overflow is entirely made up of [TS]

  people directly contributing under [TS]

  identities don't necessarily have any [TS]

  connection to any particular person and [TS]

  are not necessarily trackable back to an [TS]

  individual person they are manufactured [TS]

  entities you could have you could you [TS]

  know have alts for yourself you know you [TS]

  can have ten accounts on Stack Overflow [TS]

  and play them all at the same time it's [TS]

  got the gamification thing going there [TS]

  as well but they've developed a system [TS]

  for you know direct contribution of [TS]

  knowledge using an identity system that [TS]

  isn't tied to real identities and [TS]

  they've you know come up with a model [TS]

  that works for their particular format [TS]

  QA of mostly factual information but [TS]

  it's not just like what method do I call [TS]

  to do this like where you can you know [TS]

  where it's there's one answer and only [TS]

  one answered this subjective stuff on [TS]

  Stack Overflow as well and they struggle [TS]

  with this too but it is the concept of [TS]

  having a really good answer and people [TS]

  looking at how you've answered a big [TS]

  particular question and rating you [TS]

  highly because it in gaining reputation [TS]

  and again I don't think this is directly [TS]

  applicable to something like Wikipedia [TS]

  but I think it's a real live example [TS]

  showing where direct contribution [TS]

  without real identity can actually be [TS]

  feasible and before Stack Overflow [TS]

  existed and before like core existed [TS]

  which is another side that I'm less [TS]

  familiar with many people pointed out to [TS]

  me before those things existed if you [TS]

  had said I'm going to make a site where [TS]

  where people ask questions and anybody [TS]

  can [TS]

  so them people would have said well is [TS]

  just kind of like Yahoo Answers have you [TS]

  seen that it's a piece of crap people [TS]

  don't know what they're talking about [TS]

  the people who answer the questions [TS]

  don't know anymore than the people who [TS]

  are asking them and all you're making is [TS]

  a repository of misleading or erroneous [TS]

  information they just didn't have the [TS]

  right system and the right systems [TS]

  produced much more useable things that [TS]

  Gaurav Lowe is is a pillar of the [TS]

  internet now you know a tentpole [TS]

  of DN a but if you had said before that [TS]

  you know is this possible and you could [TS]

  point to Yahoo Answers saying or experts [TS]

  exchanging you know it's clearly not [TS]

  possible right so and I still think [TS]

  citations that the final things that [TS]

  citations are still would still be a [TS]

  very important part of this and in fact [TS]

  if you look for example in a really good [TS]

  answer to a stack over a question asking [TS]

  about you know what's the best way to [TS]

  you know do such-and-such in my new [TS]

  business or you know what are the ten [TS]

  different ways to repair a bicycle tire [TS]

  and there are pros and cons and stuff [TS]

  many of the best Stack Overflow answers [TS]

  or core answers for that matter which [TS]

  are directly contributed by individuals [TS]

  with their fake or real identities are [TS]

  the fact of the use citations that they [TS]

  will not so much citations in the [TS]

  Wikipedia style but they will link they [TS]

  will link you know they will make a [TS]

  statement and link key words in a [TS]

  statement back to the place from whence [TS]

  that knowledge came in typical just you [TS]

  know good read web writing fashion right [TS]

  so citations would still definitely be [TS]

  part of this because you where are you [TS]

  getting some are you making this up from [TS]

  whole cloth what do you have to you know [TS]

  in any online interaction even in forums [TS]

  we see people arguing about you know [TS]

  who's the better Pokemon character [TS]

  they're they're using citations [TS]

  everything they write is citing someone [TS]

  else saying a similar thing or you know [TS]

  and they're not doing it because they [TS]

  want to be like Wikipedia is just the [TS]

  way the way people interact online is [TS]

  that they expected if you're having any [TS]

  sort of argument you're not going to be [TS]

  doing it all from whole cloth so it's a [TS]

  combination of you know your reputation [TS]

  within the system as a contributor and [TS]

  your citations and stuff like that uh so [TS]

  then you have cases like when would I [TS]

  what Trump's one right so people say [TS]

  well what if Brad Pitt comes on the page [TS]

  and says that his birthday is something [TS]

  that is not I can't keep picking [TS]

  birthday is a bad straw man I should [TS]

  pick something [TS]

  better but what if Brad Pitt says that [TS]

  he totally never cheated on whoever was [TS]

  that he don't keep track of celebrities [TS]

  but he says he doesn't didn't she than [TS]

  this person but I can cite an article on [TS]

  people that says he did I can cite at [TS]

  the New York Times it says he's reported [TS]

  to have cheated on and I you know you do [TS]

  is who wins in that case and that's what [TS]

  the other thing it's like well you know [TS]

  in Wikipedia you saying something about [TS]

  yourself on an issue that you have a [TS]

  stake in like you don't want to be seen [TS]

  as someone who cheats well we're going [TS]

  to strike that because we're gonna say [TS]

  you clearly have a bias here you can't [TS]

  simply claim that you didn't uh cheat on [TS]

  that other person that doesn't stand now [TS]

  if you want to do an interview with [TS]

  People magazine in which you say that [TS]

  you didn't cheat in that person that's [TS]

  fine and then someone else can go to [TS]

  Wikipedia and say in an interview in [TS]

  1984 Brad Pitt claimed that he didn't [TS]

  cheat on blob you know what I mean yeah [TS]

  that dance is the thing I want to [TS]

  eliminate and I would like Brad Pitt to [TS]

  be able to contribute directly and so [TS]

  how does that work it works simply by [TS]

  saying Brad Pitt who is a direct [TS]

  contributor who has a verified identity [TS]

  directly writes in the page and it's [TS]

  clear that he's the one who wrote this [TS]

  just like it is clear and stack overflow [TS]

  you know I never cheated on bla bla bla [TS]

  it's not like he's writing it as the [TS]

  gospel truth it's clear that it's being [TS]

  written by Brad Pitt and you know the [TS]

  the person identified correctly is Brad [TS]

  Pitt and it stands on the page for [TS]

  people to decide like they do in a court [TS]

  of law well Brad Pitt says this and then [TS]

  someone else would write the seven other [TS]

  things that cite those other things but [TS]

  they both stand and Brad Pitt got to [TS]

  contribute directly to that page you [TS]

  know what I mean he didn't have to do an [TS]

  interview which was then cited and in [TS]

  fact half of the the reliable citations [TS]

  where the New York Times article could [TS]

  very well have weasel words in it itself [TS]

  where you know it was widely reported [TS]

  that Brad Pitt cheated on blah blah blah [TS]

  there's no citations in the New York [TS]

  Times are Kalidas say it was widely [TS]

  reported and then because the New York [TS]

  Times is a reliable source and we assume [TS]

  they have fact checkers and stuff they [TS]

  let that slide and say oh well it was [TS]

  widely reported well how do I know it's [TS]

  Reilly reported because New York Times [TS]

  said it was widely reported did they [TS]

  have citations no they don't have to do [TS]

  the New York Times and that stands but [TS]

  someone writing that directly wouldn't [TS]

  you know I want everything to be [TS]

  inclusive so for example when you had [TS]

  and again this gets tide of a notability [TS]

  when you have the all those people who [TS]

  want to record the origins of the term [TS]

  ft FF on a page they're allowed to do it [TS]

  directly even though they were the ones [TS]

  who participated in the various threads [TS]

  in the various forms right and even [TS]

  though they're the ones who are going in [TS]

  researching stuff and if you don't trust [TS]

  those guys [TS]

  well you know I think these guys have a [TS]

  stake in the issue and they're going to [TS]

  make it seem like something that it [TS]

  wasn't you can follow the links to you [TS]

  know to the forums and see yes this was [TS]

  actually said in the forum and look at [TS]

  the modification dates on it and stuff [TS]

  like that you know what I mean it's I [TS]

  want a more inclusive system it doesn't [TS]

  mean you can't have citations and it [TS]

  doesn't mean it has to be exactly like [TS]

  Wikipedia it would have to be something [TS]

  different but I think it could work and [TS]

  my main meta argument for all the people [TS]

  who say everything you're proposing does [TS]

  it will not work it's not feasible you [TS]

  don't realize how difficult it is the [TS]

  wikipedia rules are I've arrived and [TS]

  arrived that painfully over time they [TS]

  started from the rules for for [TS]

  encyclopedias which are honed over many [TS]

  many centuries or whatever and then [TS]

  modified in many different ways and [TS]

  continue to evolve just for the purpose [TS]

  of getting this thing to work and your [TS]

  pie-in-the-sky theory of allowing more [TS]

  people to contribute and loosening some [TS]

  restrictions while adding new mechanisms [TS]

  to counter rap is just not going to work [TS]

  my counter-argument to that is if you [TS]

  had explained Wikipedia exactly as it [TS]

  exists today before Wikipedia existed [TS]

  everyone would have said it wouldn't [TS]

  work [TS]

  you know what I mean it Wikipedia is the [TS]

  counter-argument to the fact that [TS]

  nothing could replace it right where it [TS]

  sounds like it's never going to possibly [TS]

  work and and you explain to people [TS]

  that's going to be a giant mess and this [TS]

  in the same way you can say that a Q&A [TS]

  site can't possibly work we have an [TS]

  actual example look at Yahoo Answers [TS]

  it's horrible [TS]

  ah but you know Stack Overflow does [TS]

  exist core does exist they are better [TS]

  than Yahoo Answers Ibuka pedia does [TS]

  suggest it did work I think that this [TS]

  vaguely specified thing that I'm sort of [TS]

  hand waving my way around could exist in [TS]

  could work I think the pieces have been [TS]

  proven in isolation and they could be [TS]

  combined to something better [TS]

  the critical path the critical mass [TS]

  thing is still out there where it's like [TS]

  well somewhat even if you had something [TS]

  better could you ever unsee Wikipedia [TS]

  perhaps no perhaps the only viable [TS]

  strategy forward is if you really wanted [TS]

  this changes to work within the system [TS]

  to change it from within to modify [TS]

  Wikipedia to be more like the thing that [TS]

  you want and that's probably true but I [TS]

  don't have that kind of time so I don't [TS]

  know what the future of of this space is [TS]

  ah I don't know if it's ever possible to [TS]

  make anything like I'm saying I just [TS]

  have this gut feel [TS]

  that it is and it's not verifiable and [TS]

  you can't cite it and it you know you [TS]

  can't prove that it's true but it's a [TS]

  feeling that I have I have a few [TS]

  leftovers before that way we'll do we'll [TS]

  do some business we got a second sponsor [TS]

  here [TS]

  MailChimp calm easy email newsletters [TS]

  these guys has been a very very long [TS]

  time sponsor we're proud to have them [TS]

  these guys make it simple to send [TS]

  newsletters and they have tons and tons [TS]

  and tons of resources for people if [TS]

  you've never sent the newsletter before [TS]

  you think why would I want to do that [TS]

  seriously newsletters I have to say [TS]

  people laugh they think I'm kidding with [TS]

  a newsletters there the past but they're [TS]

  the future two tons I know tons of [TS]

  people who send newsletters and that's [TS]

  where tons of really awesome in from but [TS]

  listen I don't you you already know if [TS]

  you want to do a newsletter if you do go [TS]

  check these guys out they've got amazing [TS]

  features my favorite one and this is the [TS]

  one I'm telling everybody about it's [TS]

  this thing they call the inbox inspector [TS]

  this is one of the biggest headaches is [TS]

  and if you do any web design you can [TS]

  appreciate this how is this thing going [TS]

  to look when I send it to people they [TS]

  have this thing called the inbox [TS]

  inspector and it will show you 60 [TS]

  screenshots of what your newsletter that [TS]

  you've just created on the template that [TS]

  you made or one of the ones that they [TS]

  use they because they give you a ton of [TS]

  them for free it will show you exactly [TS]

  what it's going to look like in every [TS]

  email client that exists just about I [TS]

  mean outlook and like I they have [TS]

  Outlook 2003 in there [TS]

  they have Apple Mail it'll show you what [TS]

  it looks in it like in Gmail Yahoo Mail [TS]

  hotmail you name it and it's there and [TS]

  it shows you what it's going to look [TS]

  like and it stuff this is one of the [TS]

  tools and it's all free you don't have [TS]

  to pay for any of this stuff 2000 [TS]

  subscribers a month 12,000 emails a [TS]

  month no contract no expiring trial no [TS]

  credit card required check them out at [TS]

  mailchimp.com someone in the chatroom [TS]

  you're discussing this said if there was [TS]

  a way to verify primary source Wikipedia [TS]

  probably would allow Regional Research [TS]

  there's that word again if there was a [TS]

  way to verify a primary so what does [TS]

  that even mean what are you trying to [TS]

  say there [TS]

  I said if there was a way to cite a [TS]

  primary source as a tertiary source what [TS]

  computer probably would allowed it to [TS]

  verify what are you verifying about them [TS]

  it's like well it gets back to identity [TS]

  are you verifying their identity in that [TS]

  case yes Dean use identification [TS]

  purposes verification system and without [TS]

  one yes you can have Brad Pitt [TS]

  contributing because how the hell do you [TS]

  know that's Brad Pitt right uh you'd [TS]

  have I was proposing a model where Brad [TS]

  Pitt does not have to talk to another [TS]

  publication and do an interview that's a [TS]

  reliable publication and then cite that [TS]

  interview that he can contribute [TS]

  directly and that what he's contributing [TS]

  is clearly you know his words right the [TS]

  thing that other people are pointing out [TS]

  in in the chat room is that you know it [TS]

  we're talking about how a lot of people [TS]

  sent me emails saying well actually [TS]

  primary sources are allowed under [TS]

  certain conditions and actually you know [TS]

  notabilities on text rictus you say and [TS]

  pointing to all these you know WP : some [TS]

  other alphabet soup of words the best [TS]

  one I saw I think was on Twitter was [TS]

  from hands Hauer Haan NES depends I [TS]

  don't know Hans [TS]

  yes and I put in the shownotes uh the [TS]

  URL is Wikipedia : ignore all rules and [TS]

  the entire text of the Wikipedia page is [TS]

  if a rule prevents you from improving or [TS]

  maintaining Wikipedia ignore it [TS]

  this is an official Wikipedia page huh [TS]

  I'm assuming that was put there for [TS]

  someone to make them feel better or make [TS]

  other people feel better and I get the [TS]

  spirit of it that it's not it's not [TS]

  supposed to be we that in general [TS]

  Wikipedia doesn't like excessive rules [TS]

  lawyering because it leads to silliness [TS]

  and so it's like these are all [TS]

  guidelines Wikipedia cetera sherry [TS]

  Soares doesn't mean primary sources [TS]

  can't contribute but there's a whole [TS]

  system it just means it's complicated [TS]

  those rules are applying to it but this [TS]

  particular things if a rule prevents you [TS]

  from improving or maintaining Wikipedia [TS]

  ignore it all that does is shift the [TS]

  burden to now let's argue about what [TS]

  improving means but it doesn't really [TS]

  solve the problem at all it does Express [TS]

  a spirit of that does express the idea [TS]

  that you shouldn't be so strictly you [TS]

  know interpreting every single rule [TS]

  right but I don't think it solves [TS]

  anything and that's all the people in [TS]

  the tech room are saying primary sources [TS]

  are loud you just just restrictions on [TS]

  it and these rules are not as hard and [TS]

  fast as you make them out to be [TS]

  that's probably all true but you know [TS]

  the rules formed served the shape of the [TS]

  environment of Wikipedia [TS]

  I have other random tidbits didn't fit [TS]

  into the structure I wanted to give for [TS]

  the other one [TS]

  somebody did an entire podcast about a [TS]

  podcast replied to this podcast [TS]

  Morgan Harris because the [TS]

  self-improvement podcast this was the [TS]

  very inaugural episode of the [TS]

  self-improvement broadcast well I should [TS]

  have read this down but it's something [TS]

  like when smart people say stupid things [TS]

  or some other motto of like they'd be [TS]

  the thrust of this podcast was he's [TS]

  going to find people who he thinks [TS]

  otherwise are worth listening to but [TS]

  here's some stupid stuff that they said [TS]

  which i think is commendable it's kind [TS]

  of like the fight notre-dame concept [TS]

  from a few shows back where you're not [TS]

  just looking for the idiot who says a [TS]

  bunch of stupid things because idiots [TS]

  say stupid things all the time you're [TS]

  looking for these smart people say [TS]

  stupid things because it's more [TS]

  interesting in that case that does hope [TS]

  for these people so I'm glad that he [TS]

  thinks this hope for me in his podcast [TS]

  one it's pretty short too unlike these [TS]

  podcasts one thing that he talked about [TS]

  was he got into the what is truth [TS]

  business again and he was saying I can't [TS]

  believe he's suggesting that people [TS]

  allowed be allowed to connect link Kirby [TS]

  doesn't he understand that people lie [TS]

  and they they you know they're they four [TS]

  things they know to be untrue and in [TS]

  furthermore too even when they're [TS]

  telling the truth there are many things [TS]

  that have been quote-unquote known that [TS]

  turned out to be wrong so he pointed to [TS]

  the Wikipedia page list of common [TS]

  misconceptions and he listed a few of [TS]

  them like earth being the center of the [TS]

  universe or whatever you know that [TS]

  people have known all sorts of things it [TS]

  turned out to be wrong so you know [TS]

  basically you can't trust people there [TS]

  they're not reliable you can't have them [TS]

  directly contributing I don't think [TS]

  that's a great example because had [TS]

  Wikipedia existed at the time it would [TS]

  be trivially easy to find lots of quote [TS]

  unquote reliable quote unquote verified [TS]

  citations that the earth is the center [TS]

  of the universe so those facts would [TS]

  have stood they would have stood with a [TS]

  bullet I mean it would've been no [TS]

  problem writing the Wikipedia page [TS]

  saying the earth is the center of the [TS]

  universe citation citation citation [TS]

  citation citation what's your liable [TS]

  citation old Catholic Church duh I mean [TS]

  they run the entire society that we live [TS]

  in you know they're right you know what [TS]

  you know you're gonna you think you have [TS]

  a less more reliable institution than [TS]

  the church on this issue you must be [TS]

  joking that's the most reliable psych [TS]

  there could possibly be so I would I [TS]

  think he went off of the rails a little [TS]

  bit in trying to explain why he thinks [TS]

  it's a bad idea to have direct [TS]

  contribution because the examples he [TS]

  gave were I could actually counter [TS]

  examples like all those common [TS]

  misconceptions would just be sighted out [TS]

  the wazoo [TS]

  triple gold star totally verify [TS]

  completely within the rules of existing [TS]

  Wikipedia citation rules and that I [TS]

  think supports my argument because it's [TS]

  like it's the the appeal to Authority [TS]

  thing well what what makes what would [TS]

  make the Catholic Church reliable well [TS]

  you know just you know it just is it's [TS]

  like the New York Times all it just is [TS]

  because history and they you know and in [TS]

  hindsight being say oh the Catholic [TS]

  Church didn't know what they were [TS]

  talking about or any Church or anything [TS]

  like they know what they were talking [TS]

  about on those issues they should not [TS]

  have been cited [TS]

  perhaps in hindsight we will see that [TS]

  the New York Times should not have been [TS]

  cited as a reliable source you know [TS]

  three centuries from now because little [TS]

  did we know that there was you know this [TS]

  it's hard to tell from where you are is [TS]

  what I'm saying to decide what is it [TS]

  reliable source we do we just do the [TS]

  best we can so maybe that's a neutral [TS]

  because it's not yeah I I don't like the [TS]

  fact that that is the house on which [TS]

  Wikipedia is built but I do recognize [TS]

  that you have to use something when [TS]

  you're doing citations to to decide [TS]

  what's worth citing and what's not I [TS]

  just want to point out that we can [TS]

  sometimes be wrong about that and in [TS]

  fact I would for historical purposes I [TS]

  would much better value direct accounts [TS]

  even not that I would take that it's [TS]

  like when you're reading about direct [TS]

  accounts in a history book you're not [TS]

  believing everywhere that the person [TS]

  says what you're believing is that this [TS]

  person said that and the only the only [TS]

  responsibility the publication has is to [TS]

  do their best to verify that the person [TS]

  they're talking to really is Abraham [TS]

  Lincoln and he really did say this on [TS]

  this particular date and either he [TS]

  recorded it himself or it was recorded [TS]

  by someone else and like you know [TS]

  secondary source so they don't have to [TS]

  be a tertiary source you don't have to [TS]

  wait for the paper to print what Abraham [TS]

  Lincoln said and then in your [TS]

  encyclopedia write about whatever Hamlet [TS]

  singing lead Abraham Lincoln can write [TS]

  it directly in his on you know [TS]

  contributed directly as long as we're [TS]

  verified that it really is a ahem [TS]

  Lincoln or someone who saw Abraham [TS]

  Lincoln can write it directly and you [TS]

  know enough people can contribute to [TS]

  that to say the all these people said [TS]

  they saw era Hamlin can say this you [TS]

  know I mean versus trying to do the [TS]

  tertiary sourcing [TS]

  I'm just waiting for someone to chat [TS]

  room to tell me the secondary sources [TS]

  are perfectly valid in Wikipedia and it [TS]

  all depends on context yes everything [TS]

  depends on context so I had someone else [TS]

  I searched this email before the show [TS]

  started I couldn't find the name I'll [TS]

  just call him the Moonrock guy so I gave [TS]

  this silly example and sort of the the [TS]

  height of my dementia or the the fever [TS]

  of my rant about if one of the few [TS]

  remaining people who actually landed on [TS]

  the moon contributed directly to a [TS]

  Wikipedia page to comment that like he [TS]

  turned over a rock on the moon and the [TS]

  underside it was green which by the way [TS]

  silly I really don't think there any [TS]

  green rocks right making a silly example [TS]

  and you know that the Page said that [TS]

  underneath the rocks in the moon [TS]

  everything was blue but he picked it up [TS]

  and he said it was green that he should [TS]

  be allowed to contribute that directly [TS]

  ah and here's some feedback on this use [TS]

  this issue from a different email this [TS]

  is not the moon rock guys just a moon [TS]

  rock guy the fact that true is that true [TS]

  information even from a primary source [TS]

  is useless without verifiability what am [TS]

  I going to say there it is your moon [TS]

  rock guy might be colorblind you might [TS]

  be he might you might be motivated to [TS]

  lie about your birthday to verify [TS]

  ability is key to any venture that [TS]

  attempts to collect information if only [TS]

  one person knows the truth the [TS]

  information itself should be suspect and [TS]

  is likely to be of little interest to [TS]

  others what are the chances for example [TS]

  that your moon rock guy wouldn't have [TS]

  done a press interview about what he saw [TS]

  so there there's looking for the [TS]

  secondary source to provide some lend [TS]

  some credence to it it's like you know [TS]

  if only one person knows the truth it's [TS]

  probably not of any interest well if [TS]

  this only one person knows the truth [TS]

  because he's the only guy left alive who [TS]

  was on the moon I think it is of [TS]

  interest because that's you know this [TS]

  first-hand knowledge and what are the [TS]

  chances he didn't say interview maybe he [TS]

  didn't maybe he wants to contribute a [TS]

  drug but this is what I'm getting at [TS]

  about how online is different in what [TS]

  ways I think online is different in that [TS]

  we don't necessarily need these [TS]

  intermediaries not that they should be [TS]

  excluded and that citation should be [TS]

  gone but that we can live in a world [TS]

  where people can directly contribute to [TS]

  shared knowledge I don't know understand [TS]

  what people don't see how that's [TS]

  different than before before the only [TS]

  way to let the world know what being on [TS]

  the moon was liked was get to give the [TS]

  time into time magazine interview [TS]

  because you can't talk to the whole [TS]

  world but you can talk to Time magazine [TS]

  and they can talk to the world it's [TS]

  disintermediation if you are on the moon [TS]

  and you can contribute your first-hand [TS]

  knowledge to this repository that [TS]

  everybody can see you can cut out the [TS]

  middleman it doesn't mean what you say [TS]

  is 100% true that you can't lie your [TS]

  meal [TS]

  be a record of you saying these things [TS]

  you don't need someone in between to [TS]

  verify that you are who you say you are [TS]

  if the thing you're contributing to has [TS]

  an identity system that we developed [TS]

  that has a verification system that we [TS]

  believe is adequate the same way a court [TS]

  of law doesn't for people testified in [TS]

  courts of law lying about who they are [TS]

  and gotten away with it it's difficult [TS]

  we make it difficult no system is [TS]

  foolproof but this is what I'm talking [TS]

  about how about how online is different [TS]

  right one person the actual Moonrock guy [TS]

  who couldn't fuck who I couldn't find [TS]

  even said that uh the idea that the guy [TS]

  who's on the moon should be allowed to [TS]

  contribute that information is in fact [TS]

  an appeal to Authority fallacy but he [TS]

  said oh you're just saying because he's [TS]

  so SuperDuper important you should [TS]

  believe what he says because he was you [TS]

  know he's the moon landing god therefore [TS]

  he should be that's appeal to authority [TS]

  you're saying oh he's unassailable [TS]

  because he's an authority no it's not an [TS]

  appeal to Authority fail to build [TS]

  Authority fallacy is because you know [TS]

  right from the Wikipedia page I love [TS]

  citing Wikipedia in podcast where I [TS]

  complained about you know most of what [TS]

  the Authority has to say about something [TS]

  is correct [TS]

  the Authority says this therefore this [TS]

  is correct the reason we give weight to [TS]

  the first hand moon rock guide knowledge [TS]

  is not because he's an authority but [TS]

  because the fact that he's him put him [TS]

  in a position to know it's not it's not [TS]

  the fact that he same means that [TS]

  everything he says is right because if [TS]

  appeal to Authority would be he landed [TS]

  on the moon therefore I believe what he [TS]

  has to say about knitting man has [TS]

  nothing to do with knitting you know he [TS]

  was actually there it's not an appeal to [TS]

  Authority fallacy to say that the person [TS]

  with first-hand knowledge is in a [TS]

  superior position to be to have some [TS]

  information that's relevant to landing [TS]

  on the moon it's not because he's an [TS]

  important person who landed on the moon [TS]

  um what else do we have now I think [TS]

  that's probably the end of the audience [TS]

  poor Morgan Harrison I listen I listen [TS]

  to his podcast which was entertaining [TS]

  and fun and I like the fact that he had [TS]

  an accent pizzelle like listening to [TS]

  people with with accents and I couldn't [TS]

  place where it was but his Twitter page [TS]

  says that he's from Australia he didn't [TS]

  sound Australian to me and then I [TS]

  started just questioning everything [TS]

  about my ability to identify accents [TS]

  like do you think you could identify an [TS]

  Australian accent if you heard it if I [TS]

  just heard it and without any framework [TS]

  and somebody say you know I'm probably [TS]

  maybe [TS]

  then they somebody would have a south [TS]

  african accent just to try and throw me [TS]

  off and if you would ask me that before [TS]

  i would say of course i can identify an [TS]

  australian who doesn't know in australia [TS]

  is very distinctive from you know [TS]

  british accent sure but then I heard [TS]

  Morgan Harris talking and I for the life [TS]

  of me could not I did not think he was [TS]

  Australian and he says he might have [TS]

  some Welsh in there and is an American [TS]

  from listening to podcast so I don't [TS]

  know so I'm questioning my ability to [TS]

  identify accents at all but anyway I [TS]

  listened to his podcast and it was fun [TS]

  and at the end of it he did a I wasn't [TS]

  the only subject of it he did some other [TS]

  guy who had another podcast and he said [TS]

  a whole bunch of things that weren't [TS]

  true about MPEG and he went off on that [TS]

  guy and then at one point he went off on [TS]

  that guy because he was talking about [TS]

  how there's digital content on laser [TS]

  discs and he said no no no laser just [TS]

  her analog and I had to be my hyper [TS]

  critical self and send him a correction [TS]

  that a digital audio could be actually [TS]

  on a laserdisc and he said he knew that [TS]

  but just didn't want to get bogged down [TS]

  in the details so it's a never-ending [TS]

  cycle of criticism here but I do want to [TS]

  give him props for putting in the effort [TS]

  to make it podcast response you like [TS]

  that is that is that the proper way the [TS]

  way that you would like for everybody to [TS]

  respond to us I think a blog post like [TS]

  that long the long blog post that uh [TS]

  William did is better because I can read [TS]

  that much faster than I can listen to a [TS]

  podcast and uh but you know if everyone [TS]

  does it then it becomes too much but if [TS]

  one guy does every once in a while I [TS]

  think it's nice you're that's acceptable [TS]

  to you yeah so there's probably more I [TS]

  could do okay pedia but I think I have [TS]

  hip highlights here isn't any other [TS]

  parts of you think I missed or any [TS]

  questions I don't think that anything [TS]

  exists that you missed [TS]

  now that believe me there is I'm sorry [TS]

  if I didn't get to your specific [TS]

  objection for people whose objection I [TS]

  didn't get to assume that you are [TS]

  correct that'll make you feel better [TS]

  yeah that was not there on being at [TS]

  their whole day yeah I think we have to [TS]

  end here how about that about eighty [TS]

  eight eighty eight minutes it's tight [TS]

  it's practically wow it's like a [TS]

  condensed version it's like the instant [TS]

  coffee version of this show I apologize [TS]

  for all the people who wanted me to talk [TS]

  about ZFS and file systems that's it's [TS]

  on the list for next show wait how to do [TS]

  who [TS]

  did you say you were gonna talk about [TS]

  that last time you did didn't you I [TS]

  think I did and a lot and there was a [TS]

  ZFS related product announcement for the [TS]

  Mac this week so a lot of people were [TS]

  asking me how you're going to talk about [TS]

  this on the show it's it's on a list [TS]

  let's say that but if you want if we [TS]

  want to keep it tight you know we have [TS]

  to I love I love the part on building [TS]

  analyzer at the end of the episode we're [TS]

  running out of time they said but maybe [TS]

  well maybe I can talk about Wikipedia it [TS]

  was like a bad flashback for you know [TS]

  please no don't talk about Wikipedia you [TS]

  won't fit it in 15 minutes yeah you're [TS]

  right I'm done I'm going lay down now [TS]

  all right no that's your thing now [TS]

  you're asking all your hosts if they [TS]

  need to lay down well you sound you [TS]

  sounded you seem yes you seem a little [TS]

  exhausted you seem a little upset [TS]

  sometimes a nice you know a little nap [TS]

  or something well I don't nap but it [TS]

  seems like everybody else does yeah no I [TS]

  don't know either I just feel like this [TS]

  is such a big topic here's what I feel [TS]

  like all the people who wrote me I think [TS]

  we could have a constructive discussion [TS]

  about their things and maybe I would [TS]

  disagree with some of it and agree with [TS]

  some of it or whatever but the after a [TS]

  certain volume addressing all that on [TS]

  the podcast is just not feasible and [TS]

  it's just not interesting for enough [TS]

  people so I was trying to summarize in a [TS]

  vague sort of way and that's why I said [TS]

  if you feel like you still have like the [TS]

  master point that disproves everything [TS]

  that I was saying you may in fact be [TS]

  right but I you know I don't have time [TS]

  to go through them all it was just too [TS]

  much and this is not an invitation to [TS]

  come to my home and discuss it with me [TS]

  but if we ever happen to meet someday [TS]

  and trapped in an elevator and you say [TS]

  you know I wrote a letter to you about [TS]

  Wikipedia and you didn't talk about it [TS]

  on the air at that point we can discuss [TS]

  it and I think we will have an [TS]

  instructive discussion for sure all [TS]

  right I'll have a very good week John [TS]

  and everybody who's listening have a [TS]

  very good week we'll be back same time [TS]

  next week right people don't we need I [TS]

  need two people to get on me you can [TS]

  tune in live every time in the chat room [TS]

  usually when we're just getting started [TS]

  people will will say this is my first [TS]

  time tuning in live I didn't know I [TS]

  could do this I didn't know there was a [TS]

  chair what's he always talking about [TS]

  chat room what's always talking about [TS]

  show notes oh let me explain all of that [TS]

  and this is a way that you as a listener [TS]

  if you want can be an active participant [TS]

  in the show as you can hear the whole [TS]

  time John and I will our watch [TS]

  the chatroom we're responding to the [TS]

  comments in there you can be a part of [TS]

  the show if you want we'd love for you [TS]

  to be you go to five by five dot TV [TS]

  that's the starting point there's a [TS]

  little link up there that says live you [TS]

  click that you can listen live you can [TS]

  you can stream and you can hear it you [TS]

  can do the same thing if you go to five [TS]

  by five dot to FM and open up iTunes you [TS]

  can go to the iTunes radio they call it [TS]

  we're in there you can listen live that [TS]

  way you can open it up on in Safari on [TS]

  your on your iPhone open up five by five [TS]

  dot FM and I'll stream it live to you [TS]

  while you're on the go all of this stuff [TS]

  is there we've got more things coming to [TS]

  let you listen live but that's the [TS]

  starting point the show notes go to five [TS]

  by five dot TV slash hypercritical slash [TS]

  53 and you can see all of these links [TS]

  that John painstakingly found and [TS]

  organized and put up there and we want [TS]

  to say thanks to help spot comm there [TS]

  they make it possible for us to uh to [TS]

  keep that going and so that's it and [TS]

  there's a chatroom there so when you go [TS]

  to the five by five dot TV slash live [TS]

  there's a there's a chatroom or if [TS]

  you're a real geek can use IRC go to IRC [TS]

  free no net and join pound 5x5 and [TS]

  you'll you'll be in there and then you [TS]

  can talk right to John and tell him he's [TS]

  wrong you don't have to shout at your at [TS]

  your iPod you just go in and talk in the [TS]

  room and he'll see you and you can like [TS]

  the satisfaction of correcting me in [TS]

  real time that's great but can attest if [TS]

  you yeah you think you're better than [TS]

  John and show up in the chatroom show [TS]

  them out by correcting me in real time [TS]

  you were improving the podcast right [TS]

  you're being helpful don't think you're [TS]

  not being helpful you are so go for it [TS]

  go for it and follow John on Twitter is [TS]

  syracusa and I'm Dan benjamin on twitter [TS]

  and we appreciate you listening we [TS]

  appreciate you taking the time out to [TS]

  tune in and also you know if you enjoy [TS]

  the show give us give us a positive [TS]

  rating on itunes it's about the nicest [TS]

  thing you could you could do to help new [TS]

  people find it what else done anything [TS]

  else adds a long list long laundry list [TS]

  there things to gold thank you covered [TS]

  it all now everybody have a good week [TS]

  take care [TS]

  [Music] [TS]