Google Reader: a retrospective

When I first heard, I admit I was furious. I don't normally set much store by interweb facilities. Sure, I enjoy Facebook for the photos, LinkedIn for the networking, Gmail/Rocketmail/Hotmail for the communications, but apart from some very light blogging and tweeting (as evidence by this neglected blog) I really could say I'm cyber-lite. I don't have such capabilities on my mobile telephone. I access the internet by a slightly more advanced version of dial-up or visit the local internet-enabled cafe (and use gallons of bandwith/electricity for a very reasonable 40p bottle of spring water). I never even text, let alone send photo messages - do you know how expensive they are?

So, when I learned that the one crucial site that I used LOADS was disappearing for no good reason, I was fuming.

I joined this petition. I grumbled to people lengthily. I was very sad. I had used my Google Reader account for as long as it had been available. I had stored there all my subscriptions to comics, blogs, job searches, news updates, etc. I thought it would last forever. I actually thought what a fun insight it would provide should I ever leave this mortal coil unexpectedly early, my nearest and dearest taking comfort in all the funny cartoons I enjoyed and serious political debate on which I kept tabs.

I knew that good ol' Google wouldn't be persuaded. Someone had mentioned the costs of keeping it alive and compared it to the revenue possible, but we GReader scamps weren't cross-posting or tweeting or blogging or promoting enough. We could have been punished another way. Make it slower. Fill it with ads. Do a YouTube and make us watch a commercial before we could get to the good stuff.

Instead there was just a steady reminder to back-up, download, collect and otherwise archive the information lovingly contained therein before the big power switch in the sky was turned off.

Resignedly I searched for alternatives. I tried Old Reader, but it didn't float my boat. I'm now using Feedly, but I'm still not convinced. I wanted more functionality for free, but maybe I'm just greedy.

I'm no longer angry. Strangely, it subsided pretty quickly. Feedly is now my go-to site after Facebook and my various email providers.

However, I'm beginning to think Google's Do No Harm promise is ringing hollow...

Unexpected geekery: 1££75?£4X

4
8
{
∂
£
ʃ
&
#
!
¿
x
1
^^
^
[]
?
9
®
5
7
µ
\/
\/\/
><
Ψ
2

I don't use coded language much, but when I do I use capitals and lowercase to change the phonetics of letter pronunciation:
hA how R U? cN U hLp mE?
Hey how are you? Can you help me?

A = ay
B = be
C = see
D = dee
E = ee
F = ef
G = gee
H = aitch
I = eye
J = jay
K = kay
L = el
M = em
N = en
O = oh
P = pea
Q = queue
R = are
S = ess
T = tea
U = you
V = vee
W = double you {NB not often used in conversation, I have to admit}
X = ex
Y = why
Z = zee

wE nEd 2 gO 2 hLp mI frNd, Qpid. NE1 cN come!
We need to go help my friend, Cupid. Anyone can come!

See, this is how my morning starts... I read Wikipedia and I cannot help but fall down the rabbit hole...

Web 2.0

The consumers of information and entertainment on the internet are becoming the creators. Dilbert mash-ups. Vimeo movie reviews. Youtube fan clips. Wikipedia entry edits.

We are creating our world. We might be producing information that no-one else is consuming. We might be making more than we are taking in. Our output might be outpacing our input. Does that matter? If we are not informed before we produce, we have the pleasure in knowing our work is naively original - we cannot possibly have copied or been influenced - we haven't seen the other output.

But to what extent is our perhaps ill-informed produce worth anything? Can it be called truth?

When information is modified in Wikipedia it is either changed automatically or on flagged pages there is a pause, a debate between self-nominated experts, a professional over-seer moderates and then we have alterations (if permitted). There is a checking system and it works - mostly. We are not by nature a society of liars. We do not want to produce inaccuracies (other than when we are compelled for commercial or personal reasons). We like to have contributed to helping improve global understanding. We want to have been pivotal in making something better. We want to be seen as knowledgeable, clever. We want to show off.

That is why I think there is just cause to believe in Wikipedia. Eventually we will use it as a resource and cite it. GoogleNews was planning on doing just this and conducted an experiment into its efficacy. In another article it is stated that:
"it’s hard to argue with the idea that many Wikipedia pages — which are often more comprehensive and updated more quickly than some news sites — offer background and context on current events that could be beneficial to Google News users."

This is probably the main point. With citizen journalists on the spot and giving us a street view of incidents, we can be there immediately. We can judge for ourselves. There is no editor, script writer, teleprompter reader. We can see for ourselves.

Academia's main bugbear is that it takes two years to review then publish scholarship. The information may well be old, based on outdated research and outmoded data. The purpose of publishing is thusly not for the benefit of Mankind to improve knowledge, but to add to someone's CV/resume, to make them closer to tenure. If we have a moral obligation to make our research available to everyone, then we should be publishing in Wikipedia or on our blogs. We might need to sell journals and books, but we might care more about letting humanity know a little bit more sooner rather than later.

Maybe information overload would be a problem. Putting all the research out there, for magazines to paraphrase in brief articles, where nuances are lost and inaccuracies flourish, might be pointless. The white noise wall of information may become too much and deter people from engaging or even listening. Perhaps after a serious debate in conference tracks, journal counterarguments and rival books, there might be a more solid argument produced, a more refined, joint understanding. This might be what should be fed down to the general populace. The average Joe doesn't want to have to grasp ten years of chemistry teaching to know that the new pharmaceutical might help his condition, as long as he avoids caffeine and doesn't have the trigger gene.

Are we protecting the public from being overwhelmed with information, or are we creating knowledge strata? Limiting those deliberately to make the information seem more valuable; information that is released only in the rarefied air expelled by other scholars.

Should we trust information produced by multiple persons working without financial gain (unless they are promoting a theory that one can learn more about in a handy pocket-sized classic available for only £5.99!) and viewable to the multitude who can join in as editors if so moved, or allow the information to remain unchallenged if they believe/know it to be fact?

Here is a site that talks about a documentary that was made on this very topic - it includes an embedded version of the documentary. Well worth watching!

Update: I have just found this on Claire O'Farrell's blog: "Scholarly work is essential in order to guarantee certain standards of truth and accuracy, of value to the social body. But popular books are also essential to communicate ideas to a non-specialist general public...A book does not stand alone, it is intrinsically bound up in a social network of work done by others." Interesting...
Also, there is this academic article that explores the issue of trust in Wikipedia contributions.
Ian Bogost thinks that academic output should be for the general public:

"But wait, you might say, why would a discipline of philosophy need or want to explain itself to a general population? This is the domain of specialists, and some will hold that we cannot or should not "simplify" our nuanced positions for the unwashed masses. This is wrongheaded. I'm of the general belief that academia has a responsibility to the public interest, but more than any other philosophical movememt in recent memory, OOO stands to benefit from the deep engagement of ordinary people, since it returns the attention of philosophy to the real, everyday world."

Historical sentiment...

...can mean revivalist or remembrance events for some, or the resurrection of lost languages to others, such as Anglish. This little know 'language' is a return to use of words of Germanic origin rather than the later imported Romance languages, of Latin and then French.

In need of distraction?

I think this should help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pseudohistory

Also wondering why you haven't heard of this before? Kellogg-Briand Pact...

Or this Reichstag Fire Decree? Plus I am sorely in ignorance about Himmler, his Ahnenerbe, the porcelain, the architecture, the special nurseries - I wish my education had been a bit more fulsome. I never really understood the Anti-Semitism and Nazism link - this page explains some details.

I guess watching Band of Brothers and awaiting The Pacific means that I am in a historical mood - and I haven't even seen Saving Private Ryan - I might have to change that...

However, I have seen the Enemy at the Gates and I think I remember seeing this fountain.

Greco-Roman Movement

Okay, so having delved into a bit of tangential reading on Ancient Greek and Roman history, religion and mythology, I have some thoughts and feelings I need to share.

First, you should understand that this entire line of thinking was stimulated by Percy & the lightning thief (which is my shortened title) and the wonders of Wikipedia.

So, I needed to know who all the tall gods were in Olympus and why they were tall. Did Wiki know? Hells yes, and a whole bunch more.

I spent the weekend learning about: the geography and the many people (roman and Greek, mortal, mythical and godly) of the times, how there were cognates between the regions for their gods, the original gods, the connections between various religious origins, the goddesses most closely connected to me and their festivals, and the people wanting to reignite the ancient ways.

I also detoured to look at UNESCO world heritage sites, the seven wonders of the world, the eighth wonder of the world and the various times and techniques behind these creations/phenomena. Plus the tallest, widest and most powerful waterfalls in the world.

But the ancient history stuff got me thinking. In Greek writing they often describe features of people as resembling particular gods and goddesses, did there exist a general, agreed understanding of what these gods/goddesses looked like? Would one look at a person and see that the brow, nose, hair line, height, or chin resembled a particular deity? Could you describe someone's to appearance and have your audience picture the person? If I said a man looked like Danny De Vito, you'd think short, rotund, drools a bit when he speaks, fiery, American, balding with dark hair. If I said a man looked like Uma Thurman, you'd think tall, thin, blonde, athletic, sharp facial features, piercing eyes, clipped speech. Could those in ancient times assimilate in their collective mind's eye an image of their deities? I think if one was described as resembling Cleopatra, you'd think brunette, if Helen of Troy, then blonde, if Samson, with lovely locks and if Hercules then brute strength but that is as far as I can go. However, Odysseus says that Nausicaa resembles a goddess, particularly Artemis. How is it that he can pick which goddess she most closely resembles?

Also, was there a familiar link with deities and the conception of value, ethics and goodness?
"This honor bestowed upon the children was later used by Solon, as a proof while trying to convince Croesus that it is impossible to judge a person's happiness until they have died a fruitful death after a joyous life." (Herodotus' History, Book I)

Also, does Eos relate to those that are tempted by others whilst in a relationship?
Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 1. 27 (trans. Aldrich) (Greek mythographer C2nd A.D.) : "Eos, whom Aphrodite tormented with constant passion as punishment for sleeping with Ares."

If you must watch one of these: Percy, Valentine's Day, Leap Year, The Secret Lives of Pippa Lee make it Percy or Pippa. The others are a waste of your time and intelligence. Also, I tried Spartacus: Blood and Sand; just make sure you don't.

If you accidentally did watch some/all of these, you need to be cheered up. Check out Steve Martin in P, T, A or the other Ron Burgundy movie.

On a slight related topic, if you are looking for advice on movies to watch, then seriously check out Brandy and Julie (of LOGO's Big Gay Sketch Show) who have collaborated with Autostraddle to produce fortnightly reviews - the first one for James Cameron's Avatar was hilarious! Check them out here. Hmm, 2nd installment, not so funny, disappointing... :(

I shall be checking out another fantastical, semi-religiously toned film: The Golden Compass. I'll let you know about my feelings later on... After a quick session of Facebook Mafia Wars!

Queerlinks...

Support queer youth radio in the UK!

Perhaps my pals at Pomoworld might want to check out the wiki article on Culture Jamming...

If I did want to pursue a sideline in LGBTQ couple/relationship/sex therapy then the right places to start would be:
Pink Therapy
GLITSE
ASSECT

Welsh? Queer? Prideful? Get a flag at eBay!

Amazing musicated animation as suggested by Mrs. Kutcher on her twitterings...

Also the marvellous homepage of French pole vaulter... naked in Paris!

Ooh, I think I forgot to mention...

Each morning after checking iGoogle (UK news, queer news, tech news, Dilbert, word match up, art of the day, twitterfeed, facebook, quote of the day, Japanese word of the day, English word of the day), browsing a paper edition of The Daily Mail, checking my work email address and avoiding my personal one, plus logging out of the auto-sign-in MSNMessenger, I routinely check Marie Lyn 'Riese' Bernard and crew's new website. It is splendiferous and I recommend anyone with an interest in things pertaining to queer women give it some serious attention.

Today those lovely ladies sent my tumbling through the internet with the following links:
SXSW Update
Bitch magazine's 'women in science' link to Flickr
Jezebel caught up with the 'ladies loving ladies late' trend

...and then I was wondering: what ever happened to Beth Orton? The answer is here.

... and then I was glad Feministing had this article on the missing gender discussion regarding the recent German school girl shooting.

Liquefy my love

No, not with lava but with a blender - four apricots and an orange, or a satsuma, two apricots and a handful of spinach - super-power smoothies to make you feel like you are doing something good New-Year's-Resolution styleeee, but really you are just using up old fruit.

When asked on another blog to name the one thing I was genuinely good at I failed the task by naming three, but actually it should be four: Onanism, Falling in love, Wasting hours link-surfing in Wikipedia, Being able to fall asleep anywhere... but I think these are useful skills - being able to recharge one's batteries physically, sexually, intellectually and emotionally - like being able to put yourself through an auto-spa and refresh yourself without needing any external stimulation, if you'll pardon the pun.

Randomly, I saw this on the internet and thought it hilarious:
"Twat did you say, I cunt hear you? Tits alright, bare-ass me again! Eh, we'll finger it out later."
I guess I really do have the sense of humour of a 12yr old boy!

Bling and Bing

Whilst planning my pre-Christmas party for all those lovely people that I wont see again until 2009 (the theme this year is ghetto/grotto fabulous; audacious use of tinsel is encouraged) D-Man was at it again: Scissor Sisters, Shakespeare's Sister and dying a little death... A stream of consciousness not entirely unrelated to his recent pimping efforts... 'Can I watch?' kind of theme...

Moving away from such crudity (which I think you will agree deserved no response), I thought it fitting to bestow festive gifts on the cyber-world. Here then is a list of very fabulous websites for your intellectual delight...

...concerning Gender/LGBTQQ/Queer/Identity/Orientation/Sexuality
1. A journal of awesomeness...art and queer theory, what more do you need?
2. An article on bi-dyke, the terminology that caused D-Man so much befuddlement t'other day
3. Riese's very awesome article at The L Word inspired OurChart site
4. The Journal of Bisexuality for those that want a dip into the warm waters of academic advancement...
5. Helpful list of orientation/gender/sexuality definitions - if these are even possible!

Also a veritable panoply of options for sustaining your inner geekery
1. A fabulous list of weird words I would never have come across if it wasn't for Wikipedia.
2. An amazing application for converting any measurement into any other - nautical rhumbs, homesteads, picofarads, nybbles, kips, scruples-force, kiloponds, dynes angstroms, femtometers, smoots, metric slugs, pennyweights troy, torr, dracontic months, kilderkins, chaldrons...Scrabble championships here I come!
3. A truly awesome bunch of people who for a bit of cash can immeasurably improve your existence...
4. Need to build a robot? No problem, this site has all you need.
5. Tired of your robot, fancy your chances as a megalomaniacal mayor - then build your own city...

Hopefully these tidbits will help while away a few moments of an otherwise monotonous day!

Hasta tarde!