I have no interest in trying the list's patience by drawing this out
further, but I did want to supply one further piece of information.
Steven Zenith raises the question about the transparency of the Digital
Universe (i.e., if I understand it correctly, whether we will require the
use of real
Dear all,
I forwarded to Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, the thread of messages on
Panopedia. I copy below his answer announcing the new project Digital Universe
that may interest to some people in the list,
Jaime
Thanks for forwarding these mails about Panopedia. I'm seeing
FWIW. I know of the ManyOne project and have tried before to understand
what they are trying to do. Digital Universe is designed to promote
that project. However, it requires you to download the ManyOne
application suite - a new browser - to subscribe PLUS they want to up
sell Internet
All,
Forgive the intrusion. After Jaime Nubiola forwarded Steven Zenith's mail
to me, I thought I would respond here on the list (rather than bother Jaime
further personally). I have no interest in a long drawn-out discussion--I
simply wished to correct a few factual errors in Steven's post.
Larry, list,
Your project appears to hold great promise and is already taking
impressive shape imo. It is especially encouraging to see Larry Lessig
on board. This list may recall my positive review of an address he gave
at Cooper-Union in NYC a year or so ago on copyright issues. I recall
Dear Larry,
Thank you for your response.
The references that you give reveal transparency regarding your
organization but that is not the transparency we are discussing.
Wikipedia is also transparent in this sense.
We have discussed here the transparency of authorship - especially with
Steven...
Aside from the issues of objective intent and textual authorship, the
promise of an open and free internet with its unpoliced websites and
networks that are responsible and reasonable is regrettably as yet
unfulfilled. Even the serious lists continue to be filled with
trivial atopical
Steven, Catherine, Ben, list,
I would like to suggest that Ben's analysis perhaps rather nicely
bridges the gap between what seems like the polar positions held by
Steven and frances, Frances arguing on the one hand that:
The need for identifying the messenger is in my
opinion overstated and
Dear Gary,
My thanks for your encouraging words.
I agree that Ben's suggestion of cross referencing to Wikipedia is
interesting - and I am thinking about the implications of that
approach. Wikipedia articles do not have stable states. Who would own
the labels?
I did consider that one
Steven says:
Transparency is a pragmatic. Or, exactly as Joe suggests that Peirce
implies (is there a reference to this Joe?): identifying the author is a
logical necessity.
REPLY:
Here's some quotes to that effect:
CP 2.315 (c. 1902)
For an act of assertion supposes that, a proposition being
Steven...
This message may be an aside, but the principle of evolutionary love
as it is understood by me might be well applied to the act of science.
It states that objects and here thinkers should give of themselves and
thus their ideas freely, for its own intrinsic sake, with no ulterior
motive,
Thank you for your input Frances.
I am most firmly convinced that there is no message without a
messenger; i.e., any message without a clearly identifiable messenger
is simply meaningless. By which I mean literally without intent; absent
the embodiment of meaning in a message creator.
We
12 matches
Mail list logo
