Marc Parry (19 April 2010), After Struggling in Search, Cuil Re-Emerges With an Encyclopedia, Wired Campus, The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Georgie Yeats is penning in her grave …
Jon
Full Version: And Cuil Begat Cpedia ...
Cpedia
Marc Parry (19 April 2010), After Struggling in Search, Cuil Re-Emerges With an Encyclopedia, Wired Campus, The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Georgie Yeats is penning in her grave …
Jon
Marc Parry (19 April 2010), After Struggling in Search, Cuil Re-Emerges With an Encyclopedia, Wired Campus, The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Georgie Yeats is penning in her grave …
Jon
What would happen if you sent LSD to all the basement-dwelling teenage Wikipediots, and then banned all the admins and checkusers on Wikipedia so that there was zero oversight? You'd end up with a psychedelic potpourri of web snippetry, very loosely organized by inadequate software. That's what Cpedia amounts to.
Wikipedia is a bad idea, but Cpedia is an absolutely horrible idea. It is utterly irresponsible, and deserves scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission on privacy grounds. What if those computers start grabbing Facebook and Twitter, and throw all that stuff into the mix?
Wikipedia is a bad idea, but Cpedia is an absolutely horrible idea. It is utterly irresponsible, and deserves scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission on privacy grounds. What if those computers start grabbing Facebook and Twitter, and throw all that stuff into the mix?
I declare... CPedia is better than Wikipedia!
Well, the WayBakMachine is crawling along 2 to 5 years behind the times, but the Libertary of Congress decided to blow our tax dollars on the all-important doom-boggle of e-mortalizing every twirp on Twitter instead — so I doubt we can hope for much help from the FTC.
Bizzarre as some of the Cpedia look-ups can be, it's actually kind of interesting how deep it digs into the web of maya. This could afford a nice counterbalance to the increasingly rampant recentism of Google and its raving infatuation with Wikipedia — all of which is making that tag team more and more useless as an adjunct to real research.
For instance, look at one of my routine searches —
Inquiry Driven System
If I click on the tag for note 1, I get the sources for all the preceding sentences:
Inquiry Driven System&source=1
Some of these sources go back ten years and the system squeezes out the ramified redundancies of a decade long commentary. If I ever want to rewrite this stuff in a semi-coherent fashion I could well begin with the Cpedia gistification.
Jon Awbrey
Bizzarre as some of the Cpedia look-ups can be, it's actually kind of interesting how deep it digs into the web of maya. This could afford a nice counterbalance to the increasingly rampant recentism of Google and its raving infatuation with Wikipedia — all of which is making that tag team more and more useless as an adjunct to real research.
For instance, look at one of my routine searches —
Inquiry Driven System
If I click on the tag for note 1, I get the sources for all the preceding sentences:
Inquiry Driven System&source=1
Some of these sources go back ten years and the system squeezes out the ramified redundancies of a decade long commentary. If I ever want to rewrite this stuff in a semi-coherent fashion I could well begin with the Cpedia gistification.
Jon Awbrey
Wow, the "article" about me on Cpedia is nearly as bad as ED's article about me. And the formatting gives no clue that it is simply a mash-up of websites, so it looks moderately convincing. I hope this doesn't end up being googledexed.
This stuff reminds me of the crap that the "dissociated-press" mode in Emacs spits out. You could call it an "automated plagiarism engine". 
There appear to be three separate articles about me, although one of them is only one sentence. One of them contains bits of a Cade Metz piece in which I was quoted; the others are random Wikipedia crap that invokes me but is not particularly about me. Absolutely no mention of any of my other claims to fame. Fail.
There appear to be three separate articles about me, although one of them is only one sentence. One of them contains bits of a Cade Metz piece in which I was quoted; the others are random Wikipedia crap that invokes me but is not particularly about me. Absolutely no mention of any of my other claims to fame. Fail.
QUOTE(MBisanz @ Tue 20th April 2010, 4:25pm) 
Wow, the "article" about me on Cpedia is nearly as bad as ED's article about me. And the formatting gives no clue that it is simply a mash-up of websites, so it looks moderately convincing. I hope this doesn't end up being googledexed.
Lol... I'm a hot topic!
QUOTE
Content from 23 webpages curated by Cpedia, the automated encyclopedia.
There are 6 different pages about Xenocidic in Cpedia. View other pages about Xenocidic.
List of Xbox 360 games but before it went too far, I be glad: help you along sought the advice of the VG WikiProject.
I am aware that WP's rollback should only be used for clear-cut cases of vandalism and proper edit summaries should be used in non-vandalism cases.
Xenocidic: 1UP's Spore page has it rated RP by the ESRB. Furthermore, if it's coming out on all platforms, according to Wright, you can see why we can't single out the Wii version, because he's already stated it's coming out on the 360, PS3, etc, etc.
You may want to check out the userbox to see if your gamertag is spelled correctly. Cheers. Have you considered 1) creating an account and 2) Joining the We: your contributions to Video games WikiProject? [1]
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 20th April 2010, 8:34am)
Well, the WayBakMachine is crawling along 2 to 5 years behind the times, but the Libertary of Congress decided to blow our tax dollars on the all-important doom-boggle of e-mortalizing every twirp on Twitter instead — so I doubt we can hope for much help from the FTC.
Bizzarre as some of the Cpedia look-ups can be, it's actually kind of interesting how deep it digs into the web of maya. This could afford a nice counterbalance to the increasingly rampant recentism of Google and its raving infatuation with Wikipedia — all of which is making that tag team more and more useless as an adjunct to real research.
For instance, look at one of my routine searches —
Inquiry Driven System
If I click on the tag for note 1, I get the sources for all the preceding sentences:
Inquiry Driven System&source=1
Some of these sources go back ten years and the system squeezes out the ramified redundancies of a decade long commentary. If I ever want to rewrite this stuff in a semi-coherent fashion I could well begin with the Cpedia gistification.
Jon Awbrey
But Jon, no one except you ever looks for Inquiry Driven System!
Try searching for a name you are familiar with, but one that is not particularly unusual as names go. You will discover that computers are inept at disambiguation, and everything gets mashed together into a confusing stream of tidbits. That's where the privacy thing becomes a problem.
I figured this out in 2008, when Cuil was launched. They tried to match names to photographs, and got a huge percentage of them wrong. (I don't see any images on Cuil these days; I guess they realized it wasn't working.)
After Wikipedia has spent nearly a decade dumbing down Generation Z, now Cpedia comes along to finish off the Sum of Human Knowledge. Those basement-dwellers who do most of the crowd-sourcing are too young to realize that two different people might share the same name.
I did a search on a friend of mine whose name is unique in the English-speaking world. They have three pages on him. More fail.
Amusingly, their page on Jimmy Wales starts out with this gem: "Wales and the foundation both insist there has been no wrongdoing regarding his spending."
Also, a search for Wikipedia turns up a list of articles, the third of which is entitled "Japanese Women Don't Get Old or Fat". That's some pretty bizarre linking behavior.
Amusingly, their page on Jimmy Wales starts out with this gem: "Wales and the foundation both insist there has been no wrongdoing regarding his spending."
Also, a search for Wikipedia turns up a list of articles, the third of which is entitled "Japanese Women Don't Get Old or Fat". That's some pretty bizarre linking behavior.
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 20th April 2010, 7:36pm)
Try searching for a name you are familiar with, but one that is not particularly unusual as names go. You will discover that computers are inept at disambiguation, and everything gets mashed together into a confusing stream of tidbits. That's where the privacy thing becomes a problem.
I figured this out in 2008, when Cuil was launched. They tried to match names to photographs, and got a huge percentage of them wrong. (I don't see any images on Cuil these days; I guess they realized it wasn't working.)
After Wikipedia has spent nearly a decade dumbing down Generation Z, now Cpedia comes along to finish off the Sum of Human Knowledge. Those basement-dwellers who do most of the crowd-sourcing are too young to realize that two different people might share the same name.
True, they shouldn't have called it by any name that suggests an "encyclopedia" — no matter how e-fectively meaningless Wikipedia has rendered that term on the contemptuary scene — but what they do say about the algorithm is clear and undeceptive enough, unlike Wikipedia's wiki-plethora of wiki-pretenses. Cpedia simply takes us back to the good old days of WAIS-Land Gophers, with the added feature of reducing redundancies. No one should ever have tried to pretend that every bit of spindrift on the internet was based on fact, much less The One Right Point Of View (TORPOV)™.
So let us cast those scales from our eyes once and for all.
Jon Awbrey
Try my name.
Hysterical. Complete gibberish. Fail. Suck.
(And taking a lot of random stuff from Wikipedia. And other places, even stupid forum postings from years ago. No context, no further information on what it means or how these random sentences fit together. Can we blame Google for this?)
Hysterical. Complete gibberish. Fail. Suck.
(And taking a lot of random stuff from Wikipedia. And other places, even stupid forum postings from years ago. No context, no further information on what it means or how these random sentences fit together. Can we blame Google for this?)
QUOTE
It was previously presented by another user that Jayjg had no prior contact with CharlotteWebb, making it unlikely that he [Seigenthaler] meant ill.
Dogbiscuit:
I like cPedia, a worthy tome indeed.
It does seem I have a theme tune:
I suspect it might not be my sort of thing 
QUOTE
God-like
I like cPedia, a worthy tome indeed.
It does seem I have a theme tune:
QUOTE
The south-London producer real name Julian Cook said he was joining forces with Dutch cock twiddler Jank 2526, whose neo-Fudcore anthem Dogbiscuit is already a Bumfunk standard.
Neo-Fudcore? Bumfunk? I suspect it might not be my sort of thing
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 20th April 2010, 8:16pm)
Amusingly, their page on Jimmy Wales starts out with this gem: "Wales and the foundation both insist there has been no wrongdoing regarding his spending."
Their Jimmy Wales Section 1, Part Q, features yours truly!
QUOTE
Gregory Kohs
That's a lie he's tried to perpetuate since about 2004 or 2005 when he [Gregory Kohs] decided that "co-founder" wasn't a grand enough title for himself. [19.1]
He [Jimmy Wales] then referred to't he Nature magazine study comparing Wikipedia articles between Britannica articles. [19.2]
That's a lie he's tried to perpetuate since about 2004 or 2005 when he [Gregory Kohs] decided that "co-founder" wasn't a grand enough title for himself. [19.1]
He [Jimmy Wales] then referred to't he Nature magazine study comparing Wikipedia articles between Britannica articles. [19.2]
I am also Section 4 of the "Sam Blacketer" page.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 21st April 2010, 4:34pm)
Their Jimmy Wales Section 1, Part Q, features yours truly!
QUOTE
Gregory Kohs
That's a lie he's tried to perpetuate since about 2004 or 2005 when he [Gregory Kohs] decided that "co-founder" wasn't a grand enough title for himself. [19.1]
He [Jimmy Wales] then referred to't he Nature magazine study comparing Wikipedia articles between Britannica articles. [19.2]
That's a lie he's tried to perpetuate since about 2004 or 2005 when he [Gregory Kohs] decided that "co-founder" wasn't a grand enough title for himself. [19.1]
He [Jimmy Wales] then referred to't he Nature magazine study comparing Wikipedia articles between Britannica articles. [19.2]
I am also Section 4 of the "Sam Blacketer" page.
This software does a shitty job resolving pronoun antecedents. I'd really like to know how it decided Mr. Seigenthaler had anything to do with the Jayjg v. me case.
I know on Wikipedia, Jimbo would tell him to just edit the page and remove it, but not even that recourse exists here.
Cpedia's curiosus on Inquiry Driven System is now the top hit on a Google search for that term.
Isn't that curious?
Jon
Isn't that curious?
Jon
Ha.
Considering his [Gregory Kohs's] $100,000-per-engagement speaker's fee, perhaps he actually can arrange for the 'golden carriage' that Erik MÃ ller speaks of.
Nice one, Greg.
QUOTE
Considering his [Gregory Kohs's] $100,000-per-engagement speaker's fee, perhaps he actually can arrange for the 'golden carriage' that Erik MÃ ller speaks of.
Nice one, Greg.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.