you completly misunderstood the role of an author.
it's a job today, nothing else. freelancer, someone
who writes books and tries to sells them to publishers.
ghostwriters, those guys behind the president, who's names
only 1% of americans might know, those are the
authors, functionaries of
text warez wrote:
you completly misunderstood the role of an author.
There is no identification of the person addressed as you, but I will
fill in. What interests me is that you think there is only one role of the
author and that whoever doesn't share your idea of it has misunderstood.
You
Keith Hart wrote:
text warez wrote:
you completly misunderstood the role of an author.
There is no identification of the person addressed as you, but I will
fill in.
Well, not only does that text lack recipient, if there is no such
thing as author it even lacks a sender. Neither a you nor
Theory is necessary,
but practice has a much greater ethical value than theory. It is your
actions that determine which side you are really on.
Ben
btw the stained glass of notre dame were paid by different guild of paris
as it seems so gratefull to sponsor zuch nice material for each
Kermit Snelson wrote:
Intellectuals and artists have always relied on
patronage, patronage depends on plunder, and plunder depends on deceit
and exploitation. Who, after all, paid for Europe's cathedrals? Who
paid for Beethoven's sonatas? Who pays for universities today?
[...] which side
snip
It was just an exercise in comparing now and then, here and now. I don't
have a particular axe to grind. Since I write quite a lot, I think about
what makes heroes of some writers and how their achievement might be
grounded in their social practice. Strauusian enough for you, Kermit?
Keith
Brian, the point of yours to which I was replying was not opposition to
consensus, but rather the implication that to oppose one must have anonymity.
That is not to suggest that current society is reasonable, liberal,
democratic, desirable, un-opposable or necessarily irreplaceable.
Kermit makes
Kermit Snelson wrote:
But to be honest with ourselves, we must look deep into what
intellectualism means.
I know that intellectuals are killers, sometimes not just figuratively. I
am one myself, after all. But not all forms of thinking or persons that we
might deem to be intellectual are
Michael Goldhaber wrote (speaking of far left and right in the US):
...on either side, too readily donning this mantle of persecution
and using it as an excuse for anonymity or for covering up one's real
intent undermines any possibility of genuine democracy, and must lead
to a general and
Keith Hart wrote:
I think I was saying two cheers for the liberal enlightenment and what it
bequeathed us, if we would acknowledge our inheritance.
I am ever amazed and puzzled by Keith's confidence in the liberal
enlightenment. I must say I don't share it. Acknowledging that
inheritance seems
Keith Hart writes about anonymity:
So what's the point for nettimers or wikipedia? I have several in mind, but
I prefer for now to ask you, dear reader, what you think it might be.
I reckon (a little crudely I guess, but y'all know me by now) that
the point will become obvious when someone has
If Locke, Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, and D'Alembert were all in the
habit of publishing anonymously, why is it their names are so familiar
(and
attached to their writings,usually) some 250 years later? Was anonymity
merely a ploy, with clues provided somehow for true authorship? In the
Well, there's always a tension. Over on the first wiki, c2
(http://c2.com/cgi/wiki), there's no shortage of debate over anonymity
vs. attribution. Anonymous contributions can sometimes make people feel
it's okay to be contentious impolite. Attributed contributions can
make the maintainers
If Locke, Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, and D'Alembert were all in the
habit of publishing anonymously, why is it their names are so familiar (and
attached to their writings,usually) some 250 years later? Was anonymity
merely a ploy, with clues provided somehow for true authorship? In the case
If Locke, Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, and D'Alembert were all in the
habit of publishing anonymously, why is it their names are so familiar (and
attached to their writings,usually) some 250 years later? Was anonymity
merely a ploy, with clues provided somehow for true authorship? In the case
- Forwarded message from anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Florian Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: nettime A Puff Piece on Wikipedia (Fwd)]
X-UIDL: M`b!9dQ!!Ub!P\C!
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1
hi florian --
[I noticed that Oliver Gassner has raised some of the same points and
included tracing the IP; main difference being that I'm not really a wiki
user which points towards the relatively high degree of transparency
wikepedia has]
I think wikipedia in and of itself raises
dear florian,
thanks for forwarding this. i have been wondering about the different
notions of 'openness' that are flying around at the moment and the
often blind assumption that whatever is open must be good. (it is
probably more in analogy to the marxist discussion about 'doppelt
freie
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Oliver Gassner wrote:
So.
Before anyone indulges in paranoia they should just check the obvious:
Someone writing about JHU every day would rather not want the stuff
from the fyi-guy in there.
Rightyright?
IMO this quick re-edit is proof that the wiki-system (or:
Forwarded, with permission, from my friend tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE. -
I think this raises interesting questions about the integrity and
politics of open content, collaborative online projects and knowledge
repositories.
-F
- Forwarded message from anonymous [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:33:53 +0200, Florian Cramer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forwarded, with permission, from my friend tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE. -
I think this raises interesting questions about the integrity and
politics of open content, collaborative online projects and knowledge
21 matches
Mail list logo
