I probably should have just asked if there is genius in a bee hive, or in the Borg. Oh, well.
My favorite line:
QUOTE
If lots of people are working at once, it's statistically more likely that someone will have good luck.
Full Version: Does genius bloom...
This one may be of interest to our Jon Awbrey and Barry Kort types.
I probably should have just asked if there is genius in a bee hive, or in the Borg. Oh, well.
My favorite line:
I probably should have just asked if there is genius in a bee hive, or in the Borg. Oh, well.
My favorite line:
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 20th December 2009, 7:09pm) 
This one may be of interest to our Jon Awbrey and Barry Kort types.
I probably should have just asked if there is genius in a bee hive, or in the Borg. Oh, well.
My favorite line:
QUOTE
If lots of people are working at once, it's statistically more likely that someone will have good luck.
from the article; used under fair use:
QUOTE
The internet is probably delivering a wake-up call: That our individualistic society has, for a few centuries at least, underrated the value of group work. And internet experiments in math are making this more clear, more quickly. It's probably simply harder to show that an art like literature could grow through teamwork. Of course it's true that no matter what happens in the public realm, individual genius is a real thing that will continue to exist. But we're also likely entering an age in which we know how much we've falsely emphasized individuality over collaboration, of all sorts.
oh well. . . .
no matter weather an encyclopedia is being written by "everyone" or a just a large group of writers and editors being coordinated by some big company (a la Britanicca?) it still seems to get the job done to greater and lesser degrees. i just said a whole lot of nothing, didn't I? or did I? I dunno.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 20th December 2009, 10:09pm)
This one may be of interest to our Jon Awbrey and Barry Kort types.
I probably should have just asked if there is genius in a bee hive, or in the Borg. Oh, well.
My favorite line:
QUOTE
If lots of people are working at once, it's statistically more likely that someone will have good luck.
Weird
My fortune cookie from dinner tonight said Luck favors prepared mind †.At any rate, I found last Friday's double episode of Dollhouse far more enlightening on the subject of genius loco.
Wethunks*
MethinksJon
†That's "prepared mind", not "prepared brain", which is something else.
* That's "We thunks", not "Wet hunks", silly …
QUOTE
Of course it's true that no matter what happens in the public realm, individual genius is a real thing that will continue to exist. But we're also likely entering an age in which we know how much we've falsely emphasized individuality over collaboration, of all sorts.
This is not so much a false emphasis as it is a result of the fact that the sheer volume of knowledge has grown exponentially massive and continues to do thusly.
Only two centuries ago, it was still possible for a single, gifted Polymath to know most everything known to humankind. Today, such a feat would be impossible, of course.
Specialization, collectivity and collaboration are the only ways we can even begin to cope with it all.
It was in recognition of this that the earliest ancestors of the internet were created, to facilitate such endeavors (well that and to share warez and pr0n).
I do agree with the article's, gist, however, that the way we gather, store and process knowledge is changing and changing radically...no duh. So how, besides reform/improve/destroy Wikipedia, do we help ensure that it is change for the better?
QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Thu 24th December 2009, 9:24am)
I do agree with the article's, gist, however, that the way we gather, store and process knowledge is changing and changing radically … no duh. So how, besides reform/improve/destroy Wikipedia, do we help ensure that it is change for the better?
Good grief, Wikipedia is utterly irrelevant to the Future Of Knowledge Management Environments (FOKME). The entire bitbase is completely useless as far as scholarship and science is concerned, on account of the fact that every bit in its bit dump is hopelessly contaminated by no-account e-missions from anonymous, irresponsible, and unreliable bit dumpers. At its very best, in the scattered parts of the Wikipedia bit dump that are accidentally, e-phemerally well-sourced, on account of being dumped there by responsible scholars, it is no more a knowledge base than the midnight blackboards at some university that the janitors haven't gotten around to erasing yet.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 26th December 2009, 4:06am)
QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Thu 24th December 2009, 9:24am)
I do agree with the article's, gist, however, that the way we gather, store and process knowledge is changing and changing radically … no duh. So how, besides reform/improve/destroy Wikipedia, do we help ensure that it is change for the better?
Good grief, Wikipedia is utterly irrelevant to the Future Of Knowledge Management Environments (FOKME). The entire bitbase is completely useless as far as scholarship and science is concerned, on account of the fact that every bit in its bit dump is hopelessly contaminated by no-account e-missions from anonymous, irresponsible, and unreliable bit dumpers. At its very best, in the scattered parts of the Wikipedia bit dump that are accidentally, e-phemerally well-sourced, on account of being dumped there by responsible scholars, it is no more a knowledge base than the midnight blackboards at some university that the janitors haven't gotten around to erasing yet.
Jon Awbrey
I never argued it was relevant.
I like to compare WPee to a truckstop restroom wall-
You can find some interesting things there, but no one in their right mind would use it as a primary source.
QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Sat 26th December 2009, 4:43pm)
I never argued it was relevant.
I like to compare WPee to a truckstop restroom wall-
You can find some interesting things there, but no one in their right mind would use it as a primary source.
Well nobody said David Gerard was in his right mind.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ary/089224.html
----------------
Note: the domain registration for that site has lapsed. Fortunately somebody has copied the content to:
http://boojum.as.arizona.edu/~jill/A300b_f.../altsource.html
----------------
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sat 26th December 2009, 5:16pm)
QUOTE(RDH(Ghost In The Machine) @ Sat 26th December 2009, 4:43pm)
I never argued it was relevant.
I like to compare WPee to a truckstop restroom wall-
You can find some interesting things there, but no one in their right mind would use it as a primary source.
Well nobody said David Gerard was in his right mind.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ary/089224.html
----------------
Note: the domain registration for that site has lapsed. Fortunately somebody has copied the content to:
http://boojum.as.arizona.edu/~jill/A300b_f.../altsource.html
----------------
No one ever claimed he was a genius either, except in his own mind.
To paraphrase ol SamClemens-
Any rumors of Davy Gerard's high intelligence have been greatly exaggerated.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.