Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 12-07-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Net Neutrality Is Clear

[ . . . ] I’m cited in the second paragraph of the current Wikipedia article on Net neutrality. Here’s how the article begins:

Network neutrality is a general principle of Internet regulation which states that a network is neutral if it satisfies all application needs equally. For example, a perfectly neutral network would not give better service to some web sites than others, and it is argued that it would likewise not favor web-surfing or blogging over online gaming or Voice over IP. It is also guided by the assumption that the public good is maximized by limiting Internet innovation to the edges, where things are often easier to change, rather than the core of the network.

However, it has no completely precise, agreed-upon meaning. One prominent net neutrality advocate, Cluetrain Manifesto author David Weinberger, expresses frustration at his attempts to reach a precise understanding: …I recently spent a day—sponsored by an activist think tank—with a dozen people who understand Net tech deeply, going through exactly which of the 496 permutations would constitute a violation of Net neutrality. Caching packets within a particular application area but not according to source? Caching application-based non-cached application-based packets? Saying “Hi” to all passing packets, but adding, “Howya doin’?” to only the ones you like? Patting all packets on the back but refusing to buy some lunch? The whole thing makes my brain hurt.[1]

[ . . . ] FWIW, I agree that the paragraph that cites me should be edited out. It is unencyclopedic. It also is used to make a point that it in fact does not support. . . .

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-9-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Net Neutrality = A Financial Services Industry Free-Ride?

I’ve written a little about the Net Neutrality debate , and posted some Blog entries bout it — e.g. here, here and here. It’s a complex and interesting subject, and politicians have clearly had difficulty getting their heads around it. So I was interested to see how Wikipedia would approach the topic.

The entry seemed to me to be a model of its kind — well-informed, mostly well-referenced and balanced. But its ‘neutrality’ has been challenged and has triggered Wikipedia’s discussion process. The discussion page on the issue is fascinating. Here’s the bit about the bias complaint. . . .

[What follows is the challenge process at Wikipedia.]

It’s always irritating to have one’s views changed by other people’s better arguments, but this discussion has caused me to re-evaluate the original entry. I think the point about ‘framing’ is right. Wouldn’t it be nice if all public debate about complex issues were conducted this way? Then we really would have a deliberative democracy. I’m always puzzled by people’s hostility to Wikipedia: to me, it looks like one of the best things to have emerged from the Net.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Open Source Education — GELC

by

Open Source

We know open source is only as good as the folks who contribute. It can be as successful and adaptable as Linux. It can be helpful as all of the WordPress plugins.

Open source can also get mired in policy and minutiae — you can trust the definition at that link; it’s by the experts on the subject. Such issues have to be what shut down Zeal.com. I had to take the insane Zealot test four times a day for days, until I passed it. The questions were about such tiny details my mind couldn’t absorb them. (See Dear Wikipedia and try being an editor for the DMOZ.)

Enter the GELC

Enter the GELC, something really exciting. The Global Education and Learning Community. Some really smart, talented, experienced people are working together on it. It has the goal of an open source learning curriculum. It could be as powerful as Linux. I sure hope it is. Right now, Dr. Barbara (“Bobbi”) Kurshan, Executive Director of GELC is trying to prioritize some ideas via her blog. [The formatting is mine.]

Several ideas include

  • a repository to build and distribute open source textbooks – which are probably the first curricula ever developed for teaching and learning
  • a place for assessing the progress of a learner
  • a virtual design center for creating a curriculum from open education resources
  • a repository of courses
  • and a community for discussion about open source curriculum.

. . . all of these ideas will become part of GELC. But, which one is unique? Which one will make GELC the “thought leader” in the open source curriculum arena?

What would you answer? One comment said, . . . drop this area. It’s a big turnoff currently. Is that what you think?

–ME ‘Liz” Strauss

Related in some way
Dear Wikipedia . . .
Out WikiPedia, Hello Encyclopedia of Stupid

Out WikiPedia, Hello Encyclopedia of Stupid

by

Wikipedia Called Us Nonsense

So maybe you were around when we got mired in the labyrinth of the Wikipedia, or when we tried to find out why an article, written by Martin Neumann of the Small Office Herald about the Link Leak Virus, a term coined by Mike Sigers, was summarily deleted within minutes of it’s submission.

I actually wrote to Wikipedia about the situation. The official Wikipedia response to my email said I’d get a response in a few minutes . . . that was over 13 days ago. Hope the young man took food and water with him. A reader friend let us know that some editor said that it was “nonsense.” Kudos to the Advice Librarian who helped us make sense of everything.

We at Successful Blog needed that. We hadn’t had our ideas or our writing called nonsense by a stranger who didn’t know us for a very long while.

Finally I’ve found the home for us — The Encyclopedia of Stupid! [Read more…]

Dear Wikipedia . . .

by

Uh-oh She’s Confused Again

At the request of more than one reader, I spent part of my Sunday trying to figure out something. The something was exactly why the article about Link Leak submitted to Wikipedia was not there. The article, written by journalist Martin Neumann about the Link Leak Project named by Mike Sigers, was taken down within minutes of when it was posted at Wikipedia — the free online encyclopedia.

I figured this quest to find out the exact reason would be an easy endeavor. Off I went to the Wikipedia home page.

I found out many things. I found out many, many things. I found out so many things, that I could not find my way back through the last things I found out to the first things I found, and consequently twice several times I had to start all over again. Wikipedia’s guidelines are a labyrinthine abyss of information sorely in need of an editor. The guidelines are indeed an encylopedia on their own.

This is the page on undeleting an entry.

I might mention that I have an above average IQ and more patience with print than most folks do, but I gave up then. I made one more try and then did the Liz thing . . . [Read more…]