Categories
Social Media

Pedia pother

I made the changes to the initial development section in the Wikipedia entry on podcasting and aside from a couple of comments, not much has been said about it. I’m not sure if it was because I actually made the change, or because the new entry is uninteresting and dull. I rather think dull might be good; nothing more neutral than dull.

I expect over time it will gradually grow, though I hope it doesn’t end up peppered with the same names repeated over and over. Seeing that happen again would be like golf–it might be fun to do, but sucks to watch. But watch is what I’ll do; I’m not going to start feeling ownership of the section.

Wikipedia has taken a beating lately, and I think we’ll all be healthier for it. Too many people treated it like the second coming, closing their ears to potential problems. It’s amusing to see them ’suddenly’ become alert to its pitfalls. Fancy. Kids will also be less likely to copy from it for their papers (now having no recourse but to return to plagarizing books from the library). I did get a kick out of Dave Winer’s (tongue-in-cheek perhaps?) suggestion to turn the Wikipedia podcast entry over to Harvard folk, as a precedent for future Wikipedia effort. Yes, nothing like the Harvard touch to bring a diversified view to the world.

As for the edits I made, I used one criteria for judging what material to keep: was the event, software, or person necessary for the initial development of podcasting. Did I capture all of the events, software, and people? I made the assumption that if I did not, someone would add what was missing; hopefully basing their addition on the same criteria.

Scott had a good question in my comments about what to add and not to Wikipedia. He wrote:

Isn’t there any room in Wikipedia for anecdotes? I mean, it’s not like they’re short on storage space. Don’t the meaningless, if accurate, anecdotes make history much more interesting. A strictly historical account of George Washington crossing the Delaware is pretty dry unless you include him throwing a coin across. Chances are, the coin tossing is what will cause you to remember the entire event.

Anecdotal information is the spice in history; as such, you have to know what you’re doing when you use it, because a little bit goes a long way.

I strongly believe in the anecdotal when it comes to a telling of history. When we read a biography of George Patton, there is much we learn about the man when we hear anecdotes such as his slapping a man who was seriously shell-struck, and then having to apologize in front of all his men.

But then we have to look further into the story: about how horrified Patton was at his action when he realized the patient was in a very bad state; how those loyal to him cheered so loudly during his apology that overcome with gratitude, his eyes welled up with unshed tears and he couldn’t finish.

Or was he horrified? Or did his men cheer so loud he couldn’t complete his apology? This is the challenge of anecdotal information, and in the case of Wikipedia, all such should be suspect.

Categories
Diversity

Neutrogena wouldn’t do that

One of the most wickedly ironic moments this week was reading in Robert Scoble’s weblog about how he and Shel Israel–two men–gave a talk about weblogging to PR and marketing folks at L’Oreal: a company whose clientele is almost exclusively women.

Turns out that L’Oreal, the world’s largest cosmetics maker, is one of Microsoft’s best customers. But we were there to talk about corporate blogging. We talked about how to use Technorati/Feedster/Pubsub/IceRocket to watch what anyone in the world says about L’Oreal’s products.

Here you go L’Oreal, pick this up in Technorati–when you get off the clueless train that is.

Categories
Social Media

Backchannel is back

I haven’t been following much about Les blogs, until I heard about a problem with backchannels. I gather that the official backchannel for Lesblogs was more than a bit disruptive at times, resulting in Mena Trott calling one of the more disruptive participants, Ben Metcalf, an asshole during her talk on being civil in weblogging.

(The post I linked has a movie of the event, though it’s hard to hear Mena’s response. There’s also a transcript of the backchannel, though it seems to be incomplete.)

Very savvy marketer Tara Rogue likes backchannels:

We come to conferences to learn stuff, sure, but first and foremost for many of us, we come to connect. Speakers and panels kill networking time. Kill it. And really, since the advent of the internet, many of us would sit in our seats with our laptops pointing towards our email or Skype or the like, where we would be socializing with people back home rather than the very people we came here to connect with.

Elisa from WorkerBees disagrees:

Seriously I don’t think it says much for the program content if a chat about the WIFI being down and the need for more coffee is more fun than listening to the speakers! And I sure hope to avoid spending the hundreds and hundreds of dollars it typically costs to fly somewhere, stay in a hotel and pay a conference fee only to essentially IM with my buddies.

Some folks were upset at Mena for calling Ben an asshole during her session on civility. I think she was just being disruptive, and since backchannelers live for being disruptive, they should commend her rather than condemn her. I, personally, commend her because not only was she being disruptive, she was doing so in front of the stage rather than in back of it. Unless, of course, in this brand new world, speaking behind one’s back is considered much cooler than speaking directly, face to face.

My views on backchannels are well known. However, I have to consider that this is a brand new world and new ways of communicating at conferences are the norm now. If a backchannel occurs at our SxSW session, I have to accept this is the ‘new’ way; if four strongly opinionated women technologists debating differing views on a controversial issue can’t hold audience members’ attention, a backchannel will occur and the sound of clacking keyboards will be heard throughout the room.

Of course, I reserve the right to deal with disruption in my own way.

 

By the by, are Apple PowerBooks waterproof?

Categories
Technology

Breathe

I’m playing around with my new PowerBook. Well, new is a relative term –it’s a pre-owned TiBook that I bought from a friend; but I’m having as much fun with it as if it were new.

Instead of my 500 MHz processor, this one is an 800 MHz processor, with double the memory (1GB). And space! Over 60GB of space. Plenty of room for photos, and it’s loaded with Tiger–I finally understand widgets! In fact, I could easily become addicted to widgets.

PhotoShop likes the new machine. It works like a normal application now.

With the money I saved buying pre-owned, I can now buy an iPod. Well, more likely tires for my car, but I’m indulging in the fantasy of watching Battlestar Galactica on my sexy little iPod since episodes to the show are now for sale. However, no reason I can’t download the episodes to my new PowerBook. I have space now, you know. Lots of space.

I couldn’t get the migration utility to work between my two powerbooks, but I was able to network the two via ethernet connection. This is better, as I can just copy my songs to iTunes in the new machine, as well as my photos, email, documents, software, and x-rated movies.

Well, I should end this post. I don’t want to be accused of logorrhea. I picked that one up from my “Word of the Day” widget; it means excessive talkativeness or wordiness. A perfect title for a weblog.

Categories
Critters Just Shelley

She loves me. She loves me not.

Zoë has a new place to sleep, against a pillow covered in flannel underneath the heat vent in my room. She snuggles in between the wall and the humidifier, under the table which holds my television, stereo, internet router, and various speakers. She’s out of the way but still near me, and warm against the wall.

zoe in new bed

She looked so sweet and trusting that I had to grab the camera and take pictures of her. I woke her up, but she forgave me.

Or did she? Can a cat ‘forgive’? Some people say that animals aren’t capable of sophisticated emotions, such as love or sorrow or, in this case, forgiveness. They believe that what we perceive to be ‘love’ is really an animal’s instinctive deference paid to us as both pack leader and source of shelter, nourishment, and tactile contact.

Can Zoë love me? According to Sarah Hartwell at the MessyBeast site the answer is yes and no:

According to many pet owners, the answer is “yes”. Cats display a range of feelings including pleasure, frustration and affection. Other feline behavior is attributed to jealousy, frustration and even vengefulness. Owners base their answer on observation of feline behavior, but without an understanding of what makes a cat tick, they risk crediting a cat with emotions it does not feel as well as recognizing genuine feline emotions. Owners who veer too far into the “Did my ickle-wickle fluffy-wuffikins miss his mummy then?” approach may not understand (or not want to accept) that a cat’s emotions evolved to suit very different situations to our own.

According to many scientists, however, the answer is “no”. They argue that humans like to anthropomorphize (attribute human qualities to non-human animals) and regard pets as surrogate children. We interpret their instinctive behaviors according to our own wide range of emotions. We credit them with feelings they do not have. Some scientists deny that animals, including cats and dogs, are anything more than flesh-and-blood “machines” programmed for survival and reproduction. Others, such as pet behaviorists, credit animals with some degree of emotional response and a limited range of emotions (limited in comparison to humans, that is).

In other words, many scientists believe all animals (including us) share the same set of simple emotions, such as hunger, contentment, and fear. As for the others, what we perceive to be a complex emotion may, in reality, be a combination of simpler emotions or even a survival mechanism.

For instance, embarrassment is a ‘complex’ emotion. So, do cats experience embarrassment?

A cat which clumsily falls off a shelf and acts differently according to whether the owner is watching or whether the owner is believed to be out of sight is thought to be showing embarrassment.. Embarrassment in humans is associated with potential loss of face, loss of status or loss of respect (these are all related, but modified by culture and circumstances). The loss of status may be permanent or temporary.

A cat is not only a predator, it is also prey for larger animals. In addition it is programmed to fight other cats for its territory and for mates. If it shows any indication of weakness, it may be challenged by a younger or fitter rival and ousted from its territory. For this reason, many cats hide signs of illness, injury and pain.

A cat which has fallen off a shelf in plain sight will pretend the event has not happened i.e. that it has not shown any weakness. A human may make excuses for why a similar human mishap happened (the ledge was icy or slippery); this is simply a human way of saving face. Cats speak with their bodies and an “embarrassed” cat will most often sit down and wash nonchalantly – cat speak for “nothing has happened”!

Ah, but I know many people who act in the exact same manner. Oh, they won’t sit on their butt and wash their privates with their tongue, but they will act as if nothing at all is wrong or out of the ordinary when they make a mistake. Most likely for the same reasons as the cat: to not show weakness; to survive.

sweet zoe

If embarrassment can be explained away as actions necessary for survival, what about a more tender emotion, such as love? We pet owners insist that our pets love us. After all, they greet us with joy when we come home, and they sit and look out the window when we’re gone. They sleep next to us even if the weather is warm, and will follow us outside when it’s bitter cold. Doesn’t this mean they love us? Or again, can this behavior be explained away as a set of simple behaviors?

We can’t specifically ask our pets if they love us, and they can’t let us know by sending us chocolates at Valentine’s day; nor sit in a bar with us until late hours of the night as we cry over some recent hurt. Do we only assume they love us because we love them? Do we need to read love in how they act toward us?

Rather than search for this answer in Hartwell’s general essay on emotions, I searched for the answer in her essay on cats and grief. In this she writes of her own experiences of cat behavior, observed during her animal rescue work:

I have personal experience of a pair of cats whose owner had died. The cats refused to eat while in the shelter. To reduce stress, they were fostered in a household and the vet prescribed appetite stimulants. One cat recovered but remained withdrawn for a long period of time. The other continued to pine and became critically ill until it had to be euthanized (prolonged fasting results in liver damage). Its behavior was so severely affected that the foster carer considered force-feeding unsuitable; the cat had no interest in life …

Cats may express grief through nightmares (quite possibly a dream of the missing person has been replaced by wakefulness and the abrupt realization that the person has gone). One of my rescue cats, Sappho, had repeated nightmares after the traumatic death of the owner in the cat’s presence. Sappho woke up whimpering and fearful from sleep and required physical reassurance from me. If this happened at night, she actually climbed into bed and hid as far down the bed as possible, crying out (initially at a rate of one vocalization per second) until her fear and grief subsided. As well as being clingy, she often woke me from sleep as though afraid that I had also died.

I don’t particularly want to die to test whether Zoë loves me. Does she love me? Of course she does. Look at all the photos I’ve published of her: how could there be any doubt that she loves me?

beautiful zoe

Sometimes, though, when she looks me closely in the face, I can see myself reflected in her eyes. The figure I see there is vague and indistinct, oddly alien. It is a reminder that we are not so very alike, her and I, though we happily share a life together.

In these moments I am aware of the cat within my friend. Aware, and respectful.

zoe up close and self portrait