In a message dated 8/23/2009 1:59:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bodnotbod@gmail.com writes:
Do you think it would be hopelessly superseded by brain implants that give us access to all knowledge all of the time? Who's to say that that knowledge wouldn't be provided by Wikipedia?>>
------------------
You silly goose. Don't you realize that when we all have brain implants that retain a quintabyte that the internet won't exist at all. We'll be in constant streaming twitter mode all the time. There won't be "articles" per se, and you won't get input from a single page, you'll get continuous input from a million sources simultaneously in twitt-bits.
W.J.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:36 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
You silly goose. Don't you realize that when we all have brain implants that retain a quintabyte that the internet won't exist at all. We'll be in constant streaming twitter mode all the time. There won't be "articles" per se, and you won't get input from a single page, you'll get continuous input from a million sources simultaneously in twitt-bits.
<look of abject horror>
I wouldn't be so horrified if that didn't sound so plausible.
Is it too late to try the 'Culture' route? (Iain M. Banks)
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:36 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
You silly goose. Don't you realize that when we all have brain implants that retain a quintabyte that the internet won't exist at all. We'll be in constant streaming twitter mode all the time. There won't be "articles" per se, and you won't get input from a single page, you'll get continuous input from a million sources simultaneously in twitt-bits.
<look of abject horror>
I wouldn't be so horrified if that didn't sound so plausible.
Is it too late to try the 'Culture' route? (Iain M. Banks)
Banks' is the "utopian version". The dystopian/nihilist version is the "One True" multiverse of John Barnes. I really hate the fact that the author I love above all others wrote such a disgusting, horrifying, and inescapably compelling vision of the future.
And yes, I know that 'Culture' is only utopian if you ignore the fnords.
Abject apologies for contributing to the worrisome trend of this channel to descend to non-wikipedia related non sequiturs, but there are times when one simply has to let ones pop cult. erudition get the better of oneself. <wide smirk>
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
2009/8/24 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:36 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
You silly goose. Don't you realize that when we all have brain implants that retain a quintabyte that the internet won't exist at all. We'll be in constant streaming twitter mode all the time. There won't be "articles" per se, and you won't get input from a single page, you'll get continuous input from a million sources simultaneously in twitt-bits.
<look of abject horror>
I wouldn't be so horrified if that didn't sound so plausible.
Is it too late to try the 'Culture' route? (Iain M. Banks)
Carcharoth
That would be where they had several billion people vote on if cable cars should be installed in an area that was meant to be a wasteland.
Preservationeers vs Pylonists was painfully familiar.
In practice the end point of Natural language processing and large scale digitalisation is likely to be made to request computer generated custom articles. Wikipedia with it's surprisingly structured entries is likely to be used as a significant stepping stone in this direction.
2009/8/24 geni geniice@gmail.com:
In practice the end point of Natural language processing and large scale digitalisation is likely to be made to request computer generated custom articles. Wikipedia with it's surprisingly structured entries is likely to be used as a significant stepping stone in this direction.
Yes. Rather a lot of conversations I have with random geeks are along these lines.
Basically, infoboxes = machine-readable data = good. So the way to go there would be to make template plumbing give data more amenable to chewing on. (Standardised names for template parameters, e.g. name, photo.)
- d.
2009/8/24 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Yes. Rather a lot of conversations I have with random geeks are along these lines.
Basically, infoboxes = machine-readable data = good. So the way to go there would be to make template plumbing give data more amenable to chewing on. (Standardised names for template parameters, e.g. name, photo.)
- d.
Only in the short term. One of the things that makes wikipedia interesting is that it contains data with different levels of structure. Making a program that can read one infobox is easy. Making a program that can work out how to read related infoboxes is harder but far more interesting.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:54 PM, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/24 geni geniice@gmail.com:
In practice the end point of Natural language processing and large scale digitalisation is likely to be made to request computer generated custom articles. Wikipedia with it's surprisingly structured entries is likely to be used as a significant stepping stone in this direction.
Yes. Rather a lot of conversations I have with random geeks are along these lines.
Basically, infoboxes = machine-readable data = good. So the way to go there would be to make template plumbing give data more amenable to chewing on. (Standardised names for template parameters, e.g. name, photo.)
Surely the real information is in the semantic linkings? The concept of the wikilink is still in its infancy, I think. If linking can be optimised (by editors), it will be fascinating to see what relationships that throws up.
Carcharoth