Honestly if I'd been faced with a choice between thoroughly copy editing Jane Fonda, and reading one of Carr's articles all the way through just once, I'd go for Jane every time. He could have said it all in three paragraphs. But I suppose that if you remove the references to mysticism and evangelism you get down to an observation that's so commonplace that it can only provoke the response: "so what?"
He's a Harvard business professor. See http://www.nicholasgcarr.com/ - restating the obvious is his stock in trade ;-)
But in fairness, look at what he's responding to. "Web 2.0" is a Wired/Negroponte dot-com wank phrase.
I've chucked it on my LJ as well: http://www.livejournal.com/users/reddragdiva/249008.html
- d.
On 10/7/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But in fairness, look at what he's responding to. "Web 2.0" is a Wired/Negroponte dot-com wank phrase.
Well I never read that tripe, either.
I like your idea of adopting the Economist house style, but a lot of kids are taught in schools to write unimaginably long, tedious essays on quite trivial subjects, so they have to learn how to trim out the waffle when they come to writing for real readers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 10/7/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
But in fairness, look at what he's responding to. "Web 2.0" is a Wired/Negroponte dot-com wank phrase.
Well I never read that tripe, either.
I like your idea of adopting the Economist house style, but a lot of kids are taught in schools to write unimaginably long, tedious essays on quite trivial subjects, so they have to learn how to trim out the waffle when they come to writing for real readers.
Hehe, that last bit describes the guy's blog entry perfectly. It's 36kB, 11 pages long.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
I like your idea of adopting the Economist house style, but a lot of kids are taught in schools to write unimaginably long, tedious essays on quite trivial subjects, so they have to learn how to trim out the waffle when they come to writing for real readers.
Is anything too trivial for Wikipedia, if it is to become "the sum of all human knowledge"?
Jay.
On 10/7/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
I like your idea of adopting the Economist house style, but a lot of kids are taught in schools to write unimaginably long, tedious essays on quite trivial subjects, so they have to learn how to trim out the waffle when they come to writing for real readers.
Is anything too trivial for Wikipedia, if it is to become "the sum of all human knowledge"?
Subject wise? If it's verifiable, perhaps not. Too trivial for inclusion in broader articles? Certainly.
For example, someone cut out the links to Bill Gates' home from the Bill Gates article. Details of his home are trivial in the Bill Gates article so cutting them out was probably the right thing to do, but adding them back into Wikipedia elsewhere, in article about his home, would be completely appropriate.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Michael Turley wrote:
On 10/7/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
I like your idea of adopting the Economist house style, but a lot of kids are taught in schools to write unimaginably long, tedious essays on quite trivial subjects, so they have to learn how to trim out the waffle when they come to writing for real readers.
Is anything too trivial for Wikipedia, if it is to become "the sum of all human knowledge"?
Subject wise? If it's verifiable, perhaps not. Too trivial for inclusion in broader articles? Certainly.
For example, someone cut out the links to Bill Gates' home from the Bill Gates article. Details of his home are trivial in the Bill Gates article so cutting them out was probably the right thing to do, but adding them back into Wikipedia elsewhere, in article about his home, would be completely appropriate.
I think NPOV comes into it here. It's possible that a lot of what might be described as "trivia" is difficult to write about from a neutral point of view.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/7/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Michael Turley wrote:
On 10/7/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com
I like your idea of adopting the Economist house style, but a lot of kids are taught in schools to write unimaginably long, tedious essays on quite trivial subjects, so they have to learn how to trim out the waffle when they come to writing for real readers.
Is anything too trivial for Wikipedia, if it is to become "the sum of all human knowledge"?
Subject wise? If it's verifiable, perhaps not. Too trivial for inclusion in broader articles? Certainly.
For example, someone cut out the links to Bill Gates' home from the Bill Gates article. Details of his home are trivial in the Bill Gates article so cutting them out was probably the right thing to do, but adding them back into Wikipedia elsewhere, in article about his home, would be completely appropriate.
I think NPOV comes into it here. It's possible that a lot of what might be described as "trivia" is difficult to write about from a neutral point of view.
Perhaps you meant third party verifiable? NPOV isn't any more difficult for smaller subjects.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Michael Turley wrote:
On 10/7/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
On 10/7/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
For example, someone cut out the links to Bill Gates' home from the Bill Gates article. Details of his home are trivial in the Bill Gates article so cutting them out was probably the right thing to do, but adding them back into Wikipedia elsewhere, in article about his home, would be completely appropriate.
I think NPOV comes into it here. It's possible that a lot of what might be described as "trivia" is difficult to write about from a neutral point of view.
Perhaps you meant third party verifiable? NPOV isn't any more difficult for smaller subjects.
Yes, that's possible.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \