Excerpt from NY Times Magazine, "Questions for Douglas Hofstadter", 4/1/07:
Q. Your entry in Wikipedia says that your work has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence.
A. I have no interest in computers. The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kinds of depresses me.
Q. So fix it.
A. The next day someone will fix it back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01wwlnQ4.t.html
My thoughts:
It strikes me that there is really a crisis of confidence in people that editing Wikipedia will have any long term effect. I have heard it many, many times from people on the web and in person as well as seen it in print. "Why bother, someone will just change it back later, or erase it?"
I think it is too important to be dismissive about this approach. Even correctly cited things can be removed or butchered, even incorrectly cited things can stay on. I'm not sure that increased calls for citation will solve or even mitigate the problem. Any academic can tell you that citation is hardly a gold standard; it is not what convinces people of the accuracy of any claim. In the end that comes down to trust, and that comes down to authorship, and that comes down to things that Wikipedia doesn't, won't, and maybe can't do right.
At this point, Wikipedia's epistemology privileges the persistant, the dedicated, and those with a lot of free time on their hands. Which is a set of qualities which describes both the best _and_ the worst editors.
I don't have an answer though. Just something to muse on, in the face of some rather derisive high-brow publicity from an immensely popular, immensely intelligent person.
FF
I think it is too important to be dismissive about this approach. Even correctly cited things can be removed or butchered, even incorrectly cited things can stay on. I'm not sure that increased calls for citation will solve or even mitigate the problem. Any academic can tell you that citation is hardly a gold standard; it is not what convinces people of the accuracy of any claim. In the end that comes down to trust, and that comes down to authorship, and that comes down to things that Wikipedia doesn't, won't, and maybe can't do right.
At this point, Wikipedia's epistemology privileges the persistant, the dedicated, and those with a lot of free time on their hands. Which is a set of qualities which describes both the best _and_ the worst editors.
I don't have an answer though. Just something to muse on, in the face of some rather derisive high-brow publicity from an immensely popular, immensely intelligent person.
FF
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Persistence can win over truth and neutrality - unless the persistent one is so blatantly inserting falsehoods that he is identified as a vandal and blocked.
On high profile articles this matters not, as the persistence of the one pov-pusher will be undone by the more apathetic action of the many.
The problem is with low notability articles, where one persistent pusher can own the article for months or years.
To harp back on to my subject of bios, here there is a real problem, not of the outright libeler but one someone persistently making sure the article includes all negative commentary (often well cited) and no positive. These hatchet jobs are a real problem as what really need is someone to equally persistently research the other side and then keep it balanced. The admin called to the scene seldom had the time or interest.
Maybe that is just what wikipedia is. We have a great system that can produce great articles in fairly uncontroversial subjects, or at its best controversial ones where there is a large group of people with a cross-section of views interested. But we are crap at low-notability controversial subjects, and particularly bios. Maybe trying to change policies to correct that systemic fact is misguided.
However, the conclusion to that may well be to say that *if open, inclusive, wikis can't do this type of thing, then we should stop trying*......Maybe we need a different type of project to do low-notability bios, one that is willing to say - *where we can't have a decent fair bio, we should have no bio at all*.
Should we stop trying to be anything other than a wiki - but now accept the limits of that method.
Doc
On 4/1/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Maybe that is just what wikipedia is. We have a great system that can produce great articles in fairly uncontroversial subjects, or at its best controversial ones where there is a large group of people with a cross-section of views interested. But we are crap at low-notability controversial subjects, and particularly bios. Maybe trying to change policies to correct that systemic fact is misguided.
However, the conclusion to that may well be to say that *if open, inclusive, wikis can't do this type of thing, then we should stop trying*......Maybe we need a different type of project to do low-notability bios, one that is willing to say - *where we can't have a decent fair bio, we should have no bio at all*.
Should we stop trying to be anything other than a wiki - but now accept the limits of that method.
Doc
Notability is fairly objective, but the degree of notability is as subjective as it gets. Determining what is low-notability is not feasible. Also, this plan would mean you're giving in to vandals and POV pushers. Just because people are causing problems, doesn't mean we should get rid (delete) or shun such articles to the side. We should somehow handle the people causing the problems. There's plenty of bios you would consider low-notability that aren't causing any problems and they would be collateral victims if they were treated as problem material.
Mgm
On 4/1/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
I think it is too important to be dismissive about this approach. Even correctly cited things can be removed or butchered, even incorrectly cited things can stay on. I'm not sure that increased calls for citation will solve or even mitigate the problem. Any academic can tell you that citation is hardly a gold standard; it is not what convinces people of the accuracy of any claim. In the end that comes down to trust, and that comes down to authorship, and that comes down to things that Wikipedia doesn't, won't, and maybe can't do right.
At this point, Wikipedia's epistemology privileges the persistant, the dedicated, and those with a lot of free time on their hands. Which is a set of qualities which describes both the best _and_ the worst editors.
I don't have an answer though. Just something to muse on, in the face of some rather derisive high-brow publicity from an immensely popular, immensely intelligent person.
FF
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Persistence can win over truth and neutrality - unless the persistent one is so blatantly inserting falsehoods that he is identified as a vandal and blocked.
On high profile articles this matters not, as the persistence of the one pov-pusher will be undone by the more apathetic action of the many.
The problem is with low notability articles, where one persistent pusher can own the article for months or years.
To harp back on to my subject of bios, here there is a real problem, not of the outright libeler but one someone persistently making sure the article includes all negative commentary (often well cited) and no positive. These hatchet jobs are a real problem as what really need is someone to equally persistently research the other side and then keep it balanced. The admin called to the scene seldom had the time or interest.
Maybe that is just what wikipedia is. We have a great system that can produce great articles in fairly uncontroversial subjects, or at its best controversial ones where there is a large group of people with a cross-section of views interested. But we are crap at low-notability controversial subjects, and particularly bios. Maybe trying to change policies to correct that systemic fact is misguided.
There is a small but dedicated group of editors who think that these small bios are rather important to Wikipedia--in fact, I think they are where Wikipedia can shine. Please don't throw our work in the trash. Check out Daniel Rodriguez sometimes, for example, and look at the tooth pulling we had to do to polish this article up.
The problem, imo, is the lack of notice of these articles, and the cat fights at AfD for anybody who doesn't have a ten-page spread in Britannica. It's too small to be a FA, and GA status is not much. It will never be on the front page, and fighting its owner to just improve the English, much less the content of the article took down at least 3 editors and an admin. The editors have to fight to keep in the small biographies all of the time by the deletionists (and yes, they exist), they're not often adopted by projects, again because they're not big names.
We don't crap at "low-notability controversial subject, particularly bios." It's just the editors can't spend all their time fighting every single thing about the article and produce a good article. The person who put this article up attacked me and two other editors for every edit we made, no matter how dramatically it improved the article. The article was an unreadable piece of shit to begin with. We had to fight in AfD to keep it on Wikipedia at all.
Rodriguez isn't particularly controversial, other than whether he's notable at all, but I offered a sound solution to the recent bio on what's her name and the use of blogs, namely quote from the blogs and then show the blogs are notable because OTHERS have quoted from them, but it was ignored. Wikipedia and this list both have a lot of inertia. The ideas are there, the people are there, but they're being ignored. So are the small biographies, unless and until someone complains or edit wars about them. This is an area where Wikipedia can, and imo, should shine, because you can't find this type of information in one place elsewhere on the web, succinct, well-researched and good biographies of minor notables.
I think minor biographies of living people should be featured on the front page, just like FA, get all those award chasers interested in them, show people Wikipedia cares about biographies of living people. Strike out, again, in solitude against the big boy encyclopedias, by showing what you can do on the web that you can't do in print, namely include lots of minor notables, polish them up, and display them proudly.
There's too much reactionary response to supposed crisis.
KP
On 4/1/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
There's too much reactionary response to supposed crisis.
This needed to be pulled out specifically for praise. I wholly agree.
I agree also with the vast majority of what else you say - Wikipedia benefits from having articles on subjects of minor notability, and in fact it's one of our strengths. We should concentrate on how to do better by them, not on getting rid of them.
-Matt
On 4/1/07, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Excerpt from NY Times Magazine, "Questions for Douglas Hofstadter", 4/1/07:
Q. Your entry in Wikipedia says that your work has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence.
1000 quatloos says this was something that "everybody knows".
A. I have no interest in computers. The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kinds of depresses me.
And of course "everybody" is FOS.
On Apr 1, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 4/1/07, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Excerpt from NY Times Magazine, "Questions for Douglas Hofstadter", 4/1/07:
Q. Your entry in Wikipedia says that your work has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence.
1000 quatloos says this was something that "everybody knows".
A. I have no interest in computers. The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kinds of depresses me.
And of course "everybody" is FOS.
There's no contradiction between the two statements, though.
Hofstadter's work, particularly Godel, Escher, Bach, is an enormously popular text in theoretical computer science. Not a textbook, but a popularizing text, and a landmark one. I read it when I was at the beginning of a flirtation with the field, it's on the shelf of every new media-focused professor I've ever met. It doesn't deal with computers as such, but it's still a tremendously influential text in that regard.
That Hofstadter himself is not interested in computers says nothing about what his work has been influential in.
-Phil
On 4/1/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 4/1/07, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Excerpt from NY Times Magazine, "Questions for Douglas Hofstadter", 4/1/07:
Q. Your entry in Wikipedia says that your work has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence.
1000 quatloos says this was something that "everybody knows".
A. I have no interest in computers. The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kinds of depresses me.
And of course "everybody" is FOS.
There's no contradiction between the two statements, though.
For that matter, Hofstadter never claimed there was a contradiction.
He said the entry on him "is filled with inaccuracies". Even if he *did* mean to imply that the statement about inspiring many students was one of those inaccuracies, he's still claiming there are many others.
That said, I just removed the statement about inspiring students, as it was anecdotal and lacked sources. If someone cares to present a reliable source which claims that Hofstadter has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and AI, feel free to add it back with a citation.
So, I fixed it. Want to make a bet someone comes along and fixes it back?
Anthony
[[Douglas Hofstadter]] also contains an image, [[Image:DH00.jpg]], which is listed as GFDL. But the description of the image is "Indiana University Douglas Hofstadter home page", and looking at the Hofstadter's homepage (http://www.cogs.indiana.edu/people/homepages/hofstadter.html) I see the same image there, with no mention of the GFDL. The image was uploaded by [[User:Paul venter]].
There are probably some tags and procedures that are supposed to be followed in this case. I don't feel like looking them up. So I'll post this here and hope someone else fixes it.
Anthony
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:27:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: 71cd4dd90704010936y9d283carf7b8771a94c07423@mail.gmail.com (Anthony's message of "Sun, 1 Apr 2007 12:36:59 -0400") Message-ID: 86ejn4kntd.fsf_-_@elan.rh.rit.edu User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed --text follows this line-- Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org writes:
On 4/1/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 4/1/07, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Excerpt from NY Times Magazine, "Questions for Douglas Hofstadter", 4/1/07:
Q. Your entry in Wikipedia says that your work has inspired
many
students to begin careers in computing and artificial
intelligence.
1000 quatloos says this was something that "everybody knows".
A. I have no interest in computers. The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kinds of depresses me.
And of course "everybody" is FOS.
There's no contradiction between the two statements, though.
For that matter, Hofstadter never claimed there was a
contradiction.
He said the entry on him "is filled with inaccuracies". Even if
he
*did* mean to imply that the statement about inspiring many
students
was one of those inaccuracies, he's still claiming there are
many
others.
That said, I just removed the statement about inspiring
students, as
it was anecdotal and lacked sources. If someone cares to
present a
reliable source which claims that Hofstadter has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and AI, feel free to add
it
back with a citation.
So, I fixed it. Want to make a bet someone comes along and
fixes it back?
Anthony
It should be fixed back. I urge everyone who is interested in this thread to take a look at the Hofstadter talk page where I've been working on this since yesterday: there is a Wired interview from '95 where Hofstadter himself says that his book has so inspired people. It is something "everyone knows" because it has achieved the status of cliche; inspiring people is sort of what GEB does.
On Apr 1, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Anthony wrote:
So, I fixed it. Want to make a bet someone comes along and fixes it back?
It should be fixed back.
Don't remove information you believe to be true from Wikipedia even if it is unsourced. This is a central tenet of sourcing that needs to be preserved in order to keep sourcing from becoming a bludgeon to gut articles for POV or other churlish reasons.
-Phil
On 4/1/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
It should be fixed back.
Don't remove information you believe to be true from Wikipedia even if it is unsourced. This is a central tenet of sourcing that needs to be preserved in order to keep sourcing from becoming a bludgeon to gut articles for POV or other churlish reasons.
Following AGF, I would agree with you somewhat on just about everything, except articles about people who are still converting oxygen into CO2. Incorrect but plausible sounding information can hurt people in real life. It needs a source even if it's something you "just know" is correct.
On 01/04/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/1/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Don't remove information you believe to be true from Wikipedia even if it is unsourced. This is a central tenet of sourcing that needs to be preserved in order to keep sourcing from becoming a bludgeon to gut articles for POV or other churlish reasons.
Following AGF, I would agree with you somewhat on just about everything, except articles about people who are still converting oxygen into CO2. Incorrect but plausible sounding information can hurt people in real life. It needs a source even if it's something you "just know" is correct.
Living bios are an exception - we have good reason to be really hard-arsed on sourcing and content for those.
- d.
On 4/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Living bios are an exception - we have good reason to be really hard-arsed on sourcing and content for those.
It's a living bio that this thread is about. I would even go as far as to say that it's an exception to one of the oldest wiki concepts, "assume good faith". On most articles, we can assume the information in an article is correct unless we have evidence to the contrary using {fact} as a way of saying "pretty please can I see a source". On BLPs we have to assume that anything without a source is a BOLD FACED LIE (assume bad faith) until there is a source.
On 4/1/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/1/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
It should be fixed back.
Don't remove information you believe to be true from Wikipedia even if it is unsourced. This is a central tenet of sourcing that needs to be preserved in order to keep sourcing from becoming a bludgeon to gut articles for POV or other churlish reasons.
Following AGF, I would agree with you somewhat on just about everything, except articles about people who are still converting oxygen into CO2. Incorrect but plausible sounding information can hurt people in real life. It needs a source even if it's something you "just know" is correct.
I'd even agree on articles about people, in that you shouldn't be removing something which you know is correct.
But you should remove something that you don't know is correct, and someone else who does know it's correct should respect that and not add it back without a source.
Looking at the paragraph I removed:
"Hofstadter has not published much in conventional academic journals (except during his early [[physics]] career, see below)" - Probably true, and I wouldn't have touched this if this were the only unsourced statement.
"preferring the freedom of expression of large books of collected ideas." - Probably pure speculation as to his motives. But if you've got a source, it's OK.
"As such, his great influence on [[computer science]]" - POV, unsourced, and not at all something I know for a fact.
"is somewhat subversive and underground —" - huh?
"his work has inspired countless research projects but is not always formally referenced." - no, I don't know this for a fact.
"Hofstadter himself denies any such impact on computer science." - not only unsourced, but blatantly false! Hofstadter has said in a wired interview that he "has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence".
Anthony
How is this hurting the man? It doesn't harm him at all.
Mgm
On 4/1/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/1/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
It should be fixed back.
Don't remove information you believe to be true from Wikipedia even if it is unsourced. This is a central tenet of sourcing that needs to be preserved in order to keep sourcing from becoming a bludgeon to gut articles for POV or other churlish reasons.
Following AGF, I would agree with you somewhat on just about everything, except articles about people who are still converting oxygen into CO2. Incorrect but plausible sounding information can hurt people in real life. It needs a source even if it's something you "just know" is correct.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/1/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Anthony wrote:
So, I fixed it. Want to make a bet someone comes along and fixes it back?
It should be fixed back.
Don't remove information you believe to be true from Wikipedia even if it is unsourced. This is a central tenet of sourcing that needs to be preserved in order to keep sourcing from becoming a bludgeon to gut articles for POV or other churlish reasons.
OK, but what about information which I have no idea whether it is true or false, such as the paragraph I removed?
Anthony
On 01/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
OK, but what about information which I have no idea whether it is true or false, such as the paragraph I removed?
{{fact}}
- d.
On 4/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
OK, but what about information which I have no idea whether it is true or false, such as the paragraph I removed?
{{fact}}
Is this your personal opinion, or policy? Because I swear I've read emails from a certain prominent Wikipedian suggesting otherwise (I'll look up the email first, then name him). And I should point out this *is* a biography of a living person we're talking about.
Anthony
On 4/1/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
OK, but what about information which I have no idea whether it is true or false, such as the paragraph I removed?
{{fact}}
Is this your personal opinion, or policy? Because I swear I've read emails from a certain prominent Wikipedian suggesting otherwise (I'll look up the email first, then name him). And I should point out this *is* a biography of a living person we're talking about.
Ah ha, here it is. The post is entitled "[WikiEN-l] good example of overuse of {{fact}}" by Jimmy Wales on Oct 15, 2006 10:43 AM. His example is not a BLP:
"Political correctness is a real or perceived attempt to refine or restrict language and terms used in public discussion to those deemed acceptable or appropriate. For example "blackboard" is now perceived by some as being "politically incorrect" in the United Kingdom [citation needed]"
Isn't this exactly the type of anecdotal fluff which I just removed from the Hofstadter article? I have no idea whether the claim is true or false.
Now, something I didn't remember is that Wales was complaining not over the use of the tag, but that it was used for so long. He says that he "would recommend that anything like this for which no citation appears within 7 days be removed or edited in some fashion to remove the need."
So {{fact}} tag this for 7 days, and then remove? Or is this different because it's a BLP? Does it matter whether the statement could be construed as a bad thing or not? Does it matter that the person in question has stated that our article is filled with errors?
I still think I did the right thing. But the fact that it's being questioned doesn't surprise me one bit. At times Wikipedia seems to be filled with these anecdotal statements and preconceived notions that are off-limits for removal.
Anthony
On Apr 1, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Anthony wrote:
On 4/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
OK, but what about information which I have no idea whether it is true or false, such as the paragraph I removed?
{{fact}}
Is this your personal opinion, or policy? Because I swear I've read emails from a certain prominent Wikipedian suggesting otherwise (I'll look up the email first, then name him). And I should point out this *is* a biography of a living person we're talking about.
There is nothing even remotely potentially libelous about the statement that Hofstadter, who writes about artificial intelligence, had influence in computing. It's not something that should be deleted wholesale except to disruptively prove a point.
Which is something you of all people should know better than to do.
-Phil
On 4/1/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 1, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Anthony wrote:
On 4/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/04/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
OK, but what about information which I have no idea whether it is true or false, such as the paragraph I removed?
{{fact}}
Is this your personal opinion, or policy? Because I swear I've read emails from a certain prominent Wikipedian suggesting otherwise (I'll look up the email first, then name him). And I should point out this *is* a biography of a living person we're talking about.
There is nothing even remotely potentially libelous about the statement that Hofstadter, who writes about artificial intelligence, had influence in computing.
First of all, that wasn't what the statement that I removed said.
Secondly, so what? Are you seriously suggesting that we should only remove libelous statements? Was the statement about blackboards being considered by some to be politically incorrect a libelous statement?
It's not something that should be deleted wholesale except to disruptively prove a point.
Which is something you of all people should know better than to do.
Look, get the facts straight about what the hell you're talking about first. Then come back and try again.
Anthony
On 4/1/07, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Excerpt from NY Times Magazine, "Questions for Douglas Hofstadter", 4/1/07:
Q. Your entry in Wikipedia says that your work has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence.
A. I have no interest in computers. The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kinds of depresses me.
Q. So fix it.
A. The next day someone will fix it back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01wwlnQ4.t.html
My thoughts:
It strikes me that there is really a crisis of confidence in people that editing Wikipedia will have any long term effect. I have heard it many, many times from people on the web and in person as well as seen it in print. "Why bother, someone will just change it back later, or erase it?"
I think it is too important to be dismissive about this approach. Even correctly cited things can be removed or butchered, even incorrectly cited things can stay on. I'm not sure that increased calls for citation will solve or even mitigate the problem. Any academic can tell you that citation is hardly a gold standard; it is not what convinces people of the accuracy of any claim. In the end that comes down to trust, and that comes down to authorship, and that comes down to things that Wikipedia doesn't, won't, and maybe can't do right.
At this point, Wikipedia's epistemology privileges the persistant, the dedicated, and those with a lot of free time on their hands. Which is a set of qualities which describes both the best _and_ the worst editors.
I don't have an answer though. Just something to muse on, in the face of some rather derisive high-brow publicity from an immensely popular, immensely intelligent person.
FF
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Depending on how Stable versions will be implemented, they could stop the butchering of proper citations and avoid the addition of well-cited but incorrect material.
Mgm
Fastfission wrote:
Excerpt from NY Times Magazine, "Questions for Douglas Hofstadter", 4/1/07:
Q. Your entry in Wikipedia says that your work has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence.
A. I have no interest in computers. The entry is filled with inaccuracies, and it kinds of depresses me.
Sorry to say, but in this case it's Hofstadter, not us, who is wrong. His book _Goedel, Escher, Bach_ in particular *has* inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence, whether to not he likes that fact. The claim should be better referenced, but that's not too hard to do since there are dozens of prominent researchers who have cited his book as an influence. Hell, my own advisor cites it as an influence.
-Mark
On 4/1/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Sorry to say, but in this case it's Hofstadter, not us, who is wrong. His book _Goedel, Escher, Bach_ in particular *has* inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence, whether to not he likes that fact.
I started to wonder about that after my first post in this thread. Is it possible that the AI inspiration thing is a phenomenon that Hofstadter was unaware of.
The claim should be better referenced, but that's not too hard to do since there are dozens of prominent researchers who have cited his book as an influence.
But until good citable references are produced, it remains something that "everybody just knows" and should stay out of the Article.
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 4/1/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Sorry to say, but in this case it's Hofstadter, not us, who is wrong. His book _Goedel, Escher, Bach_ in particular *has* inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence, whether to not he likes that fact.
I started to wonder about that after my first post in this thread. Is it possible that the AI inspiration thing is a phenomenon that Hofstadter was unaware of.
Frankly, no. It's such a hugely influential book among geeks that had he slipped into a coma shortly after mailing the manuscript and only just awakened before the NY Times interview, he still couldn't have escaped noticing, as people would have built a shrine around his hospital bed.
And more prosaically, he also said so himself:
What the book did do was excite a lot of young people. Hundreds of people have written to me saying it launched them on a path of studying computer science or cognitive science or philosophy.
From Kevin Kelly interviewing him in Wired, November 1995. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.11/kelly.html?pg=2&topic=
Personally, I'd guess he didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
William
On 4/1/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 4/1/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Sorry to say, but in this case it's Hofstadter, not us, who is wrong. His book _Goedel, Escher, Bach_ in particular *has* inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence, whether to not he likes that fact.
I started to wonder about that after my first post in this thread. Is it possible that the AI inspiration thing is a phenomenon that Hofstadter was unaware of.
Frankly, no. It's such a hugely influential book among geeks that had he slipped into a coma shortly after mailing the manuscript and only just awakened before the NY Times interview, he still couldn't have escaped noticing, as people would have built a shrine around his hospital bed.
And more prosaically, he also said so himself:
What the book did do was excite a lot of young people. Hundreds of people have written to me saying it launched them on a path of studying computer science or cognitive science or philosophy.From Kevin Kelly interviewing him in Wired, November 1995. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.11/kelly.html?pg=2&topic=
Personally, I'd guess he didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
I think you're right. Here's what the relevant two paragraphs now read:
----
Hofstadter has said that he feels "uncomfortable with the nerd culture that centers on computers". [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/play.html?pg=3] He admits that "a large fraction [of his audience] seems to be those who are fascinated by technology" [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/play.html?pg=3], but when it was suggested that his work "has inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence" he replied that he has "no interest in computers". [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01wwlnQ4.t.html?_r=1&oref=slo...]
In that interview he pointed to a seminar, [http://www.indiana.edu/~deanfac/blspr99/cogs/cogs_q700_1003.html AI: Hope and Hype], where he took a "skeptical look at a number of highly-touted AI projects and overall approaches". Hofstadter has long predicted that computers will never be able to do many of the things which humans can do. In ''Godel, Escher, Bach'', Hofstadter made a prediction "that a computer chess program could never beat a human being at chess". [http://www.nyu.edu/classes/neimark/maker.html] Upon the defeat of [[Kasparov]] by [[Deep Blue]], he commented that "It was a watershed event, but it doesn't have to do with computers becoming intelligent." [http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/472_html/Intro/NYT_Intro/ChessMatch/MeanChes...]
----
Also from the Wired article, a comment I didn't manage to work in: "I always hope my writings will resonate with people who love literature, art, and music. But instead, a large fraction of my audience seems to be those who are fascinated by technology and who assume that I am, too."
On 4/1/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/1/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Sorry to say, but in this case it's Hofstadter, not us, who is wrong. His book _Goedel, Escher, Bach_ in particular *has* inspired many students to begin careers in computing and artificial intelligence, whether to not he likes that fact.
I started to wonder about that after my first post in this thread. Is it possible that the AI inspiration thing is a phenomenon that Hofstadter was unaware of.
The claim should be better referenced, but that's not too hard to do since there are dozens of prominent researchers who have cited his book as an influence.
But until good citable references are produced, it remains something that "everybody just knows" and should stay out of the Article.
And he seems to imply there are other errors too.
In any case, I don't see this as a problem in reference to specific errors. Whether he's right or they're right or whatever _doesn't really matter here_.
What's important is this _attitude_ and it is one that is _persistent_ and it is _not entirely unfounded_. And it is why a lot of very smart people dismiss Wikipedia and would never think of participating even in a very small way. And in a sense, they're not at all incorrect, in my view.
FF