53: Brad Pitt Gets to Contribute


00:00:02   you are listening to hypercritical [TS]

00:00:04   weekly talkshow ruminating on exactly [TS]

00:00:06   what is wrong in the world of Apple and [TS]

00:00:08   related technologies and businesses [TS]

00:00:10   nothing is so perfect it can't be [TS]

00:00:12   complained about by my co-host John [TS]

00:00:15   siracusa I'm Dan benjamin today february [TS]

00:00:18   3rd 2002 12 i showed this as being [TS]

00:00:22   episode number 53 and we would like to [TS]

00:00:25   say thank you very much to our two [TS]

00:00:27   sponsors today [TS]

00:00:29   MailChimp calm and fresh ebooks.com will [TS]

00:00:32   tell you more about those as the program [TS]

00:00:34   continues we also want to mention [TS]

00:00:35   bandwidth for this episode is provided [TS]

00:00:37   by Mac Mini colo low cost high [TS]

00:00:39   performance the perfect Mac server we [TS]

00:00:42   use these things and so can you check it [TS]

00:00:44   out Mac Mini Colo net / 5x5 how are you [TS]

00:00:49   doing John [TS]

00:00:50   I'm doing fine man hmm [TS]

00:00:56   what are you doing I'm trying to get [TS]

00:00:58   everything organized here trying and [TS]

00:01:00   failing okay cuz I got a lot of stuff [TS]

00:01:07   here a lot of feedback yeah there was a [TS]

00:01:10   lot of email alright well we're just [TS]

00:01:17   gonna have to give it a go here all [TS]

00:01:18   right I'm game if you are is gonna be a [TS]

00:01:23   mess no old boy you're ready to help me [TS]

00:01:25   save me from myself no I don't know if [TS]

00:01:29   that's something one person alone can do [TS]

00:01:32   maybe right I'll take a small army of [TS]

00:01:35   people working together for several [TS]

00:01:37   years special team yeah special teams as [TS]

00:01:43   they say in NF oh yeah we'll talk about [TS]

00:01:45   the NFL after dark we have time oh great [TS]

00:01:47   it's a big game this weekend I know [TS]

00:01:50   you're a football fan one day a year I'm [TS]

00:01:53   barely yeah barely one day a year or [TS]

00:01:56   barely a fan barely if and I'm mostly [TS]

00:01:58   what trying to watch these those good [TS]

00:01:59   commercials you can watch a lot of those [TS]

00:02:02   ahead of time yeah now that kind of [TS]

00:02:04   ruins it for me [TS]

00:02:05   I like the one I was surprised you know [TS]

00:02:08   yeah sure all right we better get going [TS]

00:02:12   let's do it I mean the show already [TS]

00:02:13   began this is the show that should be a [TS]

00:02:16   name of some show you should make be [TS]

00:02:18   called this is the show this is the show [TS]

00:02:20   let me make a note of that a very good [TS]

00:02:22   idea [TS]

00:02:22   this is the show yeah because that's [TS]

00:02:26   that not copyright attorney I don't know [TS]

00:02:28   but that's that's the question and on [TS]

00:02:29   this show on anything it's just a [TS]

00:02:31   podcast are we doing it is this it and [TS]

00:02:32   you say yeah this is it this is the show [TS]

00:02:34   right for once you should just say no [TS]

00:02:36   actually this instant the show this is [TS]

00:02:37   something totally different [TS]

00:02:39   hmm we haven't begun the show yet I'll [TS]

00:02:41   tell you when we begin the show all [TS]

00:02:44   right follow up so we have a little bit [TS]

00:02:49   of follow up from the stuff about iBooks [TS]

00:02:52   Author and education yeah actually we [TS]

00:02:55   continue to have a lot of that but I'm [TS]

00:02:56   only going to put a little bit of it in [TS]

00:02:58   here I begun one of those podcasts I [TS]

00:03:02   mentioned I think it was in my sort of [TS]

00:03:04   Maslow's hierarchy of needs for [TS]

00:03:06   education thing where I was talking [TS]

00:03:08   about the [TS]

00:03:08   important several things were above and [TS]

00:03:13   beyond the materials and one of them was [TS]

00:03:16   that the importance of good teachers and [TS]

00:03:18   I think I referenced the idea that good [TS]

00:03:21   teachers can have a profound impact on [TS]

00:03:23   the lives of students which you agreed [TS]

00:03:25   with but I didn't have any sort of link [TS]

00:03:29   in the show notes for that but there was [TS]

00:03:30   something ahead read about it and after [TS]

00:03:32   the podcast someone sent it to me it's a [TS]

00:03:34   New York Times article the title is big [TS]

00:03:37   study links good teachers to lasting [TS]

00:03:38   gain and it's a study that looked at 2.5 [TS]

00:03:42   million students over 20 years so it's a [TS]

00:03:44   pretty broad study and they showed that [TS]

00:03:48   they had to find a way of qualifying [TS]

00:03:50   like what counts as a good teacher so [TS]

00:03:52   they just said elementary middle school [TS]

00:03:53   teachers who help raise their student [TS]

00:03:55   standardized test scores those are like [TS]

00:03:58   the good teachers right and I said that [TS]

00:04:00   those teachers had a lasting positive [TS]

00:04:01   effect on those students lives they had [TS]

00:04:04   them lower teen pregnancy they graduated [TS]

00:04:06   college more often they made more money [TS]

00:04:08   as adult stuff like that so they linked [TS]

00:04:09   to it in the show notes and you can read [TS]

00:04:12   all about another article I cited I [TS]

00:04:16   think it was on a second iBooks Author [TS]

00:04:17   show was that article from Mackay Thomas [TS]

00:04:20   that we discuss high schools are step [TS]

00:04:21   one of to reproduce was a stepping stone [TS]

00:04:28   to getting into colleges and he [TS]

00:04:30   presented a bunch of arguments then I [TS]

00:04:31   talked about how that would be a similar [TS]

00:04:34   approach to how Apple was getting it [TS]

00:04:37   stuff into the enterprise by sort of [TS]

00:04:38   going through the executive back door [TS]

00:04:40   and getting the employees and executives [TS]

00:04:42   to want it even not trying to convince [TS]

00:04:43   the IT department directly of many many [TS]

00:04:46   people sent feedback basically [TS]

00:04:48   disagreeing with Mackay Thomas's blog [TS]

00:04:50   post I didn't respond to most of those [TS]

00:04:54   simply because I didn't feel it was my [TS]

00:04:55   place to just defend Mackay Thomas's [TS]

00:04:57   blog post and I think these people [TS]

00:04:58   should have ridden him and complained [TS]

00:05:00   about the blog post that he wrote but [TS]

00:05:02   apparently he is very mistaken about [TS]

00:05:05   according to the feedback I received [TS]

00:05:07   very mistaken about how easy it is to [TS]

00:05:08   get into high schools versus how easy it [TS]

00:05:10   is to get into college I linked to one [TS]

00:05:12   other one of the earlier articles about [TS]

00:05:14   that from the ever-present Kieran Healy [TS]

00:05:17   called no one cares about College [TS]

00:05:19   Bookstore that points out that basically [TS]

00:05:22   the college bookstore stocks whatever [TS]

00:05:24   the professors tell it the stock and [TS]

00:05:25   there's not sort of a cabal of college [TS]

00:05:27   bookstores that have the power over the [TS]

00:05:29   curriculum if a college professor says [TS]

00:05:31   he want needs a particular book for a [TS]

00:05:33   course then the bookstore gets it and [TS]

00:05:35   the students buy it and the teacher has [TS]

00:05:36   no idea what the profit margins are on [TS]

00:05:38   that Booker who sells it or anything [TS]

00:05:40   like that versus public schools where as [TS]

00:05:44   I think I mentioned and as many people [TS]

00:05:45   pointed out as if we didn't mention we [TS]

00:05:47   didn't talk about this right like how [TS]

00:05:48   getting books into public schools in the [TS]

00:05:50   u.s. is this big bureaucracy full of [TS]

00:05:52   crazy people and you know the Texas [TS]

00:05:54   Board of Education is dictating textbook [TS]

00:05:57   policy for the whole country cuz did the [TS]

00:05:59   biggest state I could swear that we [TS]

00:06:01   mentioned this but maybe I just had it [TS]

00:06:02   as an assumption in my head you have any [TS]

00:06:03   recollection I don't remember you man go [TS]

00:06:05   and play bounce ads are back the tale I [TS]

00:06:08   read it many people wrote us in to say [TS]

00:06:10   you know judge you guys don't seem to [TS]

00:06:13   understand the getting into public [TS]

00:06:14   school is really hard and there's these [TS]

00:06:15   big boards and everything right I at [TS]

00:06:18   least definitely did understand that I [TS]

00:06:20   think their complaint is that they think [TS]

00:06:21   Mackay Thomas is not taking that into [TS]

00:06:23   account if he thinks that getting into [TS]

00:06:24   high schools is a good way to do it [TS]

00:06:25   other people took exception to what I [TS]

00:06:27   said specifically about how cares if you [TS]

00:06:30   if you educate a generation of kids [TS]

00:06:32   through high school and elementary [TS]

00:06:34   school where they used to like books on [TS]

00:06:35   their iPads that's not going to change [TS]

00:06:37   how colleges act because kids the [TS]

00:06:39   students have no influence over what [TS]

00:06:42   textbooks are selected in colleges only [TS]

00:06:43   professors do ah but just a little bit [TS]

00:06:48   reductive I mean like yes they don't [TS]

00:06:50   have any the students don't directly [TS]

00:06:51   pick their textbooks but as I think I [TS]

00:06:53   said on the show if all your incoming [TS]

00:06:55   students have an expectation of things [TS]

00:06:58   being on the iPad and you don't offer it [TS]

00:06:59   that way then it's a competitive [TS]

00:07:01   advantage to universities to not [TS]

00:07:05   confound that expectations that you know [TS]

00:07:07   the universities are competing for [TS]

00:07:08   incoming freshmen they want the smart [TS]

00:07:10   good freshmen you know what I mean or [TS]

00:07:11   maybe just the ones with lots of money [TS]

00:07:13   or whatever there's a competition for [TS]

00:07:14   college students among colleges and [TS]

00:07:16   colleges want to attract you to them all [TS]

00:07:18   colleges and so if these two incoming [TS]

00:07:22   students are used to books on their iPad [TS]

00:07:24   or electronic books or whatever and you [TS]

00:07:25   make them buy textbooks you're not going [TS]

00:07:28   to look as cool to them as another [TS]

00:07:30   school that does all that curriculum the [TS]

00:07:31   way they've had it for their entire [TS]

00:07:32   education so yes the students don't [TS]

00:07:34   directly influence [TS]

00:07:36   which books you you know how the the [TS]

00:07:39   textbooks work in a college but the [TS]

00:07:41   indirectly influence because they're [TS]

00:07:42   basically the customer for this [TS]

00:07:43   education in the college college [TS]

00:07:45   colleges in the US are very competitive [TS]

00:07:47   in attracting freshmen so in case that [TS]

00:07:49   was an obvious that was the point that I [TS]

00:07:50   was making are we talked about [TS]

00:07:55   gamification education and immediately [TS]

00:07:58   after the podcast I started getting some [TS]

00:08:00   feedback on Twitter and email saying you [TS]

00:08:02   kept saying game theory is that really [TS]

00:08:03   what you went and I said that I say game [TS]

00:08:05   theory once or twice there I'm gonna [TS]

00:08:07   listen to the podcast I said game theory [TS]

00:08:08   like 80 times so as many people pointed [TS]

00:08:11   out correctly I'm not quite sure why I [TS]

00:08:13   kept saying this game theory is [TS]

00:08:15   different than using game design skills [TS]

00:08:19   in in a different context gamification [TS]

00:08:22   right game theory is a thing with [TS]

00:08:26   mathematical models of conflict and [TS]

00:08:29   cooperation and it's it's a it's like if [TS]

00:08:33   you ever seen a beautiful mind [TS]

00:08:34   that's what hit this was his big theory [TS]

00:08:36   before he went nuts or maybe he was [TS]

00:08:38   already debatably a little nuts but this [TS]

00:08:40   is what his his whole thing was that had [TS]

00:08:43   changed the way people think about this [TS]

00:08:45   but that's not what you were that's not [TS]

00:08:46   what you were referring to yeah that's a [TS]

00:08:48   totally different thing and most people [TS]

00:08:50   have no interaction with game theory and [TS]

00:08:53   their regular lives except for the fact [TS]

00:08:54   that they might have seen a beautiful [TS]

00:08:55   mind and it gave that typical movie [TS]

00:08:57   overview of the the you know what it's [TS]

00:08:59   all about the are you implying that the [TS]

00:09:01   way things are represented in movies is [TS]

00:09:03   not completely accurate especially where [TS]

00:09:05   science and math is concerned I think it [TS]

00:09:07   was accurate enough to give you an idea [TS]

00:09:08   of what game theory is not accurate [TS]

00:09:10   enough to give you an idea of what this [TS]

00:09:12   guy's particular idea was or why it was [TS]

00:09:14   revolutionary or whatever uh but yes [TS]

00:09:16   that's not what I was talking about but [TS]

00:09:17   I kept saying game theory is is because [TS]

00:09:19   I don't have a good word for like you [TS]

00:09:22   know other than using the word [TS]

00:09:23   gamification again I kept saying like [TS]

00:09:25   using game theory to help make learning [TS]

00:09:27   better blah blah blah you're not using [TS]

00:09:28   games you're not using the ability to [TS]

00:09:30   calculate to end to analyze the [TS]

00:09:33   circumstances of game and calculate [TS]

00:09:34   possible outcomes and you know it's not [TS]

00:09:38   that it's not game theory very clearly [TS]

00:09:40   so all the people sent in that [TS]

00:09:41   correction about game theory they're [TS]

00:09:42   right I should have used the word [TS]

00:09:44   gamification or talked about using game [TS]

00:09:47   design techniques in education [TS]

00:09:49   or other applied game design suggestion [TS]

00:09:53   from it from the chat room that's better [TS]

00:09:56   applied game design is better than game [TS]

00:09:57   theory so I apologize for incorrectly [TS]

00:09:58   using game theory many times if you want [TS]

00:10:00   to learn about what actual game theory [TS]

00:10:01   is a spoiler alert it's math and if you [TS]

00:10:05   don't like math you probably won't like [TS]

00:10:06   game theory but you might like [TS]

00:10:07   gamification don't you mean maths Carl [TS]

00:10:09   mm-hmm yeah [TS]

00:10:10   was that a sling sling played thing just [TS]

00:10:13   yeah hey you know I've been a long [TS]

00:10:16   before that movie came out I've never [TS]

00:10:18   seen that movie but I have seen them any [TS]

00:10:20   clips that involve that type of thing [TS]

00:10:22   mmm so one final piece before we get to [TS]

00:10:25   the inevitable heavyweight follow-up [TS]

00:10:29   okay so the other thing I wanted to talk [TS]

00:10:32   about was I listened to Marcos last [TS]

00:10:35   episode of build analyze I was number [TS]

00:10:37   sixty-two frustrated by the invisible [TS]

00:10:38   person where he yes extensively about [TS]

00:10:43   the nest thermostat right I like to [TS]

00:10:45   podcast I should I linked to the nest [TS]

00:10:47   thermostat to suggest nest comm there [TS]

00:10:50   and they're not a sponsor and maybe [TS]

00:10:54   we'll never be after listening to that [TS]

00:10:56   yeah and I pretty much agree with [TS]

00:10:58   everything he said there but have you [TS]

00:10:59   used one you have one well I think I [TS]

00:11:02   skipped all the part where he that he [TS]

00:11:06   retold about buying the thing and trying [TS]

00:11:08   to hook it up and finding out that it's [TS]

00:11:10   not what he wants I skip right to the [TS]

00:11:12   end part where when when I saw the nest [TS]

00:11:14   thermostat I went to the website watched [TS]

00:11:15   a little video and I understood what [TS]

00:11:18   they were trying to do and quickly [TS]

00:11:19   surmise that it's not for me right so I [TS]

00:11:21   skipped that middle part where you get [TS]

00:11:22   all frustrated and buy them and hook [TS]

00:11:23   them up here I also I also skip that far [TS]

00:11:26   yeah um but what I wanted to do is just [TS]

00:11:28   summarize the the issue here is when I [TS]

00:11:34   looked at the nest thermostat I saw that [TS]

00:11:35   what what they were doing what this [TS]

00:11:37   product was doing was you know they saw [TS]

00:11:41   the problem that thermostats [TS]

00:11:43   programmable thermostats exist but the [TS]

00:11:45   hard to program right and rather than [TS]

00:11:49   making a thermostat that was easy to [TS]

00:11:51   program you know somebody has to hard to [TS]

00:11:53   program I'm going to make a start-up I'm [TS]

00:11:54   going to make it so much that's it [TS]

00:11:55   really easy to program their solution [TS]

00:11:58   was to bypass that and so let's think [TS]

00:12:00   outside the box how about a thermistor [TS]

00:12:02   that you don't have to program there's [TS]

00:12:05   no program like that's that's what they [TS]

00:12:07   were trying to do like not make your VCR [TS]

00:12:09   easier to program like to use the old [TS]

00:12:10   example of you know people bought VCRs [TS]

00:12:12   right with that twelve always flashing [TS]

00:12:14   on the screen yeah and how many people [TS]

00:12:16   even knew how to set it to record [TS]

00:12:18   something right and the solution you [TS]

00:12:20   know the next solution to that is well [TS]

00:12:22   how about we make a seed you know you [TS]

00:12:23   don't have to program it at all there's [TS]

00:12:24   no programming like and what people [TS]

00:12:26   consider to be programming you know [TS]

00:12:28   people know how to turn the dial to make [TS]

00:12:29   the temperature the temperature they [TS]

00:12:31   want it to be right they know how to [TS]

00:12:32   turn it one direction when they're cold [TS]

00:12:34   in the other direction when they're hot [TS]

00:12:35   and we want that to be the only skill is [TS]

00:12:37   required of the users of our product but [TS]

00:12:40   we also wanted to have the typical [TS]

00:12:41   advantages of a programmable thermostat [TS]

00:12:43   and that you save energy by not putting [TS]

00:12:45   the heat on when you're on the house and [TS]

00:12:46   stuff like that so I think that's a [TS]

00:12:48   pretty interesting or good idea is [TS]

00:12:52   interesting and they're not trying to [TS]

00:12:54   improve program ability about like home [TS]

00:12:56   making a cool web interface to for [TS]

00:12:57   programmability but you could slide [TS]

00:12:58   these sliders around look at these [TS]

00:12:59   graphs that would be one way to go and I [TS]

00:13:02   bet there are products like that out [TS]

00:13:03   there they said we are going to assume [TS]

00:13:05   that the current level of thermostat [TS]

00:13:08   using skill a general population is [TS]

00:13:10   unchangeable pretty much and that all we [TS]

00:13:13   can rely on is the fact that they know [TS]

00:13:14   how to turn the dial to make themselves [TS]

00:13:16   feel better and we're going to use that [TS]

00:13:18   input to try to surmise what it is they [TS]

00:13:22   would really like if they actually knew [TS]

00:13:24   how to program a thing but they don't [TS]

00:13:25   and the key to understanding why this [TS]

00:13:27   product may not be for you is ask [TS]

00:13:29   yourself the question do I know how to [TS]

00:13:32   program my thermostat and the second [TS]

00:13:34   question have I programmed my thermostat [TS]

00:13:36   if the answer to both those questions is [TS]

00:13:38   yes you probably don't need nest and not [TS]

00:13:42   only do you not need it but you'll be [TS]

00:13:44   angered and from that you may become [TS]

00:13:46   furious at it yeah because like the [TS]

00:13:51   problem it's solving you don't have now [TS]

00:13:53   there's this other problem which is [TS]

00:13:54   probably why mark or bother your other [TS]

00:13:55   problem is my thermostat is ugly but [TS]

00:13:58   that's a very different problem you know [TS]

00:13:59   what I mean this thermostat is not ugly [TS]

00:14:01   it's cool-looking you like how it looks [TS]

00:14:03   he bought it and he solved the problem [TS]

00:14:06   of I have an ugly thermostat or the [TS]

00:14:08   potential thermostats and I buy are ugly [TS]

00:14:10   but the main problem this is trying to [TS]

00:14:12   solve is the one where you can't program [TS]

00:14:15   your thermostat or you [TS]

00:14:16   don't program your thermostat so I think [TS]

00:14:21   that's that's kind of ships passing in [TS]

00:14:24   the night maybe maybe the next people [TS]

00:14:26   have like an untapped market of like [TS]

00:14:28   seven uber nerds who are willing to [TS]

00:14:31   spend lots of money for a really [TS]

00:14:32   cool-looking thermostat that is [TS]

00:14:34   nevertheless just a boring traditional [TS]

00:14:36   programmable thermostat so they could [TS]

00:14:38   sell that tomorrow in a second perhaps [TS]

00:14:41   they should consider that [TS]

00:14:41   yes The Learning Thermostat and also [TS]

00:14:43   nest the non alarming but still [TS]

00:14:45   cool-looking thermostat it's a mouthful [TS]

00:14:48   for slogan all right his well one thing [TS]

00:14:52   one thing I want to add and I'm not [TS]

00:14:54   speaking for Marco here I'm just saying [TS]

00:14:57   that his at the end of it what what he [TS]

00:15:00   was kind of saying was he really does [TS]

00:15:02   like the things that you identified that [TS]

00:15:05   as being nice which is it's very [TS]

00:15:07   attractive it it looks really cool [TS]

00:15:11   there's tons of benefits of like he can [TS]

00:15:13   update it from his iPhone or whatever [TS]

00:15:15   and say oh man we're on vacation we [TS]

00:15:18   forgot to change the thermostat you can [TS]

00:15:20   change it remotely all this great stuff [TS]

00:15:22   that it does he wishes that they just [TS]

00:15:24   had everything that it had except the [TS]

00:15:27   part where it tries to learn and figure [TS]

00:15:28   out what you want to do and it just for [TS]

00:15:31   the flagship feature right the flagship [TS]

00:15:33   II and and and yeah that's funny but [TS]

00:15:35   there really isn't a good way to [TS]

00:15:38   override the flagship feature because [TS]

00:15:40   that's what it but I think and I think [TS]

00:15:41   this is I've thought about a lot since [TS]

00:15:43   he and I recorded that it seems to me [TS]

00:15:46   that yes that is the flagship feature [TS]

00:15:48   but maybe it shouldn't be because I [TS]

00:15:50   would love to get these things for my [TS]

00:15:52   house but same as you I I don't want it [TS]

00:15:55   to learn about my habits you know how to [TS]

00:15:58   perm I know I know how to tell it what [TS]

00:16:00   and and in fact I'd be fine just when I [TS]

00:16:02   want a little cooler just turn the dial [TS]

00:16:04   make it cooler that's enough for me um [TS]

00:16:07   but of course it doesn't it doesn't do [TS]

00:16:09   that I don't I don't know if they'll [TS]

00:16:10   ever come out with anything but what he [TS]

00:16:11   did basically say is that he likes it he [TS]

00:16:14   just doesn't he just doesn't feel that [TS]

00:16:16   it's ready to go yet completely it's not [TS]

00:16:19   exactly you know there's still some bugs [TS]

00:16:21   even in doing what it is doing but if [TS]

00:16:23   they were to come out with an update [TS]

00:16:25   that that made it you could just say [TS]

00:16:27   don't be so smart be dumb that it would [TS]

00:16:29   be an amazing [TS]

00:16:30   product you know the kids call that [TS]

00:16:31   these days know the pivot the piston up [TS]

00:16:35   redo the pivot I realize the thing you [TS]

00:16:37   were making all right you learnt you [TS]

00:16:39   know learning thermostats turns out [TS]

00:16:40   that's not such a great idea because [TS]

00:16:41   really the world is cut into two camps [TS]

00:16:44   people who want to be able to program it [TS]

00:16:46   and people who don't care about that and [TS]

00:16:48   so if we just simply made for examples [TS]

00:16:50   do the pivot and say we're going to make [TS]

00:16:51   the same kind of cool thermostat with [TS]

00:16:53   all these cool features but instead of [TS]

00:16:55   trying to take away programming we're [TS]

00:16:57   going to change our tack and concentrate [TS]

00:16:59   on making programming it so easy that [TS]

00:17:02   anybody can do it but we won't we're not [TS]

00:17:05   going to limit them beside and all they [TS]

00:17:06   know how to do is turn the temperature [TS]

00:17:07   to the temperature they want like a [TS]

00:17:09   monkey and we'll try to figure out what [TS]

00:17:10   the heck ya meant by that like when they [TS]

00:17:12   come in the room at 6:25 a.m. and turn [TS]

00:17:16   the temperature up to you know 68 [TS]

00:17:18   degrees [TS]

00:17:19   we will surmise aha it appears that they [TS]

00:17:21   want the temperature to be you know and [TS]

00:17:24   this is assuming so ministers working [TS]

00:17:26   appears they want the temperature to be [TS]

00:17:27   68 degrees it's 625 well in order to do [TS]

00:17:29   that I've determined that I have to turn [TS]

00:17:31   the heat on that you know five forty [TS]

00:17:33   eight to get it up to that you know like [TS]

00:17:35   it's trying to be smart and failing and [TS]

00:17:38   as you discussed it like that's that's [TS]

00:17:40   frustrating so they can do the pivot and [TS]

00:17:41   say we we've learned this is not such a [TS]

00:17:43   great idea we're going to you know don't [TS]

00:17:44   be too ashamed to say don't stick to [TS]

00:17:46   your guns and say oh well our whole idea [TS]

00:17:48   is to take away programming entirely if [TS]

00:17:50   that doesn't work out just say okay now [TS]

00:17:53   our new idea is to make a really [TS]

00:17:54   cool-looking thermostat with lots of [TS]

00:17:56   cool features that's easy enough to [TS]

00:17:57   progress easier to program than those [TS]

00:17:59   annoying ones it's a little you know LCD [TS]

00:18:01   display is that right and you know what [TS]

00:18:03   and I think I think most human beings [TS]

00:18:05   are used to the concept of saying at [TS]

00:18:08   this time of day [TS]

00:18:10   you know because most of us who own [TS]

00:18:12   homes have I don't know about up there [TS]

00:18:15   where you are but a lot of us have [TS]

00:18:17   irrigation systems so we're very used to [TS]

00:18:19   the concept of saying on this day at [TS]

00:18:21   this time do this and that's pretty [TS]

00:18:23   straightforward and it's the same way we [TS]

00:18:25   program our TiVo's our VCRs and yeah [TS]

00:18:27   they're connected to a show but you know [TS]

00:18:29   it's not that weird to go and program a [TS]

00:18:31   light timer to say yeah at 7:00 p.m. [TS]

00:18:33   turn on 10:00 p.m. turn off and I think [TS]

00:18:36   if this if this device if this nest just [TS]

00:18:39   made it easier and more elegant to do [TS]

00:18:43   that [TS]

00:18:43   thing to make it a simple way to say [TS]

00:18:47   yeah now when I want to change the time [TS]

00:18:49   that it comes on at this temperature I [TS]

00:18:50   just twist a dial I don't have to hit 20 [TS]

00:18:52   different buttons and switch different [TS]

00:18:53   mode like just make it better make the [TS]

00:18:55   experience of doing what we're already [TS]

00:18:57   doing better instead of kind of taking [TS]

00:18:59   away the control that we have yeah and I [TS]

00:19:02   think it remains to be seen whether [TS]

00:19:04   whether they need to pivot because just [TS]

00:19:06   because people like mark or a subset by [TS]

00:19:08   it doesn't mean that it won't still find [TS]

00:19:09   its audience so we'll see but now I have [TS]

00:19:12   to get to Wikipedia which is our big [TS]

00:19:14   follow up yeah big follow up big follow [TS]

00:19:16   lots of lots of feedback whoo at the [TS]

00:19:20   beginning like my normal feedback thing [TS]

00:19:21   I do is free emails that I get I have a [TS]

00:19:23   label in Gmail and and I star the ones [TS]

00:19:26   that I think I'm going to want to follow [TS]

00:19:28   up on directly but the number of stars [TS]

00:19:30   quickly got to the point where I says [TS]

00:19:31   you know it's the The Princess Bride [TS]

00:19:33   thing you know I know there is too much [TS]

00:19:35   let me sum up I can't go through [TS]

00:19:38   individual emails and address the [TS]

00:19:39   individual points because it would take [TS]

00:19:41   17 shows so I'm going to try to group [TS]

00:19:43   the feed back into themes and then I'm [TS]

00:19:46   going to use one particular piece of [TS]

00:19:48   feedback as kind of a stand-in from any [TS]

00:19:50   other so if you wrote in with feedback [TS]

00:19:52   rest assured that I read every single [TS]

00:19:53   piece of feedback that comes either [TS]

00:19:55   directly to me or through that form just [TS]

00:19:57   because we don't cite you directly or by [TS]

00:19:58   name on the air doesn't mean we didn't [TS]

00:19:59   read you and just because I don't reply [TS]

00:20:01   to you doesn't mean I didn't read it and [TS]

00:20:02   absorb it but there's a certain point [TS]

00:20:04   you just you know you can't so don't [TS]

00:20:08   feel like I'm ignoring your point even [TS]

00:20:10   if we do skip over because I may get to [TS]

00:20:13   it in a future show but I have to lump [TS]

00:20:14   this together so the first theme for the [TS]

00:20:17   feedback which is a boring one but it's [TS]

00:20:21   it was there was people sharing similar [TS]

00:20:24   stories about their encounters with [TS]

00:20:27   Wikipedia and these are probably the [TS]

00:20:29   same people who are tweeting listening [TS]

00:20:31   to the show and saying you know positive [TS]

00:20:34   things like right on or you know that's [TS]

00:20:36   exactly what I think about capito so [TS]

00:20:37   that they're sharing stories where [TS]

00:20:40   they'll say I you know jumped onto [TS]

00:20:44   Wikipedia and I tried to do something [TS]

00:20:45   and I was repelled by the similar things [TS]

00:20:47   and they like of course hearing someone [TS]

00:20:48   else echo their same experiences in a [TS]

00:20:51   wider venue so the person whose feedback [TS]

00:20:53   I'm going to use as sort of a guy [TS]

00:20:56   through this section here I wish I had [TS]

00:20:59   looked at peda pronounce his name hmm [TS]

00:21:00   it's William Beutler bu T lar and I'm [TS]

00:21:08   citing his article in the both the [TS]

00:21:10   section and the other sections where we [TS]

00:21:11   talk about more negative things and so [TS]

00:21:14   one of the things that he wrote quote he [TS]

00:21:15   wrote a blog post about this is why I'm [TS]

00:21:17   putting it up is because his his [TS]

00:21:19   feedback was public and so I can put it [TS]

00:21:21   in the show notes and everybody can read [TS]

00:21:22   it rather than me trying to retell the [TS]

00:21:24   emails that people sent us individually [TS]

00:21:27   so he agrees on this this positive [TS]

00:21:29   feedback thing he says and by the way [TS]

00:21:31   his website is called like the Wikipedia [TS]

00:21:33   now or something like that [TS]

00:21:34   the Wikipedian comments me this shows [TS]

00:21:37   how unprepared I am a demon have the [TS]

00:21:38   shownotes open you're doing a good job [TS]

00:21:42   though the Wikipedian so clearly he's [TS]

00:21:45   coming from you know perspective he's [TS]

00:21:47   coming from perfectly right William [TS]

00:21:49   Bueller on on Wikipedia he has some [TS]

00:21:51   vague familiarity with Wiccan right and [TS]

00:21:53   early on the article he says many people [TS]

00:21:56   try to get involved Wikipedia who have [TS]

00:21:57   no idea what it's really about and they [TS]

00:21:59   tend to have really a really bad [TS]

00:22:00   experience Wikipedia struggles to [TS]

00:22:02   explain itself to outsiders and probably [TS]

00:22:03   always will so I think the universal [TS]

00:22:06   consensus on the shared experience of [TS]

00:22:09   trying to participate in Wikipedia and [TS]

00:22:13   bouncing off of it and by far that was [TS]

00:22:16   the the theme behind the vast majority [TS]

00:22:19   of the positive feedback whether it's [TS]

00:22:20   you know direct emails or Twitter things [TS]

00:22:22   or people you know just saying nice [TS]

00:22:23   things about the podcast that they were [TS]

00:22:26   hearing me tell a story that was similar [TS]

00:22:28   to their experience and I think a lot of [TS]

00:22:31   the positive feedback also comes from [TS]

00:22:33   the fact that in in forums that are not [TS]

00:22:36   specifically about Wikipedia like this [TS]

00:22:38   podcast it's not specifically about [TS]

00:22:39   Wikipedia you rarely hear people saying [TS]

00:22:40   anything but good things about Wikipedia [TS]

00:22:42   including you know I can hear my link to [TS]

00:22:44   Wikipedia like crazy in the show notes [TS]

00:22:46   and I as I think I said in the show I [TS]

00:22:47   love that it exists and it's often the [TS]

00:22:49   only place you can find any kind of link [TS]

00:22:51   like that and we relied on all the time [TS]

00:22:54   you very rarely hear negative things [TS]

00:22:58   about Wikipedia outside of sort of the [TS]

00:22:59   wiki the circle of Wikipedia so I think [TS]

00:23:01   all these people who weren't involved [TS]

00:23:03   with Wikipedia but it just tried to [TS]

00:23:04   participate in and it bounced off [TS]

00:23:06   finally felt like some vindication that [TS]

00:23:08   is all it's not just me I'm not the [TS]

00:23:10   crazy one that everyone says Wikipedia [TS]

00:23:12   is great but I have this bad experience [TS]

00:23:13   and a Wikipedia in here also saying the [TS]

00:23:15   same thing yes this is a real phenomenon [TS]

00:23:16   it happens now I want to add that and [TS]

00:23:19   this is not something that William added [TS]

00:23:21   I'm gonna keep calling William doesn't [TS]

00:23:22   want to keep trying to pronounce his [TS]

00:23:23   last name that he didn't say this but [TS]

00:23:27   I'm going to say it that's not [TS]

00:23:28   necessarily a bad thing the fact that [TS]

00:23:30   people try to participate in Wikipedia [TS]

00:23:32   and and don't have don't understand it [TS]

00:23:35   and have a bad experience and then [TS]

00:23:37   decide not to do it you know you [TS]

00:23:39   Wikipedia I assume or any institution [TS]

00:23:43   wants people to get involved in it who [TS]

00:23:46   are on board with his mission you know I [TS]

00:23:48   mean so if you think you know if you get [TS]

00:23:50   involved with it and find out but this [TS]

00:23:51   is really why I want well you know like [TS]

00:23:55   they want the people who are gung-ho on [TS]

00:23:58   Wikipedia and learn about and say yeah [TS]

00:23:59   that's exactly what I get want to get [TS]

00:24:01   involved in and you don't need every [TS]

00:24:03   single person in the entire world to [TS]

00:24:05   participate in Wikipedia you just want [TS]

00:24:07   the best people you know what I mean [TS]

00:24:09   so I'm not saying this as if it's some [TS]

00:24:12   sort of negative and it shows see how [TS]

00:24:13   bad Wikipedia is people try to [TS]

00:24:14   participate in and then they they run [TS]

00:24:16   away screaming [TS]

00:24:17   ah that may be a neutral thing but it is [TS]

00:24:20   it is a phenomenon and that was one part [TS]

00:24:24   of what was expressed on our last [TS]

00:24:25   episode when I discuss Wikipedia um the [TS]

00:24:28   other thing is that the Wikipedia of [TS]

00:24:31   course expects newbies to comment people [TS]

00:24:33   who don't understand anything about [TS]

00:24:34   Wikipedia and they and they do want to [TS]

00:24:36   indoctrinate new people and say you keep [TS]

00:24:38   keep you know fresh blood in the project [TS]

00:24:40   you want to get people up to speed and [TS]

00:24:41   stuff like that and I think Chadwick [TS]

00:24:44   Severn was the first person to point [TS]

00:24:45   this up that we just got scam [TS]

00:24:48   application education Wikipedia uses a [TS]

00:24:50   similar form of gamification in its [TS]

00:24:52   structure so there are there levels to [TS]

00:24:53   Wikipedia where you come in you start [TS]

00:24:55   out as an editor and then later you [TS]

00:24:57   become an administrator and then you [TS]

00:24:59   become a bureaucrat and then an [TS]

00:25:00   arbitrator that's their sort of loveling [TS]

00:25:02   system right and apparently there's [TS]

00:25:05   something that's very similar to badges [TS]

00:25:07   or like achievements on people's user [TS]

00:25:08   profiles something that I don't I don't [TS]

00:25:12   know what those orbs I didn't have time [TS]

00:25:13   to look it up but Jack wick also points [TS]

00:25:15   out in it's his estimation that [TS]

00:25:17   Wikipedia has a virtual currency as well [TS]

00:25:19   and that's the number of edits you have [TS]

00:25:20   I'm not involved enough in the system to [TS]

00:25:23   know if that's an act [TS]

00:25:24   representation of would you consider [TS]

00:25:25   that the virtual currency that [TS]

00:25:28   definitely you can tell that the [TS]

00:25:29   Wikipedia and most sort of like groups [TS]

00:25:32   or online systems [TS]

00:25:34   do employ gamification in some way to [TS]

00:25:38   help make participation more attractive [TS]

00:25:41   so I think Wikipedia does want new [TS]

00:25:42   people to come in and does want them to [TS]

00:25:43   get enthused for about the project and [TS]

00:25:46   level up and go through it and there is [TS]

00:25:47   a learning process but it's also true [TS]

00:25:51   that many people you know are repelled [TS]

00:25:56   that Wikipedia rather than attracted [TS]

00:25:58   when they attempt to participate and I [TS]

00:26:00   think there's so many of these similar [TS]

00:26:01   stories because of something that I also [TS]

00:26:04   talked about in last show is that [TS]

00:26:05   there's a mismatch between what [TS]

00:26:07   Wikipedia is and what people think it is [TS]

00:26:09   that was kind of one of the main reasons [TS]

00:26:11   I brought up the talk topic at all [TS]

00:26:13   because I impression was that my [TS]

00:26:15   experience where I didn't understand it [TS]

00:26:17   as similar to other peoples it's not [TS]

00:26:18   it's not so much that they decide not to [TS]

00:26:21   participate because they know what [TS]

00:26:22   Kapiti is not for them they think it's [TS]

00:26:24   for them that's it they think they know [TS]

00:26:25   what Wikipedia is and I said yeah what [TS]

00:26:26   could be use that thing where everyone [TS]

00:26:27   writes down stuff and and I have [TS]

00:26:30   stuffing to contribute that let me try [TS]

00:26:32   it and then when they learn what it [TS]

00:26:33   actually is they're you know it's two [TS]

00:26:35   things at once it's the fact that they [TS]

00:26:36   don't like what it is and the fact that [TS]

00:26:38   it what it is is not what they thought [TS]

00:26:40   it was and those two combine very [TS]

00:26:41   quickly to make you know as a repulsive [TS]

00:26:43   force to make you go away oh you know [TS]

00:26:45   wait wait a second this isn't this is [TS]

00:26:46   what I thought I was signing up for you [TS]

00:26:48   know again william saying that syracuse [TS]

00:26:53   are correctly observes wikipedia is not [TS]

00:26:55   a place where you can write the write [TS]

00:26:57   down stuff that you know what capilla [TS]

00:26:58   writes about other people writing about [TS]

00:27:01   things and i really do feel that that's [TS]

00:27:03   not what most people think Wikipedia is [TS]

00:27:06   that's why I start Alessio asking a [TS]

00:27:08   Wikipedia was that it just ripped this I [TS]

00:27:09   mean maybe if you were to present it to [TS]

00:27:12   them in the right way they would agree [TS]

00:27:13   with it but if you just ask them to come [TS]

00:27:14   what do you think Wikipedia is they [TS]

00:27:16   think of it as a place where people [TS]

00:27:18   smart people go to write stuff that they [TS]

00:27:19   know or people with knowledge put their [TS]

00:27:22   knowledge but that's not what it is [TS]

00:27:24   right and that that big mismatch is what [TS]

00:27:26   I think forms this whole repulsive [TS]

00:27:29   problem and that gets to mostly the [TS]

00:27:34   heart of my complaint [TS]

00:27:37   and I think we sort of came to it and a [TS]

00:27:40   roundabout way in the last show but my [TS]

00:27:42   complaint is that Wikipedia is a [TS]

00:27:43   tertiary source I mean it's not you know [TS]

00:27:45   and that I would like to allow the [TS]

00:27:47   direct contribution of knowledge in [TS]

00:27:49   other words I want I would rather it be [TS]

00:27:50   the thing that everyone thinks it is and [TS]

00:27:56   so the question is why why do you why do [TS]

00:27:59   I not why do I want it to be that thing [TS]

00:28:01   that everyone thinks is well one reason [TS]

00:28:02   obviously is that I think it you know [TS]

00:28:04   there would be more participation [TS]

00:28:05   because this is what most people think [TS]

00:28:07   it is and when they're shocked to find [TS]

00:28:08   out the difference that is something [TS]

00:28:10   different than they don't they're not [TS]

00:28:12   interested in contributing or they have [TS]

00:28:13   a bad experience or it frustrates them [TS]

00:28:14   and that limits the number of people can [TS]

00:28:17   contribute again that may not [TS]

00:28:18   necessarily be a bad thing it depends on [TS]

00:28:19   how many people you want to contribute [TS]

00:28:20   but I like the idea of more people to [TS]

00:28:22   contributing so why why do I want it to [TS]

00:28:27   be something different the reason for [TS]

00:28:30   that is tied up in lots of different [TS]

00:28:31   aspects of the problem that's why it's [TS]

00:28:33   hard to talk about in a clearer way and [TS]

00:28:35   we went off on many different tangents [TS]

00:28:36   last show but sort of broadly speaking [TS]

00:28:41   my the reason I wanted to be different [TS]

00:28:43   is that people who want to contribute to [TS]

00:28:47   its knowledge to Wikipedia are thwarted [TS]

00:28:49   in the currently and they're thwarted by [TS]

00:28:53   several different things they're sorted [TS]

00:28:56   by first expecting to be able to write [TS]

00:28:58   down what they know like the [TS]

00:28:59   misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is [TS]

00:29:01   not understanding as a tertiary source [TS]

00:29:02   not understanding this is where you [TS]

00:29:03   really record knowledge that you have [TS]

00:29:06   they're sorted by the notability thing [TS]

00:29:09   which we touched on the last show but I [TS]

00:29:10   think maybe I deserve more emphasis but [TS]

00:29:13   there's a topic where a whole bunch of [TS]

00:29:15   people want to make some sort of public [TS]

00:29:16   record of and they are upset to learn [TS]

00:29:21   that the fact that a whole bunch of [TS]

00:29:23   people want to make a public record of [TS]

00:29:24   this is not sufficient for it to be [TS]

00:29:26   deemed important enough to be included [TS]

00:29:27   in Wikipedia so notability in the [TS]

00:29:29   deletion is type thing and then finally [TS]

00:29:31   there's the rules lawyer ring by people [TS]

00:29:33   with opposing views like if you're [TS]

00:29:34   talking about some issue that has you [TS]

00:29:36   know opposing views on one side of the [TS]

00:29:38   other even if you're not doing advocacy [TS]

00:29:39   at all the fact that you're just trying [TS]

00:29:41   to if the issue is like has it [TS]

00:29:42   inherently has some sort of advocacy in [TS]

00:29:44   it or is contentious in any way if the [TS]

00:29:48   people who are on the opposite side of [TS]

00:29:50   the [TS]

00:29:51   the debate from you know the system [TS]

00:29:54   better than you do they can use the [TS]

00:29:56   things that we they can use those things [TS]

00:29:57   that both the things we just talked [TS]

00:29:59   about that the fact that its tertiary [TS]

00:30:01   source and the notability requires that [TS]

00:30:02   anything else they can use that to [TS]

00:30:03   prevent you from contributing your [TS]

00:30:06   knowledge and these are the things that [TS]

00:30:08   I don't like about that then I want [TS]

00:30:12   someplace where everybody can put all [TS]

00:30:13   their knowledge and it's more inclusive [TS]

00:30:15   more and more able to accept the input [TS]

00:30:18   from people who want to provide it and [TS]

00:30:19   less sort of less elitist and less less [TS]

00:30:22   constrained so that was the heart of [TS]

00:30:26   what I was talking about the heart of [TS]

00:30:28   most listener complaints from both [TS]

00:30:32   Wikipedians on now non Wikipedians was [TS]

00:30:36   how can that possibly work how can [TS]

00:30:40   that's said swell and all you identified [TS]

00:30:42   instances where people are frustrated [TS]

00:30:44   with Wikipedia and you say you wish it [TS]

00:30:47   was this different thing but how can [TS]

00:30:48   that different thing possibly work you [TS]

00:30:54   know and I think the well before I get [TS]

00:30:58   into the specifics look implies that [TS]

00:31:00   that's that's kind of the shape of of [TS]

00:31:02   the the feedback I think was that was [TS]

00:31:06   the the main thing that I was saying and [TS]

00:31:07   then there are many different ways to [TS]

00:31:12   express the idea that the things that I [TS]

00:31:17   wanted uh sound good in theory but in [TS]

00:31:20   practice are not feasible and therefore [TS]

00:31:23   like it's kind of like saying well many [TS]

00:31:26   people actually some people use this [TS]

00:31:27   exactly example well democracy is the [TS]

00:31:29   worst system of government except for [TS]

00:31:31   all the other ones like that yeah it's [TS]

00:31:33   got lots of problems and it's bad and [TS]

00:31:34   it's very easy to point out the problems [TS]

00:31:36   but what can you do it's the best thing [TS]

00:31:39   that we have and that gets all tied up [TS]

00:31:42   into the into my where's your better [TS]

00:31:43   movie thing where I like to be able to [TS]

00:31:46   complain about something without being [TS]

00:31:48   told that I have to have the solution to [TS]

00:31:50   it but in this case I don't think that's [TS]

00:31:52   the same that applies 100% because the [TS]

00:31:55   heart of my complaint is that I think it [TS]

00:31:58   could be better if done differently so I [TS]

00:32:01   think there is some requirement to at [TS]

00:32:04   least Express [TS]

00:32:05   well why do things are bad and what the [TS]

00:32:09   possible alternatives could be [TS]

00:32:10   especially with something as successful [TS]

00:32:13   as Wikipedia and many people want to [TS]

00:32:14   know about that I we will get to it that [TS]

00:32:16   eventually but a lot of people got tied [TS]

00:32:20   up in knots in their feedback assuming [TS]

00:32:23   that what I'm suggesting by implication [TS]

00:32:26   if not explicitly is taking Wikipedia [TS]

00:32:29   and changing its rules and so if you [TS]

00:32:32   take the existing Wikipedia and remove [TS]

00:32:34   for example verifiability and allowing [TS]

00:32:36   direct contribution allowing original [TS]

00:32:38   research it's very easy to see that that [TS]

00:32:41   would be a mess and that's what I need [TS]

00:32:43   you will point out so you can't you know [TS]

00:32:44   that that that wouldn't work right and [TS]

00:32:48   it's kind of the case with the existence [TS]

00:32:50   of a successful entity in this space the [TS]

00:32:53   existence of Wikipedia as this big thing [TS]

00:32:55   and this institution pins in the [TS]

00:32:58   thinking about this entire issue it's [TS]

00:33:00   kind of like when the iPhone comes out [TS]

00:33:01   and if the entire thing is made of a [TS]

00:33:03   screen suddenly that sort of draws the [TS]

00:33:07   borders of what the future of phones is [TS]

00:33:10   and everybody else starts thinking about [TS]

00:33:12   all right well obviously we're going to [TS]

00:33:14   have a big rectangular thing with the [TS]

00:33:16   screen and then in the only place we can [TS]

00:33:19   make different decisions is what's on [TS]

00:33:20   that screen how many buttons do we have [TS]

00:33:22   you know what I mean [TS]

00:33:23   whereas before the iPhone phones look [TS]

00:33:25   like all sorts of crazy things so the [TS]

00:33:26   success of the iPhone has sort of hemmed [TS]

00:33:29   in the thinking of all the other phone [TS]

00:33:31   makers for good or for ill it's you know [TS]

00:33:33   it's a fact and they are working within [TS]

00:33:34   that framework now I think wikipedia [TS]

00:33:36   defines the framework for a [TS]

00:33:39   collaborative collection of knowledge [TS]

00:33:41   and so anytime anyone wants to think [TS]

00:33:43   about that issue at all like for example [TS]

00:33:45   I was saying you should allow direct [TS]

00:33:46   contributions and these people shouldn't [TS]

00:33:47   be kept from from doing what they're [TS]

00:33:49   doing instead well you know and [TS]

00:33:53   verifiability over truth and stuff like [TS]

00:33:55   that said well they immediately think of [TS]

00:33:57   Wikipedia and they remove the [TS]

00:33:59   requirement for verifiability [TS]

00:34:00   and then they extrapolate and they see [TS]

00:34:02   that doesn't work it's chaos it's you [TS]

00:34:04   know it becomes a fortune for it isn't [TS]

00:34:06   it no it's not it's not it's not useful [TS]

00:34:09   anymore [TS]

00:34:09   all right so now finally I'm going to [TS]

00:34:13   walk through [TS]

00:34:14   this article by Willing Beutler on his a [TS]

00:34:17   blog the Wikipedian all right before [TS]

00:34:19   before you walk through let's do our [TS]

00:34:21   first sponsor have been talking for 30 [TS]

00:34:23   minutes and we've got to get him in [TS]

00:34:24   because it's a cool sponsor you'll prove [TS]

00:34:26   it the sponsor I wish you would in fact [TS]

00:34:28   I wish you would use this sponsor [TS]

00:34:31   personally you John sir I wish you would [TS]

00:34:33   use it it's fresh books fresh books calm [TS]

00:34:35   painless billing now they came up with [TS]

00:34:38   that sounds like something I would say [TS]

00:34:40   they did that on their own so this is [TS]

00:34:42   this is what they're about there it's [TS]

00:34:44   the fastest way to track time organize [TS]

00:34:46   expenses invoice your clients I let you [TS]

00:34:50   focus on your work not your paperwork [TS]

00:34:52   you know so when you invoice somebody [TS]

00:34:54   what do you do right now you fire up [TS]

00:34:56   pages you fire board you type it into an [TS]

00:34:59   email and then you immediately lose [TS]

00:35:02   track of that what happened it did I [TS]

00:35:03   send it that were they able to open it I [TS]

00:35:05   don't know they say they never got it [TS]

00:35:07   did they did they get and just not pay [TS]

00:35:10   this happens all the time [TS]

00:35:12   if FreshBooks eliminates that you create [TS]

00:35:15   it they handle sending it they send out [TS]

00:35:17   a special private URL to the person you [TS]

00:35:19   see in their list did they read it yes [TS]

00:35:22   they did they received it you can see [TS]

00:35:24   that it was sent you can see that it was [TS]

00:35:25   received you can see that they viewed it [TS]

00:35:27   if they pay you with paypal or something [TS]

00:35:29   like that and this supports all kinds of [TS]

00:35:31   payment gateways then it'll show is paid [TS]

00:35:33   right there you know that they've paid [TS]

00:35:35   it if not they send you a check you just [TS]

00:35:36   go in click the box that it's marked as [TS]

00:35:38   paid it's great but they do a lot more [TS]

00:35:40   than that they do a whole lot more than [TS]

00:35:41   than just that I mean they've got it [TS]

00:35:45   aside from the online payments they have [TS]

00:35:47   all the built-in follow-up stuff the [TS]

00:35:49   professional invoicing they let you pull [TS]

00:35:51   your time and expenses into your [TS]

00:35:53   invoices and break it all out it's got [TS]

00:35:55   time tracking you can invoice in [TS]

00:35:56   different currencies I mean it tuns us [TS]

00:35:58   that they even have a thing where you [TS]

00:36:00   can print out the invoice and mail it if [TS]

00:36:02   these people you're dealing with people [TS]

00:36:03   who don't know what email is they've [TS]

00:36:05   thought of everything real human beings [TS]

00:36:07   answer the phone when you call or send [TS]

00:36:08   an email these guys are great new thing [TS]

00:36:11   that they have going now which is this [TS]

00:36:13   one take an extra second to type out [TS]

00:36:15   because this is really cool it used to [TS]

00:36:17   be you'd sign up and you just basically [TS]

00:36:19   just be you you could be you and three [TS]

00:36:21   clients and you could use it like that [TS]

00:36:23   you can still do that they've still got [TS]

00:36:24   that free plant thing tucked away but [TS]

00:36:26   this [TS]

00:36:27   is what they have now for the first 30 [TS]

00:36:28   days okay you can have unlimited team [TS]

00:36:32   members staff members using it tracking [TS]

00:36:33   time sending invoices for you everything [TS]

00:36:35   unlimited unlimited clients now that [TS]

00:36:38   ends after 30 days they scale you back [TS]

00:36:40   down but that you get to really use this [TS]

00:36:42   the way you would really use it in the [TS]

00:36:43   enterprise I love these guys [TS]

00:36:45   longtime sponsor of us if you if you do [TS]

00:36:47   anything with time tracking or sending [TS]

00:36:48   invoices you need to check out [TS]

00:36:50   freshbooks comm thanks very much to them [TS]

00:36:52   for making this show possible I want you [TS]

00:36:55   to start using to Cheung music because a [TS]

00:36:58   beautiful handmade invoices I do like [TS]

00:37:00   that your personal signatures is on them [TS]

00:37:03   that's a very nice touch that's [TS]

00:37:05   something I believe you could probably [TS]

00:37:06   do with this too but no because if you [TS]

00:37:08   invoice me with fresh books I get it [TS]

00:37:10   right in my own system and I can pay it [TS]

00:37:12   right through the system anyway just an [TS]

00:37:14   idea I'm just planning for it you just [TS]

00:37:15   planting a seed okay alright let's walk [TS]

00:37:19   through then yeah so this article the [TS]

00:37:20   title of this article is verifiability [TS]

00:37:22   and truth what john siracusa doesn't get [TS]

00:37:25   about Wikipedia so very provocative [TS]

00:37:26   title then it makes you want to at least [TS]

00:37:28   makes you want to read it yeah I like [TS]

00:37:31   the site design to it it's very very [TS]

00:37:33   clean I like the the font choices and [TS]

00:37:34   everything alright so here's a here's a [TS]

00:37:39   section from this it's a very long [TS]

00:37:40   article and it has lots of stuff in it [TS]

00:37:43   some stuff hi gruesome stuff I don't [TS]

00:37:44   we'll go through some of it here he's [TS]

00:37:45   and in case you didn't guess I'm using [TS]

00:37:47   him as a stand-in for all the negative [TS]

00:37:49   feedback [TS]

00:37:49   I guess it's mostly what his point is as [TS]

00:37:51   the title suggests so he's talking about [TS]

00:37:56   what I said on the podcast by privilege [TS]

00:37:58   Nkrumah verifiability both of these are [TS]

00:38:01   in quotes one gets the impression that [TS]

00:38:02   he is describing a Rashomon like [TS]

00:38:04   wikipedia where all possible viewpoints [TS]

00:38:06   are explored and somehow eventually [TS]

00:38:07   Wikipedia just makes the right call this [TS]

00:38:09   assumes a lot not not least that [TS]

00:38:11   contentious topics would sit wouldn't [TS]

00:38:13   simply devolve into edit wars of [TS]

00:38:14   unchecked aggression in a world where [TS]

00:38:16   Wikipedia aims for truth but issues Vera [TS]

00:38:19   verifiability there are no footholds [TS]

00:38:21   upon which a study to study an argument [TS]

00:38:23   there is no way to know what should be [TS]

00:38:25   considered credible or otherwise so that [TS]

00:38:28   I think is a nice summary of listener [TS]

00:38:31   feedback about my idea of not having [TS]

00:38:35   Wikipedia be of tertiary so it's now [TS]

00:38:37   first I want to point out [TS]

00:38:38   that the framing is still there right a [TS]

00:38:42   Rashomon like Wikipedia where all [TS]

00:38:44   viewpoints are explored so it's a it's a [TS]

00:38:47   descriptive modifier wikipedia you know [TS]

00:38:51   somehow eventually Wikipedia would just [TS]

00:38:53   make the right call it's it's the [TS]

00:38:55   assumption that you have Wikipedia but [TS]

00:38:57   it's modified all right and we'll get [TS]

00:38:58   we'll get to that more later but I want [TS]

00:39:00   to see that that's inherent in the [TS]

00:39:01   discussion of this topics that we're [TS]

00:39:02   assuming that we're talking about the [TS]

00:39:04   institution of Wikipedia and what we're [TS]

00:39:05   talking about or modifications to and [TS]

00:39:06   here's why they won't work you know and [TS]

00:39:09   it's obviously in a world where [TS]

00:39:11   Wikipedia a mess for truth which is what [TS]

00:39:12   I was talking about I thought truth [TS]

00:39:13   should be the number one but but issues [TS]

00:39:15   is it eschews es I like yeah I'm good [TS]

00:39:18   let's go with that I love it yeah I [TS]

00:39:19   don't not upon sittin you know it works [TS]

00:39:21   but no it's that that you're doing it [TS]

00:39:22   right but issues verifiability there are [TS]

00:39:25   no footholds upon a wish to study an [TS]

00:39:26   argument which i think is nicely written [TS]

00:39:29   so that here's one thing that apparently [TS]

00:39:34   I didn't make clear I didn't mean [TS]

00:39:35   suggest that citations should not exist [TS]

00:39:38   and uh what all I wanted was that truth [TS]

00:39:41   be the ultimate goal no this obviously [TS]

00:39:43   is a loaded question I kept circling [TS]

00:39:44   back to it and waffling to say well you [TS]

00:39:47   know so then what is truth truth is a [TS]

00:39:49   loaded word what's how can you even [TS]

00:39:53   discuss this issue I didn't just didn't [TS]

00:39:54   like the fact that the the goal was [TS]

00:39:57   truth not verifiability but it didn't [TS]

00:39:59   say and by the way you're not even [TS]

00:40:00   allowed to cite sources [TS]

00:40:01   there's no citations lab no verification [TS]

00:40:04   allowed right of course in in the [TS]

00:40:07   scenario that I'm imagining citations [TS]

00:40:10   would still exist and be encouraged but [TS]

00:40:12   there would simply be other ways to [TS]

00:40:13   contribute in other words it wouldn't [TS]

00:40:14   strictly be a tertiary source and that [TS]

00:40:16   opens the door to other ways to [TS]

00:40:18   contribute besides citing something that [TS]

00:40:20   was written in a reliable source so and [TS]

00:40:21   so forth doesn't mean you can't use [TS]

00:40:23   citations doesn't mean you can't be do [TS]

00:40:24   things that would be valid in Wikipedia [TS]

00:40:26   you know and in fact I imagine that [TS]

00:40:29   would still be the majority of content [TS]

00:40:31   the feedback on Prince EA is SQ like [TS]

00:40:35   letter s and the word qu so I was close [TS]

00:40:38   I just have trouble saying that word all [TS]

00:40:40   right now this gets into a sidetrack [TS]

00:40:44   that that I want to talk about [TS]

00:40:46   verifiability first I think that's [TS]

00:40:48   that's a loaded word all right so here's [TS]

00:40:51   the section [TS]

00:40:52   the Williams blogpost Niner [TS]

00:40:57   he was discussing the fact that I had [TS]

00:41:00   said that Wikipedia seemed to be prefer [TS]

00:41:03   paper sources and old-world things and [TS]

00:41:05   the rules of sort of the bygone era that [TS]

00:41:08   defined you know the very fact that they [TS]

00:41:10   want to be tertiary source because [TS]

00:41:11   that's what encyclopedias are and the [TS]

00:41:13   fact encyclopedias were important they [TS]

00:41:14   think they're the new encyclopedias [TS]

00:41:16   their adopt they use as a springboard [TS]

00:41:18   the starting point of like well what is [TS]

00:41:20   an encyclopedia working to be a new [TS]

00:41:21   version of that right but specifically I [TS]

00:41:23   talked about a preferring paper [TS]

00:41:25   magazines to online even went online [TS]

00:41:27   gets more traffic and all that stuff [TS]

00:41:28   like that so he says he hopes that that [TS]

00:41:32   I don't that helps it John Syracuse [TS]

00:41:35   doesn't actually think that Wikipedia [TS]

00:41:36   editors prefer paper if anything they [TS]

00:41:38   actually prefer online sources which are [TS]

00:41:39   easier to check but he completely misses [TS]

00:41:41   a key dynamic but ties back to [TS]

00:41:43   verifiability the paper magazine with [TS]

00:41:45   poor circulation at least will have [TS]

00:41:46   editors who are presumed to care about [TS]

00:41:48   fact-checking and accuracy a web forum [TS]

00:41:50   however popular may be it may have [TS]

00:41:52   moderators that's not the same thing as [TS]

00:41:53   having an editor a discussion group is [TS]

00:41:56   not an editorial operation period the [TS]

00:41:59   forum is a primary source and so should [TS]

00:42:01   only be used to support reliable sources [TS]

00:42:03   right so there a couple of issues with [TS]

00:42:08   this passage that as he kind of gets to [TS]

00:42:10   at the end the specific example of ft FF [TS]

00:42:14   was a case where as he notes the forum [TS]

00:42:16   was a primary source the foreign web [TS]

00:42:18   forum wasn't reporting on a topic so as [TS]

00:42:20   far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter [TS]

00:42:21   that they have no editorial oversight in [TS]

00:42:23   a webstorm is they're the primary source [TS]

00:42:25   they are the people discussing a topic [TS]

00:42:26   and the many different web forums are [TS]

00:42:28   like well here's some people talking [TS]

00:42:29   about this here's but you know if you're [TS]

00:42:30   going to show that a term has become has [TS]

00:42:33   gone into widespread use within the [TS]

00:42:35   Apple community citing 17 different [TS]

00:42:37   Apple forums and whole bunch of [TS]

00:42:38   different websites and citing back to [TS]

00:42:40   the original Apple forum where this term [TS]

00:42:41   came from was a way to support your [TS]

00:42:42   argument right but that's original [TS]

00:42:46   research if you're hopping around to ten [TS]

00:42:48   different forums and finding a lots of [TS]

00:42:49   instances of where this word is you are [TS]

00:42:51   becoming secondary source you could use [TS]

00:42:53   that to write an article for your [TS]

00:42:54   publication to say you know I'm you know [TS]

00:42:57   a reliable a considered a reliable [TS]

00:42:59   source in the Mac community and I'm [TS]

00:43:00   going to write for Mac world magazine or [TS]

00:43:02   something and I'm going [TS]

00:43:03   write an article about you know [TS]

00:43:06   dissatisfaction with the Mac os10 finder [TS]

00:43:07   and in it I'm going to reference this [TS]

00:43:09   term and I'm going to cite the fact that [TS]

00:43:12   it is a peer in X Y & Z form or whatever [TS]

00:43:13   right but were you to do that directly [TS]

00:43:16   and Wikipedia that they would say you [TS]

00:43:17   know we would prefer to be a tertiary [TS]

00:43:20   source so you shouldn't be doing [TS]

00:43:22   original research and then writing down [TS]

00:43:23   the results of your research on a [TS]

00:43:24   Wikipedia page let's see where we are [TS]

00:43:30   here so the second point on this thing [TS]

00:43:34   is the the bit where he says the paper [TS]

00:43:38   magazine with poor circulation at least [TS]

00:43:41   will have editors who are presumed to [TS]

00:43:42   care about fact-checking and accuracy [TS]

00:43:44   and it's the presumed to care about [TS]

00:43:45   business that was getting my dander up [TS]

00:43:49   about how how Wikipedia was just a you [TS]

00:43:54   know built on a house of sand and it was [TS]

00:43:55   just one giant appeal to Authority [TS]

00:43:57   fallacy and we'll get more appeal to [TS]

00:44:00   Authority more later so for instance New [TS]

00:44:03   York Times The Wall Street Journal are [TS]

00:44:05   presumed to be reliable sources now and [TS]

00:44:09   it it's kind of like the depilatory is [TS]

00:44:14   you know they've said things in the past [TS]

00:44:18   that have been correct [TS]

00:44:19   they said this new thing therefore this [TS]

00:44:22   new thing is probably correct because in [TS]

00:44:23   the past this publication has been [TS]

00:44:26   correct right and for things like the [TS]

00:44:29   New York Times The Wall Street Journal [TS]

00:44:30   said like there are things that we all [TS]

00:44:31   that they have like unassailable [TS]

00:44:33   Authority where no one is questioning [TS]

00:44:34   where did you see that you just see it [TS]

00:44:36   in some random blog on some tumblr thing [TS]

00:44:38   or no I saw it in the New York Times [TS]

00:44:40   right and that lends a weight to that [TS]

00:44:43   content because this institution has a [TS]

00:44:45   history of fact-checking and they have [TS]

00:44:47   rigorous you know blah blah like you're [TS]

00:44:50   not you don't have to prove that there's [TS]

00:44:51   like a history behind it and it lends [TS]

00:44:53   weight to the content and on the flip [TS]

00:44:55   side of that is you know like that's [TS]

00:44:59   just some random person's blog or [TS]

00:45:00   something like that where even before [TS]

00:45:02   you can sit you you have to have some [TS]

00:45:04   way to to decide whether this [TS]

00:45:06   information is reliable right the tricky [TS]

00:45:10   bit about the word verification is and [TS]

00:45:12   verified and verifiability is that it's [TS]

00:45:15   not I don't think it's the right word [TS]

00:45:17   they need [TS]

00:45:17   somewhere to encapsulate this statement [TS]

00:45:19   but I'm not sure verified is the word [TS]

00:45:21   because verified is like conclusive you [TS]

00:45:24   know what I mean like is that definitive [TS]

00:45:28   verifiable the the concept I think the [TS]

00:45:32   correct concept it may actually be the [TS]

00:45:35   right word just people taking it the [TS]

00:45:36   wrong way when they say verifiability [TS]

00:45:38   they're not saying verify that this [TS]

00:45:41   statement is true they're saying verify [TS]

00:45:43   that this institution that we trust [TS]

00:45:45   actually said this that's my guess maybe [TS]

00:45:47   because obviously it's not just because [TS]

00:45:48   the New York Times printed that doesn't [TS]

00:45:50   make it true I mean no one's going to [TS]

00:45:51   say that you're not verifying the fact [TS]

00:45:52   of it print something says is that true [TS]

00:45:54   or not well it's verified the New York [TS]

00:45:56   Times printed it all you verified is [TS]

00:45:57   that the New York Times printed it and [TS]

00:45:59   then by extension you've had this set [TS]

00:46:01   this this culture in the set of rules [TS]

00:46:03   that says end of the New York Times [TS]

00:46:04   printed it we're able to cite it and if [TS]

00:46:06   it's cited its verifiably cited [TS]

00:46:08   therefore it is it is pet you know it [TS]

00:46:10   can be included in his Wikipedia page [TS]

00:46:11   because then wikipedia is not about the [TS]

00:46:13   pursuit of truth they just merely want [TS]

00:46:14   to say we can show that you know where [TS]

00:46:17   is your evidence to support this one New [TS]

00:46:18   York Times said this in this person says [TS]

00:46:20   that and this person's is that word [TS]

00:46:21   tertiary source and that's what we do we [TS]

00:46:22   show you these people say that and these [TS]

00:46:23   people say that and these people say [TS]

00:46:24   that and we cite everything that we say [TS]

00:46:26   we explain the topic and people say well [TS]

00:46:28   how do you know that why you know [TS]

00:46:29   citation needed where are you getting [TS]

00:46:31   the information well I got that [TS]

00:46:32   information from readings New York Times [TS]

00:46:33   article and here's a citation [TS]

00:46:34   uh but verified doesn't mean that it's [TS]

00:46:38   true and so lots of people saying how [TS]

00:46:39   can you have something without [TS]

00:46:40   verification how you know if anything's [TS]

00:46:42   true well how do you know of anything is [TS]

00:46:43   true with verification verification [TS]

00:46:44   doesn't mean that it's true that's the [TS]

00:46:46   the difficult thing about this truth [TS]

00:46:47   concept is that it all it all decides [TS]

00:46:51   what you consider is an appropriate [TS]

00:46:52   threshold is that without verifiability [TS]

00:46:54   it's just chaos well you have [TS]

00:46:56   verifiability now and i don't think that [TS]

00:46:58   really gets you any closer to truth as [TS]

00:47:01   someone in the in the chatroom PETA has [TS]

00:47:04   repeatedly said verifiability is [TS]

00:47:05   achievable and Wikipedia is trying to [TS]

00:47:08   use something that they can actually [TS]

00:47:08   achieve they don't want to set a goal [TS]

00:47:10   they can't achieve they're never going [TS]

00:47:11   to get the truth because you know what [TS]

00:47:12   is truth so they said well we're not [TS]

00:47:14   going to set that as our goal we're [TS]

00:47:15   going to set our goals verifiability [TS]

00:47:17   and I think Wikipedians you know do and [TS]

00:47:21   have acknowledged there are many [TS]

00:47:22   problems with with with the threshold [TS]

00:47:24   being verifiability [TS]

00:47:25   but it you know again like democracy is [TS]

00:47:27   like well is it the best you know it's [TS]

00:47:30   the best system we have except for all [TS]

00:47:31   the others um so we will talk more about [TS]

00:47:33   that eventually but I just want to [TS]

00:47:35   continue exploring this [TS]

00:47:37   so the presume to care thing is like [TS]

00:47:39   that's that kind of rubs you the wrong [TS]

00:47:41   way especially since as many people have [TS]

00:47:43   pointed out to me and I don't know if [TS]

00:47:44   this is true or not but I assume that it [TS]

00:47:45   is wikipedia has come a long way in its [TS]

00:47:49   policies on what is considered a [TS]

00:47:51   reliable source or is it used to be more [TS]

00:47:55   hostile to online things and is starting [TS]

00:47:57   started to come around a little bit in [TS]

00:47:58   recent years so many people said well [TS]

00:48:00   when you had this bad experience with [TS]

00:48:01   with FD FF and stuff like that think [TS]

00:48:03   that you know the rules are not hard and [TS]

00:48:05   fast it's all guidelines and the [TS]

00:48:08   consensus among the Wikipedians has been [TS]

00:48:10   shifting to be more permissive rather [TS]

00:48:12   than less which I imagine probably is [TS]

00:48:15   true but for verified a better word [TS]

00:48:20   might be like cited you know it you [TS]

00:48:23   can't have a wikipedia you know you [TS]

00:48:25   can't put information on Wikipedia it's [TS]

00:48:26   not cited if you say you can't put [TS]

00:48:28   information we could be does not verify [TS]

00:48:29   it makes it seem like well you can't put [TS]

00:48:31   in stuff that's not true and verified [TS]

00:48:33   stuff is true I crazy for this making [TS]

00:48:35   this connection you know in my head it [TS]

00:48:37   makes sense to me I see where you going [TS]

00:48:39   with it and everyone who talks about it [TS]

00:48:41   wants to talk about ver it's verified [TS]

00:48:43   like you know your voice is your [TS]

00:48:46   passport oh it's verified you know it's [TS]

00:48:47   not but I it's much better to say it's [TS]

00:48:51   cited because that that is like you know [TS]

00:48:52   cited just means you you have Europe [TS]

00:48:55   created a record of someone else saying [TS]

00:48:56   that you're kind of saying there is no [TS]

00:48:58   such thing truly as as verified you're [TS]

00:49:01   saying that people can go out there and [TS]

00:49:03   say this is where I got my information [TS]

00:49:05   from and where I got it from is a [TS]

00:49:07   legitimate source right and well that [TS]

00:49:09   second thing is an implication it's not [TS]

00:49:11   explicitly stated as you can't do the [TS]

00:49:12   exhaust thing to keep saying that you're [TS]

00:49:13   just saying like here's the citation and [TS]

00:49:15   this thing stands if the citation is one [TS]

00:49:18   of the valid things that I'm allowed to [TS]

00:49:19   cite in this in this forum and I think [TS]

00:49:22   most of the listener complaints tended [TS]

00:49:25   to very quickly construct a strawman of [TS]

00:49:27   Wikipedia quote unquote without any [TS]

00:49:30   verification which of course sounds [TS]

00:49:31   crazy right or Wikipedia without any [TS]

00:49:34   citations like you just write whatever [TS]

00:49:36   the hell you want and somehow that like [TS]

00:49:39   it's supposed to converge on goodness [TS]

00:49:40   alright so before I delve further into [TS]

00:49:43   the where's your movie [TS]

00:49:45   side of this thing uh just to recap what [TS]

00:49:50   my main complaint is that Wikipedia is a [TS]

00:49:52   tertiary source and I wanted to allow [TS]

00:49:54   the direct contribution of knowledge I [TS]

00:49:55   didn't I don't like it when people with [TS]

00:49:57   knowledge are unable to contribute and [TS]

00:49:59   that is a common in phenomenon the [TS]

00:50:00   people go there thinking this is the [TS]

00:50:01   place where people with knowledge pull [TS]

00:50:03   it together and that's not what it is [TS]

00:50:05   and furthermore I don't think the rules [TS]

00:50:07   that prevent them from doing that the [TS]

00:50:09   many many different rules which all of [TS]

00:50:11   which have important justifications I [TS]

00:50:13   don't think those are strictly necessary [TS]

00:50:15   to have a useful successful repository [TS]

00:50:17   of shared knowledge on the net now I did [TS]

00:50:20   eventually I was trying so hard to avoid [TS]

00:50:23   as I usually do putting myself on the [TS]

00:50:26   line for having to come up with a better [TS]

00:50:27   thing but eventually it devolved into [TS]

00:50:29   that and became as as a william points [TS]

00:50:32   out a slightly incoherent rant towards [TS]

00:50:34   the end and i apologize for that but [TS]

00:50:36   we'll try to do better this time so this [TS]

00:50:38   this concludes the portion where I'm [TS]

00:50:40   trying to Risa memorize the previous [TS]

00:50:42   podcast in a better manner I hope I've [TS]

00:50:44   done a better job well you do definitely [TS]

00:50:45   need to listen to previous podcast for [TS]

00:50:47   any of us to make sense but now I would [TS]

00:50:49   not like to actually discuss so how [TS]

00:50:53   would how would this work if you think [TS]

00:50:55   that the current rules are not ideal and [TS]

00:50:57   not strictly necessary that it is [TS]

00:50:59   possible to have something that [TS]

00:51:00   functions as well or better than [TS]

00:51:02   Wikipedia with a different set of rules [TS]

00:51:04   what are those rules and let's discuss [TS]

00:51:08   them I'll start by saying I don't have [TS]

00:51:10   all the answers I don't have a [TS]

00:51:12   five-point plan or 999 plan or anything [TS]

00:51:15   that tells you this is how your place [TS]

00:51:17   Wikipedia this is this awesome thing [TS]

00:51:20   mostly what I have and mostly my point [TS]

00:51:23   in the previous show was to moralists [TS]

00:51:26   spread I mean that many wicked beings [TS]

00:51:29   wrote in to say that they appreciated [TS]

00:51:30   the fact that I was spreading you know [TS]

00:51:33   that is spreading more information about [TS]

00:51:36   what Wikipedia actually is because I [TS]

00:51:37   think they want people to understand [TS]

00:51:38   what it is and they want people to be on [TS]

00:51:40   board with this mission and not to [TS]

00:51:41   misunderstand it and come and be [TS]

00:51:42   frustrated by the experience and by the [TS]

00:51:46   way a sidebar on Wikipedians I should [TS]

00:51:47   have known like I was expecting all [TS]

00:51:49   sorts of angry email and everything [TS]

00:51:50   because I'm not involved in the [TS]

00:51:52   Wikipedia world deeply and anytime [TS]

00:51:53   anyone rants about anything that they're [TS]

00:51:55   not deeply involved in inevitably [TS]

00:51:57   they're going to get things wrong and I [TS]

00:51:58   did [TS]

00:51:58   and you know just overreach and anger [TS]

00:52:01   the people who know more that's a common [TS]

00:52:03   phenomenon I'm much safer ranting about [TS]

00:52:05   things that I have more knowledge of [TS]

00:52:06   than I expect the average listener but [TS]

00:52:08   as I said if they're booked opinions [TS]

00:52:09   listening of course they're going to [TS]

00:52:11   know way more than I do and I expected [TS]

00:52:12   they're all going to come in flaming but [TS]

00:52:13   I should have known better because to be [TS]

00:52:15   a successful Wikipedian requires a [TS]

00:52:17   certain unrest a detachment but a [TS]

00:52:20   certain surrendering of your more base [TS]

00:52:23   impulses otherwise you won't be it you [TS]

00:52:28   won't be a successful Wikipedian if you [TS]

00:52:31   you know if you can't get in perspective [TS]

00:52:34   for anything and that I mean so [TS]

00:52:36   Wikipedia I think tends to attract [TS]

00:52:37   people who are not very honest either [TS]

00:52:40   you know Dean D rules lawyers but people [TS]

00:52:43   who would like like to have a structure [TS]

00:52:45   and like to make things conform to that [TS]

00:52:47   structure and are not emotionally [TS]

00:52:50   invested in the content but can be [TS]

00:52:53   emotionally invested in the structure [TS]

00:52:55   but I mean basically the kind of chill [TS]

00:52:58   group of people is what I'm saying okay [TS]

00:52:59   so all the who rode in and wrote blog [TS]

00:53:01   posts and everything we're just so nice [TS]

00:53:03   and polite and very deferential and [TS]

00:53:07   there was no like like if I had [TS]

00:53:09   something said something that wasn't [TS]

00:53:10   nice about like I don't know I can't [TS]

00:53:11   think of a controversial topic off my [TS]

00:53:13   head but like lots of tech topics if I [TS]

00:53:14   had done a similar podcast about I would [TS]

00:53:16   have been getting hate mail telling me [TS]

00:53:17   that they're going to find me and murder [TS]

00:53:18   me and that you know questioning my [TS]

00:53:21   parentage and all sorts of horrible [TS]

00:53:23   terrible things that people say on the [TS]

00:53:26   net none of that for this Wikipedia [TS]

00:53:27   thing so because that's just not that [TS]

00:53:30   type of person is not successful within [TS]

00:53:32   the Wikipedia community and so I didn't [TS]

00:53:35   get that email so that was that was [TS]

00:53:36   refreshing [TS]

00:53:37   alright um so back to William Beutler [TS]

00:53:40   again he says this is from reading Carl [TS]

00:53:43   he referring to me he repeatedly says [TS]

00:53:45   Wikipedia should be something different [TS]

00:53:46   area first - what's different about [TS]

00:53:47   online but he never gets prescriptive [TS]

00:53:49   and never actually says but why the old [TS]

00:53:51   methods are outmoded it does say his [TS]

00:53:53   Wikipedia was seek to arrive at the [TS]

00:53:55   truth using every tool necessary and [TS]

00:53:56   would for example allow original [TS]

00:53:58   research but what then is the mechanism [TS]

00:54:00   for dare I say verifying it there's that [TS]

00:54:04   word again so you know all these things [TS]

00:54:06   that I said that I think would be better [TS]

00:54:08   than Wikipedia but then what's the [TS]

00:54:10   mechanism for verified [TS]

00:54:12   it's like i think the most supportable [TS]

00:54:16   definition of verifying is verifying [TS]

00:54:18   that a reliable publication said this [TS]

00:54:20   but in that context is so hard not to [TS]

00:54:22   read it's hard not to read that as [TS]

00:54:23   saying what's the what is the mechanism [TS]

00:54:26   for determining whether this is true [TS]

00:54:28   like verifying is like what what then is [TS]

00:54:31   the mechanism for determining whether [TS]

00:54:33   it's true or not and it's like they're [TS]

00:54:34   not concerned about they just want it to [TS]

00:54:35   be a bear have a verify like they can't [TS]

00:54:38   see any other system other than the one [TS]

00:54:39   they have verifying equal citation equal [TS]

00:54:42   from a reliable source equals the thing [TS]

00:54:44   that we're using instead of truth and [TS]

00:54:46   that that is the achievable goal that [TS]

00:54:48   we've chosen and any other system has to [TS]

00:54:49   use choose that same goal and if you [TS]

00:54:51   don't use that then how you know it's [TS]

00:54:53   like saying how can you cite something [TS]

00:54:55   without citing it well it's it's like a [TS]

00:54:56   tautology or you know it's a it's it's a [TS]

00:55:01   different what I'm getting at is a [TS]

00:55:03   different mindset for a different goal [TS]

00:55:05   and so if you if you take the old rules [TS]

00:55:07   and apply to it of course it's not going [TS]

00:55:08   to work so would would that statement [TS]

00:55:13   have sounded a strong if you said [TS]

00:55:14   something like uh finding someone who [TS]

00:55:17   said in a publication that has a good [TS]

00:55:20   track record of reliability finding [TS]

00:55:21   someone who said this right what then is [TS]

00:55:23   the mechanism you know so saying [TS]

00:55:24   arriving the truth using every tool [TS]

00:55:26   necessary and would for example our [TS]

00:55:27   original research but what then is the [TS]

00:55:29   mechanism for finding someone who said [TS]

00:55:31   this in a publication that has a good [TS]

00:55:32   track record or reliability well the [TS]

00:55:33   mechanism for finding someone who said [TS]

00:55:35   this in a publication that has a good [TS]

00:55:36   record of reliability is citations of [TS]

00:55:39   course you're going to arrive at what [TS]

00:55:41   Wikipedia does right but when you say [TS]

00:55:44   what then is the mechanism for verifying [TS]

00:55:45   it it makes it sound like you are [TS]

00:55:47   implying that what Wikipedia does is the [TS]

00:55:49   only way to arrive at the truth or [TS]

00:55:52   anything close to the true now what you [TS]

00:55:55   mentions this I think he mentions us in [TS]

00:55:57   his thing and many other I'm surprised [TS]

00:55:59   that many more people didn't mention it [TS]

00:56:00   I expected just immediate feedback on [TS]

00:56:02   this can you think of another common [TS]

00:56:06   venue in life where truth is not the [TS]

00:56:08   goal entertainment no I mean like relate [TS]

00:56:13   where it's surprising the truth is not [TS]

00:56:15   the goal because obviously true it's not [TS]

00:56:16   the only chamber but it's you know the [TS]

00:56:18   same way it's might be surprising to [TS]

00:56:19   somebody the truth is not the the goal [TS]

00:56:22   of Wikipedia another venue where it [TS]

00:56:24   seems like truth is the goal [TS]

00:56:25   is really not mmm tell me so I'll give [TS]

00:56:31   you a hint a venue where truth doesn't [TS]

00:56:32   matter well only all that matters is [TS]

00:56:35   what you can prove what's that uh you [TS]

00:56:38   would probably be saying law right court [TS]

00:56:41   of law [TS]

00:56:41   right I mean most people are familiar [TS]

00:56:43   with that from you know from [TS]

00:56:44   entertainment from courtroom dramas and [TS]

00:56:46   stuff and they know the big part of law [TS]

00:56:48   is not pursuing the truth it doesn't [TS]

00:56:49   matter what's true in a court of law it [TS]

00:56:51   only matters what you can prove [TS]

00:56:52   and that isn't that's a venue where I [TS]

00:56:54   don't think people are surprised about [TS]

00:56:56   that just because from so many [TS]

00:56:57   television shows and movies in it you [TS]

00:56:58   know that people are not shocked that's [TS]

00:57:01   the way things are they're shocked the [TS]

00:57:02   first time that they see it and then [TS]

00:57:03   then they get outraged and then they [TS]

00:57:06   realize it's just the way it is yeah and [TS]

00:57:08   is the reason I thought courts would [TS]

00:57:09   come up because it's if you're going to [TS]

00:57:11   support the idea that we should have [TS]

00:57:13   verification not truth why not cite [TS]

00:57:15   another institution that has a similar [TS]

00:57:17   policy where we don't we're not even you [TS]

00:57:20   know we're trying to pursue the truth [TS]

00:57:21   but it's not our goal and we don't [TS]

00:57:23   really care what the hell is true it [TS]

00:57:24   only matters what you can prove right [TS]

00:57:26   and that's that's a court of law [TS]

00:57:28   and now courts are instructive I think [TS]

00:57:30   because in courts primary sources are [TS]

00:57:33   what you want you don't want hear say [TS]

00:57:35   you don't want secondary sources you [TS]

00:57:36   don't want tertiary sources you want [TS]

00:57:38   primary sources so how is it that this [TS]

00:57:40   is institution where they're not [TS]

00:57:42   pursuing truth they only care about what [TS]

00:57:44   you can prove which is their version of [TS]

00:57:46   the word verify ability but they don't [TS]

00:57:48   want secondary or tertiary sources they [TS]

00:57:50   only want primary sources they want I [TS]

00:57:51   witnesses how does how does that work in [TS]

00:57:53   a court that's a question for you Dan [TS]

00:57:57   hmm well I you need to have the direct [TS]

00:58:01   witness you can't have the here say you [TS]

00:58:03   can't have third party stuff it all has [TS]

00:58:05   to be exactly I was there I saw it [TS]

00:58:07   otherwise you can't even enter and how [TS]

00:58:10   does that how does that help them arrive [TS]

00:58:12   at anything approaching the truth well [TS]

00:58:16   I'd it doesn't that's where you're going [TS]

00:58:17   with this it won't know but that's their [TS]

00:58:19   goal is to try to figure out what [TS]

00:58:20   happened this is the mechanism they [TS]

00:58:21   chose and do it it's like the exact [TS]

00:58:22   opposite mechanism what wikipedia is [TS]

00:58:24   chosen but their goal is both like you [TS]

00:58:26   know figure out what happened in the [TS]

00:58:27   case of a court or record record facts [TS]

00:58:30   ah you know how can that possibly work [TS]

00:58:33   having a dude go up there and say yeah I [TS]

00:58:36   saw him do this and have a different [TS]

00:58:37   dude go up there and say [TS]

00:58:38   I saw him do that and it like it seems [TS]

00:58:42   like as many people said look if you [TS]

00:58:43   don't have if you're not reliable lying [TS]

00:58:46   on citations from sources that meet some [TS]

00:58:48   criteria that we set as a collective and [TS]

00:58:50   you just have a bunch of people write [TS]

00:58:52   down what they think they know how is it [TS]

00:58:54   not descend into chaos and one example [TS]

00:58:57   is well how do you have a whole bunch of [TS]

00:58:59   different witnesses a whole bunch of [TS]

00:59:01   different primary sources testifying in [TS]

00:59:03   a court of law [TS]

00:59:04   and you know how how does how does that [TS]

00:59:08   help them or you're saying that totally [TS]

00:59:09   can't work online but it does work in a [TS]

00:59:11   court about what's the difference all [TS]

00:59:12   right [TS]

00:59:12   well there are a couple aspects here one [TS]

00:59:14   is that the is it you know in case of a [TS]

00:59:17   jury trial the jury gets to decide who [TS]

00:59:19   is credible right that's part of the [TS]

00:59:21   whole part of the trial like they see [TS]

00:59:22   the person saying something and a Jerry [TS]

00:59:24   a jury of your peers and they don't they [TS]

00:59:27   don't necessarily take what that person [TS]

00:59:28   says at face value they are making a [TS]

00:59:29   judgement in the context of that case of [TS]

00:59:31   who they believe right and this this [TS]

00:59:34   different you know in civil criminal [TS]

00:59:36   that the civil criminal split so there's [TS]

00:59:38   another detail the thing where the the [TS]

00:59:40   standard of proof is different in those [TS]

00:59:42   different contexts so you've got like [TS]

00:59:43   beyond a reasonable doubt that we're all [TS]

00:59:45   familiar with from criminal cases on TV [TS]

00:59:46   and everything and then civil you have [TS]

00:59:47   the preponderance of the evidence and I [TS]

00:59:50   don't want to go more into this law [TS]

00:59:51   stuff because I'm clearly not a lawyer [TS]

00:59:52   if you thought your guy getting emails [TS]

00:59:55   before forget it if you talk about law [TS]

00:59:56   forget it right well but I mean mainly [TS]

00:59:59   I'm just [TS]

00:59:59   I'm just [TS]

01:00:00   pointing out is its this is a system [TS]

01:00:01   where it works almost entirely on [TS]

01:00:04   primary sources primary source is the [TS]

01:00:06   preferred mechanism and it has developed [TS]

01:00:09   a system very different system from [TS]

01:00:10   Wikipedia that helps it use primary [TS]

01:00:13   sources to arrive the truth what I'm [TS]

01:00:14   trying to point out is that being a [TS]

01:00:16   tertiary source is not the only way not [TS]

01:00:19   the only system for trying to arrive at [TS]

01:00:20   something that gets close to the truth [TS]

01:00:21   all right so now how how would we allow [TS]

01:00:24   primary sources in an online [TS]

01:00:26   collaboration like what if we're [TS]

01:00:29   building some new thing and we say I [TS]

01:00:30   don't want there to be a barrier to [TS]

01:00:33   entry where people are are you know [TS]

01:00:36   kicked out because all you can't [TS]

01:00:37   contribute the knowledge you have like [TS]

01:00:38   if they're and you know and again it's [TS]

01:00:41   so hard to talk whether it just gets [TS]

01:00:42   wrapped up in like a row is it is it [TS]

01:00:43   because their primary sources they're [TS]

01:00:45   being kicked out well in some contexts [TS]

01:00:46   primary sources are allowed well is it [TS]

01:00:47   because they're not notable well you [TS]

01:00:49   know then it's inclusions versions [TS]

01:00:51   elitist you know it does all get wrapped [TS]

01:00:52   up in there's many different aspects so [TS]

01:00:54   this particular debate but talking about [TS]

01:00:58   this new thing I'm trying to identify [TS]

01:01:01   what would allow original research what [TS]

01:01:05   would allow primary sources and still [TS]

01:01:08   arrive at a product that is a shared [TS]

01:01:10   repository of knowledge I don't want to [TS]

01:01:13   use the W word because anytime soon as [TS]

01:01:15   you mention it it's like how can we [TS]

01:01:16   change Wikipedia can we make a Wikipedia [TS]

01:01:18   like thing I'm just trying to blue sky [TS]

01:01:21   it here right so the first thing that a [TS]

01:01:23   lot of people I mean actually I don't [TS]

01:01:26   know if a lot of people pointing this [TS]

01:01:27   out some people excursion around it or [TS]

01:01:29   assumed it was impossible as part of [TS]

01:01:31   their argument but it immediately sprung [TS]

01:01:33   to mine I think I thought I'd mentioned [TS]

01:01:35   in the past show maybe not is that you [TS]

01:01:38   need to have some sort of identity [TS]

01:01:40   system the someway I mean you have that [TS]

01:01:44   in a court of law because you go up [TS]

01:01:46   there people see the person the person [TS]

01:01:48   testifies to be you know some sort of [TS]

01:01:51   it's it's a lot different than online [TS]

01:01:53   where it's just completely anonymous you [TS]

01:01:56   need some way to identify the [TS]

01:01:58   participants now one way one type of [TS]

01:02:02   identity is real identity so for example [TS]

01:02:04   if you want to provide first-hand [TS]

01:02:07   knowledge of something you may have to [TS]

01:02:09   identify yourself with your actual [TS]

01:02:11   identity your actual name who you [TS]

01:02:13   actually are in some way that we decide [TS]

01:02:18   is acceptable so Twitter tries to do [TS]

01:02:19   this too they've got those verified [TS]

01:02:21   accounts there's that word again [TS]

01:02:22   unfortunately where they say you know [TS]

01:02:23   this is really Brad Pitt like we've [TS]

01:02:25   totally verified this is Brad Pitt and [TS]

01:02:27   Twitter I think is also shown how hard [TS]

01:02:28   it is to do that because I think they've [TS]

01:02:30   had accounts that had been quote-unquote [TS]

01:02:31   verified and then later they find out I [TS]

01:02:33   was totally not the celebrity we said it [TS]

01:02:34   was it was somebody who tricked us so [TS]

01:02:37   this is hard to do and and can be gamed [TS]

01:02:40   but I think you know it's it's possible [TS]

01:02:44   so for example especially for things [TS]

01:02:46   like celebrities it's pretty easy for a [TS]

01:02:48   celebrity to conclusively verify that [TS]

01:02:50   they are who they say they are assuming [TS]

01:02:51   the security of the system and their [TS]

01:02:53   password is not hacked in yadda yadda [TS]

01:02:54   all the things that we deal with in [TS]

01:02:55   every other system that has any kind of [TS]

01:02:57   verification online a celebrity can just [TS]

01:02:59   put a statement on their website that [TS]

01:03:01   they control upload a video of themself [TS]

01:03:03   that you know I mean we haven't quite [TS]

01:03:05   reached a point where it's trivially [TS]

01:03:06   easy for people to fake a video of Brad [TS]

01:03:07   Pitt saying a bunch of stuff that still [TS]

01:03:09   requires you know a little bit more [TS]

01:03:12   effort than those people willing to go [TS]

01:03:13   through with it I think this is a [TS]

01:03:15   solvable problem and I think identity [TS]

01:03:16   online is something we've always dealt [TS]

01:03:18   with right so that's real identity and [TS]

01:03:21   for example if you wanted to provide [TS]

01:03:24   first-hand knowledge of you know an [TS]

01:03:26   event that you witnessed or some [TS]

01:03:28   information about yourself or whatever [TS]

01:03:29   it having doing so using your real [TS]

01:03:33   identity that was validated according to [TS]

01:03:36   some set of rules that you know [TS]

01:03:37   continues to evolve and gets worked on [TS]

01:03:39   it's one way to do that that's certainly [TS]

01:03:40   not allowed in Wikipedia according to [TS]

01:03:43   their rules because they would rather [TS]

01:03:44   have you talk to a reliable publication [TS]

01:03:46   have the reliable publication [TS]

01:03:48   quote-unquote fact check that or be [TS]

01:03:51   reliable based on past evidence or just [TS]

01:03:53   be something that their grandparents [TS]

01:03:54   read I keep getting into that which is [TS]

01:03:55   you know I'm being snarky [TS]

01:03:56   but I have trouble letting go the notion [TS]

01:04:00   that but make something reliable [TS]

01:04:02   publication does have an in can do with [TS]

01:04:04   reliability but just has more to do with [TS]

01:04:06   like past events and past events are not [TS]

01:04:10   necessarily indicative of future events [TS]

01:04:12   so anyway there's a second kind of [TS]

01:04:15   identity which is I call it fake [TS]

01:04:17   identity in my notes here but that's [TS]

01:04:18   kind of a bad thing what if you want to [TS]

01:04:20   allow people to contribute but they [TS]

01:04:21   don't need to identifies who they really [TS]

01:04:23   actually are how can that possibly work [TS]

01:04:25   I mean if we're not it [TS]

01:04:27   you know the people on the witness stand [TS]

01:04:28   have to be who they say they are and [TS]

01:04:30   there's the concept of perjury where if [TS]

01:04:32   you lie you're held accountable for that [TS]

01:04:34   but if you're not actually identifying [TS]

01:04:35   yourself as your real self how can you [TS]

01:04:37   ever be held accountable for anything [TS]

01:04:38   now there's no such thing as perjury if [TS]

01:04:40   you're allowed to go on the witness [TS]

01:04:41   stand with the mask and despise your [TS]

01:04:42   voice you know is that when they say oh [TS]

01:04:44   you've perjured yourself you're going to [TS]

01:04:46   jail well who's going to jail come and [TS]

01:04:47   find me you don't even know who I am [TS]

01:04:48   right so the concept of perjury can't [TS]

01:04:50   exist without real identity but online [TS]

01:04:53   real identity is a non-starter you can't [TS]

01:04:55   require that everybody look like Google+ [TS]

01:04:57   trying to do it it's just it's not going [TS]

01:04:58   to happen so how can you have a system [TS]

01:05:01   with direct contribution with [TS]

01:05:05   quote/unquote fake identities or like [TS]

01:05:07   you know people merely say well if you [TS]

01:05:09   don't have real identity you're [TS]

01:05:09   anonymous well is it in between where [TS]

01:05:12   you know pseudonyms or fake identities [TS]

01:05:14   and the the model that I point to for [TS]

01:05:16   that actually working is Stack Overflow [TS]

01:05:19   Stack Overflow is entirely made up of [TS]

01:05:22   people directly contributing under [TS]

01:05:26   identities don't necessarily have any [TS]

01:05:28   connection to any particular person and [TS]

01:05:30   are not necessarily trackable back to an [TS]

01:05:32   individual person they are manufactured [TS]

01:05:34   entities you could have you could you [TS]

01:05:35   know have alts for yourself you know you [TS]

01:05:37   can have ten accounts on Stack Overflow [TS]

01:05:38   and play them all at the same time it's [TS]

01:05:40   got the gamification thing going there [TS]

01:05:41   as well but they've developed a system [TS]

01:05:44   for you know direct contribution of [TS]

01:05:48   knowledge using an identity system that [TS]

01:05:51   isn't tied to real identities and [TS]

01:05:52   they've you know come up with a model [TS]

01:05:54   that works for their particular format [TS]

01:05:55   QA of mostly factual information but [TS]

01:05:58   it's not just like what method do I call [TS]

01:06:01   to do this like where you can you know [TS]

01:06:02   where it's there's one answer and only [TS]

01:06:04   one answered this subjective stuff on [TS]

01:06:06   Stack Overflow as well and they struggle [TS]

01:06:07   with this too but it is the concept of [TS]

01:06:09   having a really good answer and people [TS]

01:06:11   looking at how you've answered a big [TS]

01:06:12   particular question and rating you [TS]

01:06:15   highly because it in gaining reputation [TS]

01:06:17   and again I don't think this is directly [TS]

01:06:19   applicable to something like Wikipedia [TS]

01:06:20   but I think it's a real live example [TS]

01:06:22   showing where direct contribution [TS]

01:06:24   without real identity can actually be [TS]

01:06:25   feasible and before Stack Overflow [TS]

01:06:27   existed and before like core existed [TS]

01:06:30   which is another side that I'm less [TS]

01:06:31   familiar with many people pointed out to [TS]

01:06:32   me before those things existed if you [TS]

01:06:35   had said I'm going to make a site where [TS]

01:06:39   where people ask questions and anybody [TS]

01:06:41   can [TS]

01:06:41   so them people would have said well is [TS]

01:06:42   just kind of like Yahoo Answers have you [TS]

01:06:43   seen that it's a piece of crap people [TS]

01:06:45   don't know what they're talking about [TS]

01:06:46   the people who answer the questions [TS]

01:06:48   don't know anymore than the people who [TS]

01:06:49   are asking them and all you're making is [TS]

01:06:50   a repository of misleading or erroneous [TS]

01:06:54   information they just didn't have the [TS]

01:06:57   right system and the right systems [TS]

01:06:58   produced much more useable things that [TS]

01:07:00   Gaurav Lowe is is a pillar of the [TS]

01:07:02   internet now you know a tentpole [TS]

01:07:05   of DN a but if you had said before that [TS]

01:07:08   you know is this possible and you could [TS]

01:07:10   point to Yahoo Answers saying or experts [TS]

01:07:11   exchanging you know it's clearly not [TS]

01:07:13   possible right so and I still think [TS]

01:07:18   citations that the final things that [TS]

01:07:19   citations are still would still be a [TS]

01:07:22   very important part of this and in fact [TS]

01:07:24   if you look for example in a really good [TS]

01:07:25   answer to a stack over a question asking [TS]

01:07:27   about you know what's the best way to [TS]

01:07:30   you know do such-and-such in my new [TS]

01:07:32   business or you know what are the ten [TS]

01:07:35   different ways to repair a bicycle tire [TS]

01:07:37   and there are pros and cons and stuff [TS]

01:07:39   many of the best Stack Overflow answers [TS]

01:07:41   or core answers for that matter which [TS]

01:07:43   are directly contributed by individuals [TS]

01:07:45   with their fake or real identities are [TS]

01:07:47   the fact of the use citations that they [TS]

01:07:49   will not so much citations in the [TS]

01:07:51   Wikipedia style but they will link they [TS]

01:07:53   will link you know they will make a [TS]

01:07:54   statement and link key words in a [TS]

01:07:55   statement back to the place from whence [TS]

01:07:57   that knowledge came in typical just you [TS]

01:07:59   know good read web writing fashion right [TS]

01:08:01   so citations would still definitely be [TS]

01:08:03   part of this because you where are you [TS]

01:08:05   getting some are you making this up from [TS]

01:08:06   whole cloth what do you have to you know [TS]

01:08:07   in any online interaction even in forums [TS]

01:08:11   we see people arguing about you know [TS]

01:08:13   who's the better Pokemon character [TS]

01:08:15   they're they're using citations [TS]

01:08:17   everything they write is citing someone [TS]

01:08:19   else saying a similar thing or you know [TS]

01:08:21   and they're not doing it because they [TS]

01:08:22   want to be like Wikipedia is just the [TS]

01:08:23   way the way people interact online is [TS]

01:08:26   that they expected if you're having any [TS]

01:08:27   sort of argument you're not going to be [TS]

01:08:29   doing it all from whole cloth so it's a [TS]

01:08:30   combination of you know your reputation [TS]

01:08:34   within the system as a contributor and [TS]

01:08:37   your citations and stuff like that uh so [TS]

01:08:40   then you have cases like when would I [TS]

01:08:44   what Trump's one right so people say [TS]

01:08:49   well what if Brad Pitt comes on the page [TS]

01:08:50   and says that his birthday is something [TS]

01:08:52   that is not I can't keep picking [TS]

01:08:53   birthday is a bad straw man I should [TS]

01:08:55   pick something [TS]

01:08:55   better but what if Brad Pitt says that [TS]

01:08:56   he totally never cheated on whoever was [TS]

01:08:59   that he don't keep track of celebrities [TS]

01:09:01   but he says he doesn't didn't she than [TS]

01:09:02   this person but I can cite an article on [TS]

01:09:05   people that says he did I can cite at [TS]

01:09:07   the New York Times it says he's reported [TS]

01:09:10   to have cheated on and I you know you do [TS]

01:09:11   is who wins in that case and that's what [TS]

01:09:13   the other thing it's like well you know [TS]

01:09:14   in Wikipedia you saying something about [TS]

01:09:17   yourself on an issue that you have a [TS]

01:09:19   stake in like you don't want to be seen [TS]

01:09:21   as someone who cheats well we're going [TS]

01:09:23   to strike that because we're gonna say [TS]

01:09:23   you clearly have a bias here you can't [TS]

01:09:25   simply claim that you didn't uh cheat on [TS]

01:09:28   that other person that doesn't stand now [TS]

01:09:29   if you want to do an interview with [TS]

01:09:30   People magazine in which you say that [TS]

01:09:32   you didn't cheat in that person that's [TS]

01:09:34   fine and then someone else can go to [TS]

01:09:36   Wikipedia and say in an interview in [TS]

01:09:38   1984 Brad Pitt claimed that he didn't [TS]

01:09:40   cheat on blob you know what I mean yeah [TS]

01:09:41   that dance is the thing I want to [TS]

01:09:43   eliminate and I would like Brad Pitt to [TS]

01:09:44   be able to contribute directly and so [TS]

01:09:46   how does that work it works simply by [TS]

01:09:48   saying Brad Pitt who is a direct [TS]

01:09:51   contributor who has a verified identity [TS]

01:09:53   directly writes in the page and it's [TS]

01:09:55   clear that he's the one who wrote this [TS]

01:09:56   just like it is clear and stack overflow [TS]

01:09:57   you know I never cheated on bla bla bla [TS]

01:09:59   it's not like he's writing it as the [TS]

01:10:02   gospel truth it's clear that it's being [TS]

01:10:03   written by Brad Pitt and you know the [TS]

01:10:05   the person identified correctly is Brad [TS]

01:10:07   Pitt and it stands on the page for [TS]

01:10:08   people to decide like they do in a court [TS]

01:10:09   of law well Brad Pitt says this and then [TS]

01:10:12   someone else would write the seven other [TS]

01:10:13   things that cite those other things but [TS]

01:10:14   they both stand and Brad Pitt got to [TS]

01:10:16   contribute directly to that page you [TS]

01:10:17   know what I mean he didn't have to do an [TS]

01:10:19   interview which was then cited and in [TS]

01:10:21   fact half of the the reliable citations [TS]

01:10:23   where the New York Times article could [TS]

01:10:24   very well have weasel words in it itself [TS]

01:10:27   where you know it was widely reported [TS]

01:10:28   that Brad Pitt cheated on blah blah blah [TS]

01:10:30   there's no citations in the New York [TS]

01:10:31   Times are Kalidas say it was widely [TS]

01:10:32   reported and then because the New York [TS]

01:10:34   Times is a reliable source and we assume [TS]

01:10:35   they have fact checkers and stuff they [TS]

01:10:37   let that slide and say oh well it was [TS]

01:10:39   widely reported well how do I know it's [TS]

01:10:40   Reilly reported because New York Times [TS]

01:10:41   said it was widely reported did they [TS]

01:10:42   have citations no they don't have to do [TS]

01:10:44   the New York Times and that stands but [TS]

01:10:46   someone writing that directly wouldn't [TS]

01:10:48   you know I want everything to be [TS]

01:10:51   inclusive so for example when you had [TS]

01:10:52   and again this gets tide of a notability [TS]

01:10:54   when you have the all those people who [TS]

01:10:55   want to record the origins of the term [TS]

01:10:57   ft FF on a page they're allowed to do it [TS]

01:11:00   directly even though they were the ones [TS]

01:11:01   who participated in the various threads [TS]

01:11:03   in the various forms right and even [TS]

01:11:04   though they're the ones who are going in [TS]

01:11:05   researching stuff and if you don't trust [TS]

01:11:08   those guys [TS]

01:11:09   well you know I think these guys have a [TS]

01:11:11   stake in the issue and they're going to [TS]

01:11:12   make it seem like something that it [TS]

01:11:14   wasn't you can follow the links to you [TS]

01:11:16   know to the forums and see yes this was [TS]

01:11:19   actually said in the forum and look at [TS]

01:11:20   the modification dates on it and stuff [TS]

01:11:21   like that you know what I mean it's I [TS]

01:11:23   want a more inclusive system it doesn't [TS]

01:11:25   mean you can't have citations and it [TS]

01:11:27   doesn't mean it has to be exactly like [TS]

01:11:28   Wikipedia it would have to be something [TS]

01:11:29   different but I think it could work and [TS]

01:11:34   my main meta argument for all the people [TS]

01:11:37   who say everything you're proposing does [TS]

01:11:39   it will not work it's not feasible you [TS]

01:11:42   don't realize how difficult it is the [TS]

01:11:44   wikipedia rules are I've arrived and [TS]

01:11:45   arrived that painfully over time they [TS]

01:11:47   started from the rules for for [TS]

01:11:49   encyclopedias which are honed over many [TS]

01:11:51   many centuries or whatever and then [TS]

01:11:53   modified in many different ways and [TS]

01:11:54   continue to evolve just for the purpose [TS]

01:11:57   of getting this thing to work and your [TS]

01:11:59   pie-in-the-sky theory of allowing more [TS]

01:12:00   people to contribute and loosening some [TS]

01:12:02   restrictions while adding new mechanisms [TS]

01:12:04   to counter rap is just not going to work [TS]

01:12:06   my counter-argument to that is if you [TS]

01:12:08   had explained Wikipedia exactly as it [TS]

01:12:10   exists today before Wikipedia existed [TS]

01:12:12   everyone would have said it wouldn't [TS]

01:12:13   work [TS]

01:12:13   you know what I mean it Wikipedia is the [TS]

01:12:16   counter-argument to the fact that [TS]

01:12:18   nothing could replace it right where it [TS]

01:12:21   sounds like it's never going to possibly [TS]

01:12:23   work and and you explain to people [TS]

01:12:25   that's going to be a giant mess and this [TS]

01:12:27   in the same way you can say that a Q&A [TS]

01:12:28   site can't possibly work we have an [TS]

01:12:30   actual example look at Yahoo Answers [TS]

01:12:31   it's horrible [TS]

01:12:33   ah but you know Stack Overflow does [TS]

01:12:37   exist core does exist they are better [TS]

01:12:38   than Yahoo Answers Ibuka pedia does [TS]

01:12:40   suggest it did work I think that this [TS]

01:12:42   vaguely specified thing that I'm sort of [TS]

01:12:44   hand waving my way around could exist in [TS]

01:12:47   could work I think the pieces have been [TS]

01:12:49   proven in isolation and they could be [TS]

01:12:51   combined to something better [TS]

01:12:53   the critical path the critical mass [TS]

01:12:55   thing is still out there where it's like [TS]

01:12:57   well somewhat even if you had something [TS]

01:12:58   better could you ever unsee Wikipedia [TS]

01:13:00   perhaps no perhaps the only viable [TS]

01:13:02   strategy forward is if you really wanted [TS]

01:13:03   this changes to work within the system [TS]

01:13:06   to change it from within to modify [TS]

01:13:08   Wikipedia to be more like the thing that [TS]

01:13:10   you want and that's probably true but I [TS]

01:13:11   don't have that kind of time so I don't [TS]

01:13:13   know what the future of of this space is [TS]

01:13:16   ah I don't know if it's ever possible to [TS]

01:13:20   make anything like I'm saying I just [TS]

01:13:21   have this gut feel [TS]

01:13:22   that it is and it's not verifiable and [TS]

01:13:24   you can't cite it and it you know you [TS]

01:13:26   can't prove that it's true but it's a [TS]

01:13:27   feeling that I have I have a few [TS]

01:13:30   leftovers before that way we'll do we'll [TS]

01:13:32   do some business we got a second sponsor [TS]

01:13:34   here [TS]

01:13:34   MailChimp calm easy email newsletters [TS]

01:13:37   these guys has been a very very long [TS]

01:13:39   time sponsor we're proud to have them [TS]

01:13:41   these guys make it simple to send [TS]

01:13:44   newsletters and they have tons and tons [TS]

01:13:46   and tons of resources for people if [TS]

01:13:50   you've never sent the newsletter before [TS]

01:13:52   you think why would I want to do that [TS]

01:13:54   seriously newsletters I have to say [TS]

01:13:57   people laugh they think I'm kidding with [TS]

01:13:58   a newsletters there the past but they're [TS]

01:14:01   the future two tons I know tons of [TS]

01:14:03   people who send newsletters and that's [TS]

01:14:05   where tons of really awesome in from but [TS]

01:14:07   listen I don't you you already know if [TS]

01:14:09   you want to do a newsletter if you do go [TS]

01:14:10   check these guys out they've got amazing [TS]

01:14:12   features my favorite one and this is the [TS]

01:14:14   one I'm telling everybody about it's [TS]

01:14:15   this thing they call the inbox inspector [TS]

01:14:17   this is one of the biggest headaches is [TS]

01:14:19   and if you do any web design you can [TS]

01:14:22   appreciate this how is this thing going [TS]

01:14:24   to look when I send it to people they [TS]

01:14:26   have this thing called the inbox [TS]

01:14:27   inspector and it will show you 60 [TS]

01:14:31   screenshots of what your newsletter that [TS]

01:14:35   you've just created on the template that [TS]

01:14:36   you made or one of the ones that they [TS]

01:14:38   use they because they give you a ton of [TS]

01:14:40   them for free it will show you exactly [TS]

01:14:42   what it's going to look like in every [TS]

01:14:45   email client that exists just about I [TS]

01:14:49   mean outlook and like I they have [TS]

01:14:51   Outlook 2003 in there [TS]

01:14:53   they have Apple Mail it'll show you what [TS]

01:14:56   it looks in it like in Gmail Yahoo Mail [TS]

01:14:57   hotmail you name it and it's there and [TS]

01:15:00   it shows you what it's going to look [TS]

01:15:01   like and it stuff this is one of the [TS]

01:15:04   tools and it's all free you don't have [TS]

01:15:06   to pay for any of this stuff 2000 [TS]

01:15:10   subscribers a month 12,000 emails a [TS]

01:15:12   month no contract no expiring trial no [TS]

01:15:15   credit card required check them out at [TS]

01:15:17   mailchimp.com someone in the chatroom [TS]

01:15:22   you're discussing this said if there was [TS]

01:15:25   a way to verify primary source Wikipedia [TS]

01:15:27   probably would allow Regional Research [TS]

01:15:29   there's that word again if there was a [TS]

01:15:31   way to verify a primary so what does [TS]

01:15:34   that even mean what are you trying to [TS]

01:15:35   say there [TS]

01:15:36   I said if there was a way to cite a [TS]

01:15:37   primary source as a tertiary source what [TS]

01:15:40   computer probably would allowed it to [TS]

01:15:42   verify what are you verifying about them [TS]

01:15:44   it's like well it gets back to identity [TS]

01:15:45   are you verifying their identity in that [TS]

01:15:47   case yes Dean use identification [TS]

01:15:48   purposes verification system and without [TS]

01:15:50   one yes you can have Brad Pitt [TS]

01:15:52   contributing because how the hell do you [TS]

01:15:53   know that's Brad Pitt right uh you'd [TS]

01:15:55   have I was proposing a model where Brad [TS]

01:15:58   Pitt does not have to talk to another [TS]

01:15:59   publication and do an interview that's a [TS]

01:16:01   reliable publication and then cite that [TS]

01:16:03   interview that he can contribute [TS]

01:16:04   directly and that what he's contributing [TS]

01:16:05   is clearly you know his words right the [TS]

01:16:09   thing that other people are pointing out [TS]

01:16:10   in in the chat room is that you know it [TS]

01:16:13   we're talking about how a lot of people [TS]

01:16:15   sent me emails saying well actually [TS]

01:16:17   primary sources are allowed under [TS]

01:16:18   certain conditions and actually you know [TS]

01:16:20   notabilities on text rictus you say and [TS]

01:16:22   pointing to all these you know WP : some [TS]

01:16:24   other alphabet soup of words the best [TS]

01:16:25   one I saw I think was on Twitter was [TS]

01:16:27   from hands Hauer Haan NES depends I [TS]

01:16:31   don't know Hans [TS]

01:16:32   yes and I put in the shownotes uh the [TS]

01:16:36   URL is Wikipedia : ignore all rules and [TS]

01:16:39   the entire text of the Wikipedia page is [TS]

01:16:42   if a rule prevents you from improving or [TS]

01:16:44   maintaining Wikipedia ignore it [TS]

01:16:47   this is an official Wikipedia page huh [TS]

01:16:50   I'm assuming that was put there for [TS]

01:16:53   someone to make them feel better or make [TS]

01:16:55   other people feel better and I get the [TS]

01:16:57   spirit of it that it's not it's not [TS]

01:16:59   supposed to be we that in general [TS]

01:17:01   Wikipedia doesn't like excessive rules [TS]

01:17:03   lawyering because it leads to silliness [TS]

01:17:06   and so it's like these are all [TS]

01:17:07   guidelines Wikipedia cetera sherry [TS]

01:17:09   Soares doesn't mean primary sources [TS]

01:17:12   can't contribute but there's a whole [TS]

01:17:13   system it just means it's complicated [TS]

01:17:14   those rules are applying to it but this [TS]

01:17:17   particular things if a rule prevents you [TS]

01:17:19   from improving or maintaining Wikipedia [TS]

01:17:20   ignore it all that does is shift the [TS]

01:17:23   burden to now let's argue about what [TS]

01:17:24   improving means but it doesn't really [TS]

01:17:27   solve the problem at all it does Express [TS]

01:17:28   a spirit of that does express the idea [TS]

01:17:31   that you shouldn't be so strictly you [TS]

01:17:35   know interpreting every single rule [TS]

01:17:36   right but I don't think it solves [TS]

01:17:38   anything and that's all the people in [TS]

01:17:40   the tech room are saying primary sources [TS]

01:17:41   are loud you just just restrictions on [TS]

01:17:43   it and these rules are not as hard and [TS]

01:17:45   fast as you make them out to be [TS]

01:17:46   that's probably all true but you know [TS]

01:17:48   the rules formed served the shape of the [TS]

01:17:50   environment of Wikipedia [TS]

01:17:51   I have other random tidbits didn't fit [TS]

01:17:56   into the structure I wanted to give for [TS]

01:17:57   the other one [TS]

01:17:58   somebody did an entire podcast about a [TS]

01:18:03   podcast replied to this podcast [TS]

01:18:05   Morgan Harris because the [TS]

01:18:07   self-improvement podcast this was the [TS]

01:18:08   very inaugural episode of the [TS]

01:18:10   self-improvement broadcast well I should [TS]

01:18:12   have read this down but it's something [TS]

01:18:13   like when smart people say stupid things [TS]

01:18:17   or some other motto of like they'd be [TS]

01:18:18   the thrust of this podcast was he's [TS]

01:18:20   going to find people who he thinks [TS]

01:18:21   otherwise are worth listening to but [TS]

01:18:25   here's some stupid stuff that they said [TS]

01:18:26   which i think is commendable it's kind [TS]

01:18:29   of like the fight notre-dame concept [TS]

01:18:31   from a few shows back where you're not [TS]

01:18:32   just looking for the idiot who says a [TS]

01:18:34   bunch of stupid things because idiots [TS]

01:18:35   say stupid things all the time you're [TS]

01:18:36   looking for these smart people say [TS]

01:18:37   stupid things because it's more [TS]

01:18:38   interesting in that case that does hope [TS]

01:18:39   for these people so I'm glad that he [TS]

01:18:41   thinks this hope for me in his podcast [TS]

01:18:45   one it's pretty short too unlike these [TS]

01:18:47   podcasts one thing that he talked about [TS]

01:18:49   was he got into the what is truth [TS]

01:18:51   business again and he was saying I can't [TS]

01:18:55   believe he's suggesting that people [TS]

01:18:56   allowed be allowed to connect link Kirby [TS]

01:18:57   doesn't he understand that people lie [TS]

01:19:00   and they they you know they're they four [TS]

01:19:03   things they know to be untrue and in [TS]

01:19:05   furthermore too even when they're [TS]

01:19:06   telling the truth there are many things [TS]

01:19:07   that have been quote-unquote known that [TS]

01:19:10   turned out to be wrong so he pointed to [TS]

01:19:11   the Wikipedia page list of common [TS]

01:19:13   misconceptions and he listed a few of [TS]

01:19:14   them like earth being the center of the [TS]

01:19:15   universe or whatever you know that [TS]

01:19:17   people have known all sorts of things it [TS]

01:19:19   turned out to be wrong so you know [TS]

01:19:21   basically you can't trust people there [TS]

01:19:22   they're not reliable you can't have them [TS]

01:19:23   directly contributing I don't think [TS]

01:19:27   that's a great example because had [TS]

01:19:28   Wikipedia existed at the time it would [TS]

01:19:30   be trivially easy to find lots of quote [TS]

01:19:32   unquote reliable quote unquote verified [TS]

01:19:34   citations that the earth is the center [TS]

01:19:36   of the universe so those facts would [TS]

01:19:38   have stood they would have stood with a [TS]

01:19:40   bullet I mean it would've been no [TS]

01:19:41   problem writing the Wikipedia page [TS]

01:19:42   saying the earth is the center of the [TS]

01:19:44   universe citation citation citation [TS]

01:19:45   citation citation what's your liable [TS]

01:19:47   citation old Catholic Church duh I mean [TS]

01:19:49   they run the entire society that we live [TS]

01:19:51   in you know they're right you know what [TS]

01:19:53   you know you're gonna you think you have [TS]

01:19:54   a less more reliable institution than [TS]

01:19:58   the church on this issue you must be [TS]

01:20:00   joking that's the most reliable psych [TS]

01:20:02   there could possibly be so I would I [TS]

01:20:04   think he went off of the rails a little [TS]

01:20:06   bit in trying to explain why he thinks [TS]

01:20:08   it's a bad idea to have direct [TS]

01:20:09   contribution because the examples he [TS]

01:20:11   gave were I could actually counter [TS]

01:20:13   examples like all those common [TS]

01:20:15   misconceptions would just be sighted out [TS]

01:20:16   the wazoo [TS]

01:20:17   triple gold star totally verify [TS]

01:20:20   completely within the rules of existing [TS]

01:20:22   Wikipedia citation rules and that I [TS]

01:20:25   think supports my argument because it's [TS]

01:20:26   like it's the the appeal to Authority [TS]

01:20:28   thing well what what makes what would [TS]

01:20:30   make the Catholic Church reliable well [TS]

01:20:32   you know just you know it just is it's [TS]

01:20:34   like the New York Times all it just is [TS]

01:20:35   because history and they you know and in [TS]

01:20:37   hindsight being say oh the Catholic [TS]

01:20:38   Church didn't know what they were [TS]

01:20:39   talking about or any Church or anything [TS]

01:20:40   like they know what they were talking [TS]

01:20:41   about on those issues they should not [TS]

01:20:43   have been cited [TS]

01:20:44   perhaps in hindsight we will see that [TS]

01:20:46   the New York Times should not have been [TS]

01:20:47   cited as a reliable source you know [TS]

01:20:49   three centuries from now because little [TS]

01:20:51   did we know that there was you know this [TS]

01:20:53   it's hard to tell from where you are is [TS]

01:20:55   what I'm saying to decide what is it [TS]

01:20:57   reliable source we do we just do the [TS]

01:20:58   best we can so maybe that's a neutral [TS]

01:21:00   because it's not yeah I I don't like the [TS]

01:21:03   fact that that is the house on which [TS]

01:21:05   Wikipedia is built but I do recognize [TS]

01:21:07   that you have to use something when [TS]

01:21:10   you're doing citations to to decide [TS]

01:21:13   what's worth citing and what's not I [TS]

01:21:14   just want to point out that we can [TS]

01:21:16   sometimes be wrong about that and in [TS]

01:21:17   fact I would for historical purposes I [TS]

01:21:19   would much better value direct accounts [TS]

01:21:22   even not that I would take that it's [TS]

01:21:25   like when you're reading about direct [TS]

01:21:26   accounts in a history book you're not [TS]

01:21:27   believing everywhere that the person [TS]

01:21:29   says what you're believing is that this [TS]

01:21:31   person said that and the only the only [TS]

01:21:33   responsibility the publication has is to [TS]

01:21:35   do their best to verify that the person [TS]

01:21:39   they're talking to really is Abraham [TS]

01:21:41   Lincoln and he really did say this on [TS]

01:21:42   this particular date and either he [TS]

01:21:44   recorded it himself or it was recorded [TS]

01:21:45   by someone else and like you know [TS]

01:21:47   secondary source so they don't have to [TS]

01:21:48   be a tertiary source you don't have to [TS]

01:21:49   wait for the paper to print what Abraham [TS]

01:21:51   Lincoln said and then in your [TS]

01:21:52   encyclopedia write about whatever Hamlet [TS]

01:21:54   singing lead Abraham Lincoln can write [TS]

01:21:55   it directly in his on you know [TS]

01:21:58   contributed directly as long as we're [TS]

01:21:59   verified that it really is a ahem [TS]

01:22:00   Lincoln or someone who saw Abraham [TS]

01:22:02   Lincoln can write it directly and you [TS]

01:22:05   know enough people can contribute to [TS]

01:22:06   that to say the all these people said [TS]

01:22:09   they saw era Hamlin can say this you [TS]

01:22:11   know I mean versus trying to do the [TS]

01:22:14   tertiary sourcing [TS]

01:22:15   I'm just waiting for someone to chat [TS]

01:22:16   room to tell me the secondary sources [TS]

01:22:18   are perfectly valid in Wikipedia and it [TS]

01:22:20   all depends on context yes everything [TS]

01:22:21   depends on context so I had someone else [TS]

01:22:24   I searched this email before the show [TS]

01:22:25   started I couldn't find the name I'll [TS]

01:22:26   just call him the Moonrock guy so I gave [TS]

01:22:29   this silly example and sort of the the [TS]

01:22:33   height of my dementia or the the fever [TS]

01:22:35   of my rant about if one of the few [TS]

01:22:38   remaining people who actually landed on [TS]

01:22:40   the moon contributed directly to a [TS]

01:22:42   Wikipedia page to comment that like he [TS]

01:22:44   turned over a rock on the moon and the [TS]

01:22:45   underside it was green which by the way [TS]

01:22:46   silly I really don't think there any [TS]

01:22:47   green rocks right making a silly example [TS]

01:22:50   and you know that the Page said that [TS]

01:22:52   underneath the rocks in the moon [TS]

01:22:52   everything was blue but he picked it up [TS]

01:22:54   and he said it was green that he should [TS]

01:22:55   be allowed to contribute that directly [TS]

01:22:57   ah and here's some feedback on this use [TS]

01:23:02   this issue from a different email this [TS]

01:23:03   is not the moon rock guys just a moon [TS]

01:23:05   rock guy the fact that true is that true [TS]

01:23:09   information even from a primary source [TS]

01:23:10   is useless without verifiability what am [TS]

01:23:13   I going to say there it is your moon [TS]

01:23:15   rock guy might be colorblind you might [TS]

01:23:16   be he might you might be motivated to [TS]

01:23:18   lie about your birthday to verify [TS]

01:23:19   ability is key to any venture that [TS]

01:23:21   attempts to collect information if only [TS]

01:23:23   one person knows the truth the [TS]

01:23:24   information itself should be suspect and [TS]

01:23:26   is likely to be of little interest to [TS]

01:23:27   others what are the chances for example [TS]

01:23:29   that your moon rock guy wouldn't have [TS]

01:23:30   done a press interview about what he saw [TS]

01:23:32   so there there's looking for the [TS]

01:23:34   secondary source to provide some lend [TS]

01:23:37   some credence to it it's like you know [TS]

01:23:40   if only one person knows the truth it's [TS]

01:23:42   probably not of any interest well if [TS]

01:23:43   this only one person knows the truth [TS]

01:23:45   because he's the only guy left alive who [TS]

01:23:46   was on the moon I think it is of [TS]

01:23:47   interest because that's you know this [TS]

01:23:48   first-hand knowledge and what are the [TS]

01:23:50   chances he didn't say interview maybe he [TS]

01:23:51   didn't maybe he wants to contribute a [TS]

01:23:52   drug but this is what I'm getting at [TS]

01:23:53   about how online is different in what [TS]

01:23:55   ways I think online is different in that [TS]

01:23:57   we don't necessarily need these [TS]

01:23:59   intermediaries not that they should be [TS]

01:24:01   excluded and that citation should be [TS]

01:24:02   gone but that we can live in a world [TS]

01:24:04   where people can directly contribute to [TS]

01:24:06   shared knowledge I don't know understand [TS]

01:24:08   what people don't see how that's [TS]

01:24:08   different than before before the only [TS]

01:24:10   way to let the world know what being on [TS]

01:24:11   the moon was liked was get to give the [TS]

01:24:12   time into time magazine interview [TS]

01:24:14   because you can't talk to the whole [TS]

01:24:16   world but you can talk to Time magazine [TS]

01:24:17   and they can talk to the world it's [TS]

01:24:18   disintermediation if you are on the moon [TS]

01:24:20   and you can contribute your first-hand [TS]

01:24:22   knowledge to this repository that [TS]

01:24:23   everybody can see you can cut out the [TS]

01:24:25   middleman it doesn't mean what you say [TS]

01:24:26   is 100% true that you can't lie your [TS]

01:24:28   meal [TS]

01:24:28   be a record of you saying these things [TS]

01:24:30   you don't need someone in between to [TS]

01:24:31   verify that you are who you say you are [TS]

01:24:33   if the thing you're contributing to has [TS]

01:24:35   an identity system that we developed [TS]

01:24:36   that has a verification system that we [TS]

01:24:39   believe is adequate the same way a court [TS]

01:24:41   of law doesn't for people testified in [TS]

01:24:42   courts of law lying about who they are [TS]

01:24:43   and gotten away with it it's difficult [TS]

01:24:45   we make it difficult no system is [TS]

01:24:47   foolproof but this is what I'm talking [TS]

01:24:49   about how about how online is different [TS]

01:24:50   right one person the actual Moonrock guy [TS]

01:24:55   who couldn't fuck who I couldn't find [TS]

01:24:56   even said that uh the idea that the guy [TS]

01:25:01   who's on the moon should be allowed to [TS]

01:25:02   contribute that information is in fact [TS]

01:25:04   an appeal to Authority fallacy but he [TS]

01:25:05   said oh you're just saying because he's [TS]

01:25:07   so SuperDuper important you should [TS]

01:25:08   believe what he says because he was you [TS]

01:25:11   know he's the moon landing god therefore [TS]

01:25:13   he should be that's appeal to authority [TS]

01:25:14   you're saying oh he's unassailable [TS]

01:25:15   because he's an authority no it's not an [TS]

01:25:17   appeal to Authority fail to build [TS]

01:25:19   Authority fallacy is because you know [TS]

01:25:21   right from the Wikipedia page I love [TS]

01:25:23   citing Wikipedia in podcast where I [TS]

01:25:25   complained about you know most of what [TS]

01:25:27   the Authority has to say about something [TS]

01:25:28   is correct [TS]

01:25:29   the Authority says this therefore this [TS]

01:25:31   is correct the reason we give weight to [TS]

01:25:34   the first hand moon rock guide knowledge [TS]

01:25:35   is not because he's an authority but [TS]

01:25:37   because the fact that he's him put him [TS]

01:25:40   in a position to know it's not it's not [TS]

01:25:43   the fact that he same means that [TS]

01:25:44   everything he says is right because if [TS]

01:25:46   appeal to Authority would be he landed [TS]

01:25:48   on the moon therefore I believe what he [TS]

01:25:49   has to say about knitting man has [TS]

01:25:51   nothing to do with knitting you know he [TS]

01:25:53   was actually there it's not an appeal to [TS]

01:25:54   Authority fallacy to say that the person [TS]

01:25:56   with first-hand knowledge is in a [TS]

01:25:58   superior position to be to have some [TS]

01:26:02   information that's relevant to landing [TS]

01:26:04   on the moon it's not because he's an [TS]

01:26:05   important person who landed on the moon [TS]

01:26:07   um what else do we have now I think [TS]

01:26:12   that's probably the end of the audience [TS]

01:26:14   poor Morgan Harrison I listen I listen [TS]

01:26:15   to his podcast which was entertaining [TS]

01:26:17   and fun and I like the fact that he had [TS]

01:26:19   an accent pizzelle like listening to [TS]

01:26:20   people with with accents and I couldn't [TS]

01:26:22   place where it was but his Twitter page [TS]

01:26:25   says that he's from Australia he didn't [TS]

01:26:28   sound Australian to me and then I [TS]

01:26:29   started just questioning everything [TS]

01:26:30   about my ability to identify accents [TS]

01:26:32   like do you think you could identify an [TS]

01:26:33   Australian accent if you heard it if I [TS]

01:26:36   just heard it and without any framework [TS]

01:26:38   and somebody say you know I'm probably [TS]

01:26:40   maybe [TS]

01:26:41   then they somebody would have a south [TS]

01:26:43   african accent just to try and throw me [TS]

01:26:45   off and if you would ask me that before [TS]

01:26:47   i would say of course i can identify an [TS]

01:26:48   australian who doesn't know in australia [TS]

01:26:49   is very distinctive from you know [TS]

01:26:51   british accent sure but then I heard [TS]

01:26:52   Morgan Harris talking and I for the life [TS]

01:26:54   of me could not I did not think he was [TS]

01:26:56   Australian and he says he might have [TS]

01:26:58   some Welsh in there and is an American [TS]

01:26:59   from listening to podcast so I don't [TS]

01:27:00   know so I'm questioning my ability to [TS]

01:27:02   identify accents at all but anyway I [TS]

01:27:05   listened to his podcast and it was fun [TS]

01:27:06   and at the end of it he did a I wasn't [TS]

01:27:09   the only subject of it he did some other [TS]

01:27:10   guy who had another podcast and he said [TS]

01:27:12   a whole bunch of things that weren't [TS]

01:27:13   true about MPEG and he went off on that [TS]

01:27:15   guy and then at one point he went off on [TS]

01:27:18   that guy because he was talking about [TS]

01:27:20   how there's digital content on laser [TS]

01:27:22   discs and he said no no no laser just [TS]

01:27:24   her analog and I had to be my hyper [TS]

01:27:27   critical self and send him a correction [TS]

01:27:29   that a digital audio could be actually [TS]

01:27:32   on a laserdisc and he said he knew that [TS]

01:27:33   but just didn't want to get bogged down [TS]

01:27:35   in the details so it's a never-ending [TS]

01:27:37   cycle of criticism here but I do want to [TS]

01:27:40   give him props for putting in the effort [TS]

01:27:42   to make it podcast response you like [TS]

01:27:45   that is that is that the proper way the [TS]

01:27:47   way that you would like for everybody to [TS]

01:27:50   respond to us I think a blog post like [TS]

01:27:54   that long the long blog post that uh [TS]

01:27:56   William did is better because I can read [TS]

01:27:59   that much faster than I can listen to a [TS]

01:28:00   podcast and uh but you know if everyone [TS]

01:28:02   does it then it becomes too much but if [TS]

01:28:04   one guy does every once in a while I [TS]

01:28:05   think it's nice you're that's acceptable [TS]

01:28:08   to you yeah so there's probably more I [TS]

01:28:10   could do okay pedia but I think I have [TS]

01:28:12   hip highlights here isn't any other [TS]

01:28:13   parts of you think I missed or any [TS]

01:28:15   questions I don't think that anything [TS]

01:28:16   exists that you missed [TS]

01:28:18   now that believe me there is I'm sorry [TS]

01:28:20   if I didn't get to your specific [TS]

01:28:22   objection for people whose objection I [TS]

01:28:24   didn't get to assume that you are [TS]

01:28:25   correct that'll make you feel better [TS]

01:28:29   yeah that was not there on being at [TS]

01:28:31   their whole day yeah I think we have to [TS]

01:28:37   end here how about that about eighty [TS]

01:28:39   eight eighty eight minutes it's tight [TS]

01:28:40   it's practically wow it's like a [TS]

01:28:43   condensed version it's like the instant [TS]

01:28:45   coffee version of this show I apologize [TS]

01:28:48   for all the people who wanted me to talk [TS]

01:28:49   about ZFS and file systems that's it's [TS]

01:28:52   on the list for next show wait how to do [TS]

01:28:54   who [TS]

01:28:55   did you say you were gonna talk about [TS]

01:28:56   that last time you did didn't you I [TS]

01:28:58   think I did and a lot and there was a [TS]

01:29:00   ZFS related product announcement for the [TS]

01:29:03   Mac this week so a lot of people were [TS]

01:29:05   asking me how you're going to talk about [TS]

01:29:06   this on the show it's it's on a list [TS]

01:29:08   let's say that but if you want if we [TS]

01:29:12   want to keep it tight you know we have [TS]

01:29:13   to I love I love the part on building [TS]

01:29:15   analyzer at the end of the episode we're [TS]

01:29:17   running out of time they said but maybe [TS]

01:29:19   well maybe I can talk about Wikipedia it [TS]

01:29:20   was like a bad flashback for you know [TS]

01:29:24   please no don't talk about Wikipedia you [TS]

01:29:26   won't fit it in 15 minutes yeah you're [TS]

01:29:30   right I'm done I'm going lay down now [TS]

01:29:32   all right no that's your thing now [TS]

01:29:35   you're asking all your hosts if they [TS]

01:29:36   need to lay down well you sound you [TS]

01:29:37   sounded you seem yes you seem a little [TS]

01:29:40   exhausted you seem a little upset [TS]

01:29:43   sometimes a nice you know a little nap [TS]

01:29:45   or something well I don't nap but it [TS]

01:29:47   seems like everybody else does yeah no I [TS]

01:29:50   don't know either I just feel like this [TS]

01:29:52   is such a big topic here's what I feel [TS]

01:29:54   like all the people who wrote me I think [TS]

01:29:55   we could have a constructive discussion [TS]

01:29:56   about their things and maybe I would [TS]

01:29:58   disagree with some of it and agree with [TS]

01:29:59   some of it or whatever but the after a [TS]

01:30:02   certain volume addressing all that on [TS]

01:30:04   the podcast is just not feasible and [TS]

01:30:06   it's just not interesting for enough [TS]

01:30:07   people so I was trying to summarize in a [TS]

01:30:09   vague sort of way and that's why I said [TS]

01:30:11   if you feel like you still have like the [TS]

01:30:12   master point that disproves everything [TS]

01:30:14   that I was saying you may in fact be [TS]

01:30:15   right but I you know I don't have time [TS]

01:30:18   to go through them all it was just too [TS]

01:30:19   much and this is not an invitation to [TS]

01:30:21   come to my home and discuss it with me [TS]

01:30:22   but if we ever happen to meet someday [TS]

01:30:25   and trapped in an elevator and you say [TS]

01:30:27   you know I wrote a letter to you about [TS]

01:30:28   Wikipedia and you didn't talk about it [TS]

01:30:30   on the air at that point we can discuss [TS]

01:30:32   it and I think we will have an [TS]

01:30:34   instructive discussion for sure all [TS]

01:30:37   right I'll have a very good week John [TS]

01:30:40   and everybody who's listening have a [TS]

01:30:41   very good week we'll be back same time [TS]

01:30:43   next week right people don't we need I [TS]

01:30:45   need two people to get on me you can [TS]

01:30:47   tune in live every time in the chat room [TS]

01:30:49   usually when we're just getting started [TS]

01:30:50   people will will say this is my first [TS]

01:30:53   time tuning in live I didn't know I [TS]

01:30:54   could do this I didn't know there was a [TS]

01:30:55   chair what's he always talking about [TS]

01:30:56   chat room what's always talking about [TS]

01:30:58   show notes oh let me explain all of that [TS]

01:31:00   and this is a way that you as a listener [TS]

01:31:02   if you want can be an active participant [TS]

01:31:05   in the show as you can hear the whole [TS]

01:31:06   time John and I will our watch [TS]

01:31:09   the chatroom we're responding to the [TS]

01:31:10   comments in there you can be a part of [TS]

01:31:11   the show if you want we'd love for you [TS]

01:31:13   to be you go to five by five dot TV [TS]

01:31:15   that's the starting point there's a [TS]

01:31:17   little link up there that says live you [TS]

01:31:19   click that you can listen live you can [TS]

01:31:22   you can stream and you can hear it you [TS]

01:31:24   can do the same thing if you go to five [TS]

01:31:25   by five dot to FM and open up iTunes you [TS]

01:31:29   can go to the iTunes radio they call it [TS]

01:31:32   we're in there you can listen live that [TS]

01:31:33   way you can open it up on in Safari on [TS]

01:31:36   your on your iPhone open up five by five [TS]

01:31:37   dot FM and I'll stream it live to you [TS]

01:31:39   while you're on the go all of this stuff [TS]

01:31:41   is there we've got more things coming to [TS]

01:31:43   let you listen live but that's the [TS]

01:31:45   starting point the show notes go to five [TS]

01:31:47   by five dot TV slash hypercritical slash [TS]

01:31:48   53 and you can see all of these links [TS]

01:31:52   that John painstakingly found and [TS]

01:31:54   organized and put up there and we want [TS]

01:31:56   to say thanks to help spot comm there [TS]

01:31:57   they make it possible for us to uh to [TS]

01:31:59   keep that going and so that's it and [TS]

01:32:04   there's a chatroom there so when you go [TS]

01:32:06   to the five by five dot TV slash live [TS]

01:32:07   there's a there's a chatroom or if [TS]

01:32:10   you're a real geek can use IRC go to IRC [TS]

01:32:13   free no net and join pound 5x5 and [TS]

01:32:15   you'll you'll be in there and then you [TS]

01:32:17   can talk right to John and tell him he's [TS]

01:32:19   wrong you don't have to shout at your at [TS]

01:32:21   your iPod you just go in and talk in the [TS]

01:32:24   room and he'll see you and you can like [TS]

01:32:27   the satisfaction of correcting me in [TS]

01:32:28   real time that's great but can attest if [TS]

01:32:31   you yeah you think you're better than [TS]

01:32:32   John and show up in the chatroom show [TS]

01:32:34   them out by correcting me in real time [TS]

01:32:36   you were improving the podcast right [TS]

01:32:38   you're being helpful don't think you're [TS]

01:32:40   not being helpful you are so go for it [TS]

01:32:42   go for it and follow John on Twitter is [TS]

01:32:45   syracusa and I'm Dan benjamin on twitter [TS]

01:32:49   and we appreciate you listening we [TS]

01:32:50   appreciate you taking the time out to [TS]

01:32:52   tune in and also you know if you enjoy [TS]

01:32:55   the show give us give us a positive [TS]

01:32:58   rating on itunes it's about the nicest [TS]

01:33:00   thing you could you could do to help new [TS]

01:33:01   people find it what else done anything [TS]

01:33:03   else adds a long list long laundry list [TS]

01:33:05   there things to gold thank you covered [TS]

01:33:07   it all now everybody have a good week [TS]

01:33:10   take care [TS]

01:33:11   [Music] [TS]