Harsh '70s reality.

[reddragdiva]

• The evolution of online journalism.

• The New York Times whines that it should get money for reference links in Wikipedia. Maurice Jarre was unavailable for comment.

• Stupid Microsoft Tricks: when you open or even just right-click on a zip file on a remote network share in the Windows Explorer, you get this. Ah, yeah, thanks Windows, that's really helpful. (I understand what it's doing. It's still stupid.)

• NotN: Sceptics defeat homeopathy with homeopathic homeopathy.

arkady's shoulder is still buggered (pulled muscle, should be better in a week; serious codeine prescribed), so today I did manly things: clothes washed, dishes washed, girlfriend escorted to doctor, shopping, dinner cooked, family fed, NotN written ... and of course I made sandcastles for Freda to destroy. This is important.

Tomorrow I hope to attack the lounge at last. Then dinner with nyecamden and friends in the evening.

Comments

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

NYT being fucktards. The information is only being "reused" if no one follows the links, reads the original articles, and looks at the NYT banner adverts. If the people don't, then the "reuse" is the same as rumor and hearsay, and I defy them to whine about people talking to each other.

Wikipedia lets them get traffic to their whole archive of news stories, essentially forever, in ways that their own primitive indexing would never manage. It's like searching, but things appear in front of eyeballs without someone thinking that they need to look something up. It's just there by being tangentially-related.

[reddragdiva]

It got right up my nose because I don't think there's a journalist I've spoken to in the last four years about Wikipedia who hasn't used it as their handy-dandy instant universal backgrounder. Which is excellent, that's what it's there for, use with caution, etc. But then whining that we should be paying for the privilege is ... way stupider than I thought Noam Cohen was.

[blackgrrr.livejournal.com]

It got right up my nose because I don't think there's a journalist I've spoken to in the last four years about Wikipedia who hasn't used it as their handy-dandy instant universal backgrounder

*raises hand*
It's a brilliant resource, and once you know what you think you now know you can bounce off somewhere else and try to confirm/disprove the facts pretty simply (or looking in the discussion tab really can help).

We are currently (again) talking about going online. I keep suggesting using an abc.net.au/news model updatable with a client in the same way LJ uses semagic with most content free, and then a premium news service.

The boss suggests... a propriety online system designed by his kids, administered by his kids and probably the picture on the right.
*sigh*