Weekend Reading: Truth, Sex, Piracy, Wikis, Archives, Blogs (oh my!)
Sunday, August 29, 2004
[X] Jill Walker asked "Why are sex and computers conflated?" and her thoughts, as well as the ongoing comment dialogue, make a provocative read.
[X] Stuart Campbell has written a great piece entitled "WHY PIRACY IS GOOD: A tangled (and lengthy) tale of morality" which explores the ethics of downloading, piracy and the important role these play in terms of videogames and archives. Also, check out these Classic Anti-Piracy Advertisments. [Both Via WaxyLinks]
[X] At RLG, Richard Entlich has a very thorough article exploring blogs and archiving blogs called "Blog Today, Gone Tomorrow? Preservation of Weblogs".
[X] Finally, after Al Fasoldt in The Post Standard wrote an extremely narrow-minded article simply entitled "Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source", he opened up a fantastically useful debate over the merits of Wikis versus more formal and professionally regulated (versus socially regulated) sources. Mike at TechDirt challenged the article, championing the merits of "self-correcting community" and arguing with Al Fasoldt's take. The ensuing "conversation" makes me more and more likely to rely on Wikipedia over a lot of journalism (especially The Post Standard), but has also led to a fantastic debate in the TechDirt comments. My take: Wikis - 1, Fasoldt - 0.
[X] Stuart Campbell has written a great piece entitled "WHY PIRACY IS GOOD: A tangled (and lengthy) tale of morality" which explores the ethics of downloading, piracy and the important role these play in terms of videogames and archives. Also, check out these Classic Anti-Piracy Advertisments. [Both Via WaxyLinks]
[X] At RLG, Richard Entlich has a very thorough article exploring blogs and archiving blogs called "Blog Today, Gone Tomorrow? Preservation of Weblogs".
[X] Finally, after Al Fasoldt in The Post Standard wrote an extremely narrow-minded article simply entitled "Librarian: Don't use Wikipedia as source", he opened up a fantastically useful debate over the merits of Wikis versus more formal and professionally regulated (versus socially regulated) sources. Mike at TechDirt challenged the article, championing the merits of "self-correcting community" and arguing with Al Fasoldt's take. The ensuing "conversation" makes me more and more likely to rely on Wikipedia over a lot of journalism (especially The Post Standard), but has also led to a fantastic debate in the TechDirt comments. My take: Wikis - 1, Fasoldt - 0.
[Posted by Unknown] [11:22 am]
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home