-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
toddmallen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Jan 10, 2009, at 2:11 PM, toddmallen wrote:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we should have an article on that either.
If his dog were an online game, i.e. his area of expertise, then yes, his blogging about it would mean that. Or at least, be a good sign of that.
Not really sure that holds water either. If it were an expert dog trainer blogging about their dog, that still wouldn't really be a reason for an article on that dog.
Fact-checking and publication by someone other than oneself are required for good reason.
Maybe the dog is acknowledged expert in beta testing video games designed for dogs. By limiting electronic transmissions to data that can be heard or seen we show our human bias in this medium. Transmission of olfactory sensations could revolutionize the way that dogs communicate on the internet.
Ec
The fundamental problem here is one of verifiability. Perhaps the dog is really a dog, but how can we be sure?
On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.
- -- gwern