WARNING: DEFUNCT SITE!
POSTS LEFT HERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO EASY WAY TO GET THEM OFF.
ALL AUDIO MEDIA FILES HAVE BEEN REMOVED, IN PART BECAUSE VOX HAS NEVER EVEN GUARDED AGAINST SCRAPERS WHO COLLECT ALL "FREE MP3S" ON THE INTERNET.

I CAN BE CONTACTED VIA MY GOOGLE PROFILE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. THANKS FOR PLAYING, IT WAS FUN!.

• WARNING TO VOX NEIGHBORS: I may be moving soon; If you want to keep in touch, let me know! And, BTW, I don't hate you or your comments! One of my reasons for leaving Vox is they have given me no good way to get my content out and yes, I requested long ago that they fix this problem. Also, I really really hate the "compose" widget. Lots of time wasted doing things twice, thrice.
  

• Please por favor s'il vous plait, be tener avoir, 13, years old años ans;
• Be not no ser être pas, religioso or intolerante of non-religiosos.
• Comments from unidentified, unfriendly sources are discouraged and will be moderated; Vox lacks support for Disqus Intense Debate and Backtype
• If you are a data-miner or scraper, go away.
• Conspiracy Theorists Not Welcome. Conspirators Only.

On "reechard"

My given nickname is pronounced "ree-shard". The spelling is a compromise. "Walker" is an adopted name, so... to hell with all the other Richard Walkers... and I tell you, they are legion.

Belief disclaimer: I Believe in Music, Art, Language, Philosophy, Debate, Rhetoric, Logic, People, Community, Nature, Animals, Plants, Food, Wine, Sex, Water, Fire, Earth, Air. I Disbelieve in God, Oprah, Religion, the Occult, Superstition, Aliens, UFOs, Ghosts, Spirits, Reincarnation, Karma, Faith Healing, Therapeutic Touch, Chi, Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Hypnosis, Repressed Memory (Therapy), Voodoo, Paganism, Witchcraft, Neo-Shamanism, Urban Tribalism, Spells, Feng Shui, Ley Lines, Auras, ESP, Channeling, "Intelligent Design" and Astrology.

Belief disclaimer: I strongly support your right to believe what you will.

Best-of-blog posts:

Unlikely News: Liberace Schools Ted Haggard (Tired Queens Revolt)
Unseen TV: Leo Laporte Media (TWiT.tv, vidcast)
Unbridgeable Chasm: Lane Hartwell & The Richter Scales
Unimpressive Journalism: Why ZDNet's Jennifer Leggio is Wrong (and why it matters)
Unabashed Plea: Leave Wikipedia Aloooooone (sob)
Unread Commentary: SF MoMA, Thomas Hawk, Simon Blint (Photography is not a crime)
Unleashed Art: Remix Culture
Unfamiliar Sound: Dj Mix Technique Number One (Several Reversals)
Unpublished Blog: Emily Blog Post Number 01: Expletives (Blogging for Wankers)
Unpublished Score: Navarra by Isaac Albeniz (my edition)
Unread Book: The Pirate's Dilemma (Matt Mason, 2008)
Illegal Proposition: Abuse and Damage the Source (Letter to Lessig)
Unheard Music: Da Capo al Fine v2 (Wise Guy Mix)
Unseen TV: Break a Leg (Comedy, WebOnly)
Unpublished Book: The Performing Pianist; a Pocket Primer (2002)
Planet Earthling: Galactic Terrorists or Roguish Evolutionary Dunces?

See last updates for SF MoMA response and others' reactions.
See very last updates for:

More proof that this is not a fluke, not a "Hawk" or "Blint" issue, but a disturbing national trend that should transcend partisan politics in my opinion.

Mr. Hawk recounted the events of Friday, August 8, 2008 on his blog.

Recently I blogged about my excitement regarding the San Francisco MOMA's decision to begin allowing photography in their permanent collection after years of maintaining a closed no photography policy. Directly because of this change in policy, I decided to purchase a family membership in order to support the museum, both with my artistic energy and financially. I was excited to begin spending regular time exploring and documenting the museum.
...
After purchasing my family membership and visiting the museum today I was forcibly thrown out of the museum by two museum security guards at the direction of the Director of Visitor Relations Simon Blint...

FriendFeed had three very impassioned conversations:

1. Thomas Hawk's FriendFeed discussion

2. Jeremiah Owyang's FriendFeed discussion

Thomas Hawk's skewering of Simon Blint: Thomas is a community leader (and photo site CEO) he needs to wield his power with responsibility. Tagging Simon Blint and "*sshole" has damaged his online reputation for years on end, and will likely impact job screenings.

3. Cyndy's FriendFeed discussion

When FriendFeed Creates a Mob

SFist covered the incident (thanks, Brock!)

...Hawk talked to Blint who (allegedly) told him "he did not care" and that he needed to "protect" his employees -- employees that might appear in my photographs." Hawk goes on to say, "I was not shooting with a tripod. I was not shooting with a flash."

Was Blint, in fact, being an *sshole? Was Hawk putting up a pissy fight, which led to his ejection? We don't know yet. But we think banning of any type of photography is inane, especially if you work in the arts.

But what say you? Should photographers be subject to this kind of harassment? Or does Blint deserve a serious tongue lashing?

BoingBoing didn't miss the story.

Robbo sez, "Thomas Hawk was forcibly removed from the San Francisco MOMA by two security guards at the direction of the over-zealous Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations. How ironic is that? Why? Taking photos in the atrium. SF MOMA policy on this? Their own web site specifically allows photography in the atrium. Hawk had also previously confirmed this personally with Thea Stein in the Marketing and Communications Department of the museum...

Consumerist covered it as well.

Despite What Their Website Says, Taking Pictures In San Francisco's Museum Of Modern Art Is Cause For Ejection

The Guardian covered it. Oh dear, it crossed the pond. Unexpected, to say the least.

The power of the Hawk is a problem for SF-MoMA
Throwing the esteemed Thomas Hawk out on his ear is not the way to win friends and influence people 

It was the top story on Digg.com on Saturday.

Takeaways (not done yet, in progress, subject to change)

• SF MoMA is apparently clarifying its policies, not re-banning photography (add links)
• Mistakes were made: Hawk & Blint (links)
• Blog & "web2.0" commentators are opinionated (links)
• Blog commentators are lazy (links)
• You can't win: online activism is ineffectual, or a mob (links)
• Character assassins often don't disclose personal motivations (profit motives)
• Allegations of pseudonyms being a cowardly shield, easily falsifiable here (links)
• Allegations of perversity, child abuse and privacy violations still pervade
• Even the least noisy conversations have a very wide difference of opinon (friendfeed links)
• Pervasive tendency is subjectivity, not objectivity; big picture reduced to a thousand tiny icons
• Definitions of public v. private space, rights and violations, still an issue
• If Photography is a privacy violation, why is there wide acceptance of surveillance cameras?

Some of my comments are gathered here:

Disclaimer:
I've concluded that I was confused as to whether "galleries" includes the permanent collection, or refers to the "special exhibits." My initial impression was that the change in policy would allow for photography of the stuff that's owned outright by the SF MoMA. Apologies for any confusion, and perhaps this would be a point of clarification, i.e. if photography of any "exhibited" piece is disallowed, say so. Perhaps discuss stairs, hallways, elevated walkways, etc., as these are not "galleries," may not be part of the "atrium" and yet provide unique vantage points from which to take photos (of the architecture.)

FYI, even though I understand it's not a Thomas v. Simon issue: an anonymous commenter claims to have worked with Simon before: "I worked with this douche at ZEUM one block down from SF MoMA. I can attest to his short temper and general lack of people skills. He found no trouble in bullying the teens who worked there."

"Director of visitor relations" is a poor match for his behavior. He should apologize, resign, or try to otherwise repair the situation. Since it's a PR-related job, he seems uniquely unfit and uneducated about the causes and effects of negative PR. He'll probably have a "rich learning experience" though.

dianachen and ScribeGuy, I'm glad you signed up to SFist just to comment about the incident. It's too bad Blint or other SF MoMA person hasn't spoken up. So, thanks for giving your opinions. Someone else who has worked with Blint did not have kind things to say. I find the less agreeable sites engage in character assassination on both sides. Perhaps you aren't finding the best conversations.

RobinSF, you are a piece of work. Photography w/o flash is allowed in the permanent collection, atrium is OK always, if you use a flash in the atrium it must be a hand held point-and-shoot. While the policy is imprecise and ambiguous, you manage to completely miss the intent. Can YOU read? Do YOU know flash photography can damage the pieces? Do you seriously think they are mandating the use of a flash in the atrium? Does the point-and-shoot restriction refer to the Atrium, or the use of flash? Go ahead, rant some more, it's entertaining.

Related Post: Unabashed Plea: Leave Wikipedia Aloooooone (sob)

See Also:
Communications During Terrorist Attacks are Not Bad - Schneier on Security

ZDNet article by Jennifer Leggio (November 28th, 2008)

Mumbai attack coverage demonstrates (good and bad) maturation point of social media

The content on Page 2 leaves me with two choices. Either she does not understand Wikipedia, or is using it as a punching bag to make some grandiose claim about the shortcomings of social media and citizen journalism.

I attempted to clarify. See that FriendFeed conversation here. Note that she issues me a "correction" and did not respond to my concern that she flat out does not understand how Wikipedia works.

The Wikipedia article pictured on page 2 was seeded with valid information and grew from there. She saw it defaced for a moment, but didn't manage to get a "screen shot." She got the "screen shot" from a friend.

Here is the latest revision of the Wikipedia entry titled "November 2008 Mumbai attacks". I looked for the revision she cites, and failed to find it. Needless to say, that's beside the point See below.

At the time of this writing (half-past Midnight the morning of November 30) the article has extensive information, time lines, pictures, and 179 references. The number of entries in the Page history is in excess of 1500.

Is it possible Jennifer and her friend don't understand that a Wikipedia article about a disaster such as this is the result of thousands of contributions? Does she not understand that for it to appear as she shows it, someone has to delete all of the content and replace it with "Bush Sucks?"

Does she not know that this sort of defacement is extremely noticeable to the hundreds of people making contributions in real time, and the next contributor will simply "undo" the defacement before making their changes?

She is betraying a stunning ignorance or bias here. I have less and less patience with lazy opinion pieces, or pieces that take cheap shots to make some trumped-up case. And in light of the tragedy of the actual events in Mumbai, I am appalled that it is reduced to "Bush Sucks." I must say, in this case "ZDNet Sucks" also.

How many more ways can "Main-stream media" fail? I'm not sure I know the answer to that one.

UPDATE:
Found the notorious defacement(s). Two of them. Lasting 5 and 7 seconds for a grand total of 12. 

OMG STOP THE PRESSES. WIKIPEDIA IS BROKEN. I CAN HAZ PULITZER NOW?

Why ZDNet's Jennifer Leggio is Wrong and why it Matters 2

My last comment on the article:

I will eagerly anticipate articles from ZDNet on how wikipedia has attained the success it has now, and what can be improved.

I will not entertain casual sniping at one of the best examples of a massive collaborative effort to date.

I wonder if Jennifer, and others at ZDNet would care to take an "official" anti-wikipedia position, and explain that this in no way is affected by business motives and an erosion of the authority of such as ZDNet. Looking forward to it!

Jack Boulware wrote this about his piece on his blog:

Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, I wrote down everything I saw or heard in the media, and fashioned a sort of poem. A month later, I read it at San Francisco’s Edinburgh Castle pub, and then recorded an audio version for Salon.com. It’s now been published as part of the Public House anthology.

I liked the essay quite a bit, and later I was making recordings of piano noise and effects, so it was an obvious choice. The audio fidelity here isn't great partly due to limits imposed by Vox. Now for our feature presentation:

Warning: explicit language

Let's give the imagery a rest, shall we?
Can we give poor Mr. Barber and his Adagio for Strings a breather as well?

 

Related Post: Unimpressive Journalism: Why ZDNet's Jennifer Leggio is Wrong (and why it matters)

Wikipedia in English
Wikipedia en français
Wikipedia en Español
Wikipedia en Italiano
Vicipaedia Latina 

Vicipaedia est opus commune, quo creetur encyclopaedia libera interretialis. Omnes ad contribuendum invitantur! Vicipaedia adhuc habet 22 408 commentationes.

Disclaimers:

• I don't know Jimmy Wales personally 
  
• It was alleged Jimmy Wales took money for making proposed Wikipedia edits
• Gossip on Jimmy Wales can be found on Gawker.com
• The inside joke referred to in the title is a meme from YouTube.
  

See also:

Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica 2.0 (Sydney Morning Herald)

Students Advised by Professors not to Use Wikipedia by Svetlana Gladkova of Profy

Wikipedia - Lamest Edit Wars Ever

Wikipedia censorship highlights a lingering sting in the tail - the Guardian

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Introduction

I hear a lot of misinformation about Wikipedia on the interwebs. I spent a good deal of time learning how to contribute, and this is my defense of the resounding success that I consider Wikipedia to be. For example: as a contributor, it guides you through an education in Wikis and writing as an encyclopedia editor.

My Wikipedia User Page   

First, a challenge to the legions of people I've heard make criticisms or offhand suggestions: Get thee onto Wikipedia, and make yourself heard there, or befriend a Wikipedia editor.

It's not that some of you could not hold the key to unique improvements to Wikipedia. You should however apply due diligence beforehand so as to be credible.

Scope of project

This project is encyclopedic in scope, obviously. In its brief life it has come to challenge the very best Encyclopedias. It continues to compare favorably to Britannica, and is ever adapting to new situations.

The physical and virtual embodiments of references like this have advantages and disadvantages, but the ubiquity of the internet gives Wikipedia the edge. I've heard Britannica is moving online and toward volunteer contributions.

The project is free from licensing restrictions — see Copyright page. That alone is a Herculean accomplishment.

The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free under the GFDL and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom.

Living document

Wikipedia is a living document. For example, Stephen Colbert's new term "truthiness" has an entry. In the spirit of good-natured fun, he challenged his viewers to modify his page more than once.

 

Anyone can contribute

 

But not everyone should. If you haven't the patience or inclination to learn the intricacies of contribution, that's just fine. I hope others will at least dip their toe into the water to see if contributing to the content is something they'd like to try.

Self-guided participation

Wikipedia has guidelines available to assist in learning policies on neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and biographies of living persons.

Wikipedia's List of Policies Page is required reading and can be considered a touchstone for how to manage a massive collaborative online effort.

Talk pages, revisions

Behind every page is a revision history, and many pages have a "talk" page where contributors work out their differences, with varying degrees of success.

You can always find established editors and ask questions on their talk page. Editor's duties include helping new contributors follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Please drop me a note on my Talk Page if you do join Wikipedia!

Edit fights, kerfuffles, lock-downs

Sarah Palin, the recently-announced GOP Vice Presidential candidate for 2008, has had a rapid Wikipedia makeover.  At the moment, that page shows a "lock" icon in the upper-right corner which links to the Wikipedia Protection Policy. There are a lot of goodies in Wikipedia's "Special Pages" page, including lists of "globally blocked IP addresses" for example.

 

Anonymous contribution, sock puppets

 

It is unusual to allow anonymous contribution, but I think it important enough to preserve in spite of the difficulties. I can't think of a better way to allow a whistle-blower to contribute to an article. The facts once connected can be vetted and the anonymity of the contributor allows it to happen at all.

Actually, to be clearer, Wikileaks.org is the place for whistle-blowers. My point still applies to anyone who has a (valid) Wikipedia contribution to make, but would not if they had to attach their name. I believe this is why anonymous contribution is still possible on Wikipedia, in spite of numerous problems stemming from interested, biased parties editing Wikipedia to distort facts and inject opinion.

Stephen Colbert's Wikipedia entry is a magnet for Wikipedia defacers. See the last 500 revisions of his page here.  Watch out for contributor's names in red; it indicates they have no user page. Others, such as user "Purplecowsthatcluckrcool" have been removed due to spam, abuse, defacement, or sock puppetry.

You dislike your Wikipedia photo

Cry me a river, why don't you. At least you are a living "person of note" who has a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is more focused on language, not media assets, of course. Still, it is possible to add photographs and audio clips subject to extensive restrictions.  You need to find media that the creator is willing to freely license for re-distribution.  Wikimedia Commons is the mechanism for this.  I can help, provided you give me the content, clear it with the creator, and provide me with contact info.

 

UPDATE: Lessig was apparently successful in this suit. 

And another big win today for the Stanford CIS project

...a New York Supreme Court (that's the lower court in NY; the highest Court is the Court of Appeals) has denied Yoko Ono an injunction to stop the distribution of a film that uses a clip of Lennon's Imagine. Wonderfully, the Court explicitly refuses to follow the 6th Circuit's "no de minimus" rule sound recordings, and holds that there is fair use under New York's common law copyright regime...

I respect and admire both the individuals named here; I'm not a lawyer or biologist.
I did however leave a comment disagreeing with PZ on Lessig's defense of the Fair Use (of Lennon's "Imagine") claim made by the makers of "Expelled."

PZ's post "Yoko Loses:"

I had mixed feelings about Yoko Ono's lawsuit against Expelled — fair use is a desirable goal, but I don't think Premise Media was exercising fair use, since their movie wasn't about Lennon's music or ideas — so I can't say that I'm at all surprised or upset that the lawsuit is likely to go down in flames. I'm also not appreciative of the fact that Lessig thinks this is a "great success"; it is at best a mixed result, because while it may support Lessig's principled defense of fair use, it is also a case where he's supporting people who are promoting lies and ignorance.

It really doesn't matter much now, though. The propaganda movie is a dead issue, a complete flop, and it is not going to come back from the dead after a court decision that had no effect on its declining popularity is reversed.

My comment:

Thank you #1 and #5, I agree, and mildly disagree with PZ.

Questions asking "is this a Fair Use" are complicated enough WITHOUT attempting to make a value judgment on the work in question.

I too would like to see Fair Use expanded, but my reason for that position is that Copyright law has in my opinion been completely corrupted and made into a vehicle for monopolies, corporations and excessive profiteering.

Were the copyright term restored to the original 15 years then we would have a lot more time to argue whether this or that is really "Fair Use." But of course, you would rarely have a survivor inheriting "rights of authorship" and attempting to "protect" something they did not create (Yoko)

Another example is the owners of the rights to "Gone With the Wind" attempting to suppress publication of "The Wind Done Gone" a re-telling of the story from the slaves' perspective. (They failed to suppress, thankfully)

So, broadly, Intellectual Property Law is so completely broken, you almost have to become a lawyer to completely grok how perverted it really is in relation to its intent.

The Mouse is In Control. Disney is Dead. Hannah Montana is Fake.

This comment is (c) copyrighted (tm) trademarked and (r) registered.

Lessig Response:

nicely put. thanks.

You're welcome

Does a "person link" to Paxton allow him to edit this post?

Apparently not.

Or is it just a convenience for referring to a Vox member, and is no different from linking the name Paxton to the URL http://paxblog.vox.com?

Not quite. If you hover over the person link above, it shows you that Paxton is a Vox user and allows easy communication and relationship editing between the reader of this post and Paxton.

I initially thought it might mean that Paxton is a contributor or subject of discussion, or perhaps to allow collaboration / multi-authorship.

At the very least it could also be a way to incorporate commentary into a post, and attribute the contribution.

Think of it as the "Just-in-time-post-comment-becomes-post-contribution" feature.

Please comment if you have something to add to this idea in general, but disregard it's practicality or actuality, and keep in mind this is a larger question for all blogs that allow comments, not just those on Vox.

What would make commentary more useful? What sort of commentary do you want to encourage? Do you want less commentary? Do you welcome disagreements? 

Do you sometimes wish someone's "private message" were a comment, or vice-versa?

Philip Greenspun's comment moderation policy is interesting reading pertinent to questions posed here.