It’s a first: an Apple ad I don’t like (click on the security one). The recent series of Microsoft-bad Apple-good shows a young hip dude talking with an older nerdish guy about the benefits of Apple versus Microsoft, with the usual ad propaganda language we’ve all come to know and love from corporations. I judge the series as good/above average, being clean and to the point, much like the recent UPS ads (the guy on the whiteboard, coulnd't quickly find a link).
But one Apple ad is getting past the pundits and I can’t believe it. Here we have the young hip Apple guy saying the Apple is better than the security-plagued Microsoft product. Oh the horror of Vista trying to protect its users from security threats! Huhn. It seems Apple assumes we will ignore the fact that the only reason Microsoft has been targeted by the criminal element is that it was far more successful than Apple’s OS back in the day, for both home and business users. Now we are tasked to believe that Apple is better because it lacks the very security threats it would have had had it been the better OS back in the 80’s and 90’s? I guffaw at the very notion that we should be so blindly led into believing the propaganda now before us. Apple would kill for the very market situation they now rail against to be reversed and we are asked to buy their product because it was less successful than they wanted 20 years ago.
I recently had the opportunity to obtain a widescreen MacBook as my everyday work computer but said no. Sexy as it looked, I did not like the potential networking headaches and would rather stick with my three year old Dell that has not missed a day of work for reason of sickness or need of a day off.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Thursday, March 8, 2007
A Wiki Death
So the guy that saved Slate's The Fray wiki entry (after a lengthy votes for deletion) has been shitcanned from his admin job at Wiki, looks like he lied about being a professor of religion, of all things.
I won't speak of Essjay in particular, as I know very little of him and his abilities, but the point is more about the growth of good things and how administration and bureaucracy eventually catch up to claim the life of good things everywhere.
Wikipedia is a good example. Good concept, certainly, and in theory, with all people participating in good faith, the thing is gold. But once the iodiots got a foothold, which was inevitable and should have been planned for from the start, rules had to be set to control contributions. Soon, the bureaucracy of keeping track of certified contributors will overhelm the good thing and it will be nothing more than a collection of wiki entries few visit for anything other than rubbernecking the tragedy of Wikipedia, call it rubberwiking, if you will.
Anyways, it is too bad. I have often used Wikipedia for general interest reading and basic reference, knowing it has a poor reputation as a scholarly resource (at best) and not really needing it for this purpose. This leads one to wonder how long it will be before MySpace or Craigslist meet the same fate, longer for sure only because on those sites "viewer beware" reigns supreme and there is little in the way of content review.
Best of luck to Jimmy Wales and the honest folk at Wikipedia. It has limitless potential, let us hope that common sense prevails and it keeps its dignity and its charm.
I won't speak of Essjay in particular, as I know very little of him and his abilities, but the point is more about the growth of good things and how administration and bureaucracy eventually catch up to claim the life of good things everywhere.
Wikipedia is a good example. Good concept, certainly, and in theory, with all people participating in good faith, the thing is gold. But once the iodiots got a foothold, which was inevitable and should have been planned for from the start, rules had to be set to control contributions. Soon, the bureaucracy of keeping track of certified contributors will overhelm the good thing and it will be nothing more than a collection of wiki entries few visit for anything other than rubbernecking the tragedy of Wikipedia, call it rubberwiking, if you will.
Anyways, it is too bad. I have often used Wikipedia for general interest reading and basic reference, knowing it has a poor reputation as a scholarly resource (at best) and not really needing it for this purpose. This leads one to wonder how long it will be before MySpace or Craigslist meet the same fate, longer for sure only because on those sites "viewer beware" reigns supreme and there is little in the way of content review.
Best of luck to Jimmy Wales and the honest folk at Wikipedia. It has limitless potential, let us hope that common sense prevails and it keeps its dignity and its charm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
