[TBray:Ongoing] Blog Title Of The Day + O'Reilly *IS JUSTIFIED* + A Lesson We ALL Need To Learn

by M. David Peterson

Sorry for stealing your whole post, Tim... But its WAY TOO GOOD and short enough to be considered, well... short enough to fit inside a single, quotable, paragraph. :)

ongoing � Credit 2.0™ Where It's Due

James Governor grumbled at me about repeatedly crediting Hal Stern for the "Web 2.0 = Writeable Web" meme, specifically pointing out Read/Write Web by Rich McManus (which is excellent). He's got a point, but if we're going to start down that road, we'll end up with Tim Berners-Lee, who has repeatedly made it clear that he always thought of the Web as a place to write, not just read. And if we're going to talk about practice not theory, you'd end up looking at Dave Winer, who pushed RSS in everyone's face and, more important, proved that a fast-writing ornery geek could gather an audience and wield influence by, you know, doing it. And as a geek myself, I've always liked James Snell's chmod 777 web. Until this minute, I'd thought Hal was the first to nail the 2.0 connection; but now I think that James got there first (May vs. October 2005).


All VERY WELL SAID! Thanks for bringing things into perspective, Tim!

So regarding the blog title...

4 Comments

len
2006-06-05 12:00:13
Dave, you have as good a history as the witnesses are willing to record, as good as their memories are and their discipline for being fair from being predjudiced. It isn't simple because there is a Rashomonic effect; all history is subjective in interpretation even if objective in certain facts (say dates and body counts).


The ability to write and preserve a history is a critical quality of any human endeavor. From the dates on tombstones to the hieroglyphs of the Egyptian dynasties, each person has a point of view but the wealthy get to say it louder and longer traditionally. The web is a little different in that many can contribute, but in the time scale of things, will digital memory be more or less permanent? I think less.


Does that mean the memory of the web is trivial? Perhaps. It is certainly easier to game. Yet that has been the case for millenia. The priests did their utmost to destroy the memory of Tutankhamen, but in so doing, also destroyed the memory of the location of his tomb. So by adhering to their rituals for dead Pharoahs and trying to erase his memory, they achieved exactly the opposite.


Games are played and in all games there is an element of chance. Chance favors no prince or pauper. Of such, history is made.

M. David Peterson
2006-06-06 10:30:38
>> The web is a little different in that many can contribute, but in the time scale of things, will digital memory be more or less permanent? I think less. <<


I agree 100%!


>> Games are played and in all games there is an element of chance. Chance favors no prince or pauper. Of such, history is made. <<


I think I have might next quote from you all lined up and ready to go :D


Now I just need something to write about that it relates to ;)

len
2006-06-08 06:29:00
Spend some time considering the difference between a subjective system and an objective system: power. First spend some time on that because it is like XML vs OOP (reuse of data with a minimal contract vs reuse of semantics with a strong contract).


In systems of systems where local and global are in conflict, the global system usually wins but not always. The best model I have for this applies force vectors to the selections that create consensus (why PageRank is easy to game) but it gets a bit hairy to describe that.


The Web 2.0 trademark dustup is an example.

david
2006-12-19 18:29:12
very good,


[1]- Which, it seems, Elliotte Rusty Harold has recently, and inadvertantly, smashed into itzy-bitzy pieces... I disagree with his verdict (and, it seems, he doesn't realize that IE already has support for this, and has for some time... My guess is that this is the reason they are not a part of the recent surge by Moz, Apple, and Opera) but I've learned the hard way not to take Elliotte to task without first thinking about it... For as LONG as necessary as to convince myself not to take him to task, only then to respond if I can't think of one single reason why its possible I might not be justified in taking him to task...


As such, this is my plan :)


Wish me luck (I'm going to need it, I think... :)