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Unpublished Blog: Emily Blog Post Number 01: Expletives (Blogging for Wankers)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!

UPDATE:

San Francisco Police Calls Now Available on EveryBlock (SFist)

I should have checked this last night... La policia have been very visible lately. Strike that. Police calls seem to show up on Everyblock.com delayed by one day.

Everyblock Late Nov 2008

etc.

By way of JD Lasica's Social Media Site:

Adrian Holovaty, a programmer and friend who brought us Chicagocrime.org, has just launched a new site funded by the Knight Foundation: EveryBlock, a site that tells you what's happening in your own neighborhood. They're starting out in New York, San Francisco and Chicago.

From their announcement:

We aim to collect all of the news and civic goings-on that have happened recently in your city, and make it simple for you to keep track of news in particular areas. We're a geographic filter -- a "news feed" for your neighborhood, or, yes, even your block.

Today we're launching in three American cities: Chicago, New York and San Francisco. On each site, you can type in any address to read local news and public information near you...

Fascinating. Check it out. This is terrain that local newspapers should own, but don't.

Digg.com
Revision3.com
Diggnation show

Disclaimers:

• digg.com scales well. That is no small achievement.
  
• Kevin Rose and Alex Albrecht do seem like nice young men, even though Kevin often betrays his youth by making uninformed, false, or offensive comments.
  
• I was a digg user at one time, but not a submitter or "power user."
  
• I have no "business" credentials. 
• Recent rumor has it that Rose took a million dollars "off the table."
  

UPDATE: Kevin Rose not quite so popular with the ladies today (Inquisitr)
UPDATE: Was Digg Right to Ban Diggboss for his Helpful Script? (SheGeeks)
UPDATE: The Grim Reaper has visited Digg (GetSmartBlog)
UPDATE: Track top 100 Digg contributors here (Social Blade)
UPDATE: Msaleem, MrBabyMan and Zaibatsu Interview:

Lifestyles of the Digger Famous: 3 Top Diggers on Social Fame (Gear Crave)

UPDATE: See also: Michael Arrington of TechCrunch:
Want On The Digg Home Page? That’ll Be $1,200.
UPDATE: Kevin Rose starts false "RIP Jared" story on Twitter.
One founder apparently has a very loose definition of "news." Here's a tip: Snopes.com
Summize search on "RIP Jared kevinrose"


Invention

Digg.com has developed an algorithm (secret sauce) that controls the front page. The front page is the Holy Grail for heavy digg users.

Inception

I understand the genesis was some sort of observation like:

slashdot.org is cool but wouldn't it be great if we could vote on the submissions?

Profit

Stating the obvious, Digg.com is a privately held for-profit business that encourages you to spend a lot of time with their community. Less clear is whether any Digg users are paid or bribed for front page access. Diggnation the show is produced and hosted by another for-profit privately held business Revision3.com, run by Jim Louderback.

Power Users

MrBabyMan (Andrew Sorcini) is one of if not the top Digg contributor.  Angry (jealous?) Digg users accused him of nefarious digging and he was subjected to personal attacks. MrBabyMan does his digging in addition to a full-time career. He is a film editor (Mr. Sorcini's Imdb page here) and co-produces "The Drill Down" podcast.

Algorithm Fiddling

The Invention is continually fiddled with to prevent "gaming" and to provide at least the appearance of "fairness." Unfortunately all software and algorithms are proprietary and aren't discussed on a technical level, so one has no way of evaluating the effectiveness of the algorithms. This post will track follow-ups to the alleged money-for-digging story (cited above.) 

Motive

This is where I part company with many digg users. The only question I think interesting is "do I want a job at digg.com?" My answer to "Why should I use or contribute to Digg?" is "You shouldn't."

The Success

That one's the easiest of all. New York Times LA Times Washington Post Wall Street Journal... hello!

The Fail

The answer to the obvious question "Why should I spend time making certain individuals wealthy (wealthier)?" has not been addressed, and so again my answer must be "You shouldn't."

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.

 

I Can Haz Cheezburger?
Fail Dogs
Engrish Funny
Totally Looks Like

You may think Mr. Huh is quite funny, but his numbers are no joke!

Ben Huh will be giving a presentation at ROFLthing in San Francisco Friday, August 29, 2008.
Irina Slutsky of the always entertaining show Geek Entertainment TV interviewed Mr. Huh recently:

Ben Huh, chief cheezburger of I Can Has Cheezburger has turned his love of LOLCats into a popular site and even scored a book deal. While at MIT for ROFLCon, he stepped into the role of Stephen LOLking to explain the mysteries of his Universal Theory of LOLS to Irina.

Official Site
YouTube Channel

Dubbed "the explainer" by Wired magazine, Michael Wesch is a cultural anthropologist exploring the impact of new media on human interaction (and the impact of human interaction on new media). After two years studying the impact of writing on a remote indigenous culture in the rain forest of Papua New Guinea, he has turned his attention to the effects of social media and digital technology on global society.  His videos on technology, education, and information have been viewed by millions, translated in over ten languages, and are frequently featured at international film festivals and major academic conferences. Wesch has won several major awards for his work, including a Wired Magazine Rave Award and the John Culkin Award for Outstanding Praxis in Media Ecology.  He is also a multiple award-winning teacher whose teaching projects are frequently featured in the Chronicle of Higher Education and other major media outlets worldwide. Wesch is currently serving on the Editorial Board of Advisors for Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Dr. Wesch inspires hope in me, hope that the next generation(s) will take control of the messages and media that shape our attitudes and policies.

Here are three of his more famous videos:

The Machine is Us/ing Us (Final Version)

Twitter and the World Simulation

Information R/evolution

Lastly, an in-depth presentation given at the Library of Congress, explaining YouTube, and the Numa Numa phenomenon. June 23, 2008, 55 minutes.
  

An anthropological introduction to YouTube

KsuDigg Banner

Watch Wednesdays at 4:30 PM PDT, 7:30 P.M. EDT, live at the Site.

Brian Lehrer (photo: Christine Butler)

Brian Lehrer, the popular host of WNYC's Peabody Award-winning "Brian Lehrer Show," hosts a live, hour-long weekly television program web-extravaganza through CUNY TV.

The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC was cited for being true "community-building radio," a shrewd blend of news analysis, civil conversation and call-ins that brings together the city`s wildly diverse citizenry.

Just like the WNYC show, Brian Lehrer Live on CUNY TV will be trying to get at the truth about life and politics in New York City. But unlike the radio, we are focusing through the lens of the new media empire forming on the web: Bloggers, reporters and pundits forming an unprecedented level of access to information and a whole new set of news challenges. The show examines the affect that internet has had on our daily lives, from candidates fund-raising online to community groups e-organizing, and we want you to come participate in carving out a niche in how the web affects the news. The show will continue to provide the direct access to major news makers that you've come to expect from someone like Brian Lehrer. We'll also invite people to send in photos and original videos that say something meaningful about life in New York today. And, as on the radio, we'll find our ways to sneak in some fun!"

The program is cablecast in New York City on Wednesdays from 7: 30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., and is simulcast live and archived online at www.cuny.tv. We want your original content! Submit an idea for a segment, a guest, or your own home grown video to us through our website at http://bllblog.org

To interact with guests and offer your opinion about topics discussed on the show, call (212) 251-0801 on Wednesday evening from 7: 30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

I listen to Brian Lehrer... Wow, I love that guy. I love the show. – Jon Stewart (in a speech at a New Yorker Magazine forum)

Usually a pretty fair and smart guy – Bill O'Reilly (on his show)

You are it. You are the man. – Thomas Friedman (on "The Brian Lehrer Show")

The online encyclopedia Pilkipedia describes itself thusly:

Pilkipedia is the only online encyclopaedia and community based around Karl Pilkington, Stephen Merchant and Ricky Gervais. The site includes in-depth articles on their radio work together on Xfm and The Ricky Gervais Show podcast, as well as content on their other projects such as The Office and Extras. In August 2006, Ricky Gervais declared Pilkipedia to be his favourite website in The Guardian.

_