The Wikipedia Experience

I, too, like Courtney had some initial skepticism about editing Wikipedia. I stuck to an uber-basic edit to Michael Mann's page in regards to Christian Bale's character in this past summer's Public Enemies. Although my edit was so minor that it's addition could be easily counted by characters, I felt a nervous tinge as I was pressing the submit button.

I recognize the issues with Wikipedia in regards to it's accuracy and truthfulness. Yet, I still rely on it almost daily as a base source of information and more often than not, the site does not lead me wrong. As Colin mentioned in class, I wouldn't use the information on Wikipedia as any sort of medical reference but for the topics I'm interested in (Film, Music), Wikipedia has been overwhelmingly helpful in broadening my horizons and tastes, in rather accurate fashion. I understand Colin's point about how the genius function of iTunes might actually be restricting tastes versus broadening them but I'm not sure I agree with them since to a certain extent, a browse through a musical genre's page on Wikipedia isn't all that much different. Even just in the most briefest of manners, a mention of another band introduces the listener to that band's existence, the same purpose that Genius does. Genius does not necessarily cull only singles or mainstream tracks for the process, but looks at deeper album cuts as a possible source as well.

How does this tie back into Wikipedia? Let me explain through example.

Let's assume that I am someone with blossoming musical tastes, a wandering ear eager to escape from the confines of Clear Channel's radio monopoly. I love the band Coldplay because of their epic sounding stadium rock/pop. I decide to hit their Wikipedia page to see what's up. A quick browse through the introductory paragraphs points me to the following bands:

Radiohead- Argubly the most cutting edge, business altering band currently releasing music that a large number of people will hear. Alt./Indie Rock. Also British.

Jeff Buckley- Mid 90's Alt. Singer/Songwriter/Male Diva who enjoys a large cult following. Achieved some mainstream success with his rendition of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah". Son of Tim Buckley, influential singer/songwriter in 1960's. American.

Kate Bush- Influential and respected female singer/songwriter. Considered by many as the best female singer/songwriter of the last 30 years. Known for her ethereal, arty songs. Brit.

Kraftwerk- Ultra-influential German electronic group. Sampled by Coldplay for their song "Talk". Genres such as Techno, Industrial, Synth Pop and Electro all stem from Kraftwerk. Argubly the most important German musical export of the 20th century.

My Bloody Valentine- Shoegaze band led by Kevin Shields from late 80's, early 90's known for their densely layered studio albums and deafening live shows. Bankrupted label making "Loveless" considered by some as the greatest album of the 1990's. Recently reunited. British.

So, in the first 3 paragraphs, the reader has been introduced to 5 highly important bands, ranging in popularity, but nearly unequaled in importance and influence. The reader from those bands webpages will find The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Pixies, Dinosaur Jr., R.E.M., Miles Davis, Zeppelin, The Who, Neu!, Can, Joy Division, New Order, U2 and Afrika Bambaataa, not to mention the suggestions of genre: Shoegaze, Noise Pop, Dream Pop, Punk, Post-Punk, Jazz, Fusion, Jangle Pop, Space Rock, American Underground, Hardcore, Krautrock and Electro, from all of which most of modern music stems.

Once again, my point may be lost. As an introduction to things, Wikipedia is invaluable. As a detailed source of flawless information, perhaps not so much. Still, I worried that I would somehow mess this up. Why? Because, despite my academic learnings otherwise, I more or less trust Wikipedia in all its social goodness. I wouldn't want to destroy that for someone else, so even the smallest addition, despite it's flawless accuracy, is stressful. My worry now becomes that other people take it as seriously as I do. My real worry is that I know they don't.

What Exactly Happens When You Do the Google (from my perspective)?

I could be entirely wrong but here goes:

When a user accesses Google, during the initial transfer between the site and your machine, a cookie is loaded through the browser (assuming cookies are enabled) onto your HDD. This cookie contains information about both your browsing habits, your machines settings and any unique settings you want the website to load when you access it.

After the initial transfer, you sit at the Google homepage. When you type in your search term and hit search, the phrase is run through a database that Google maintains and updates regularly (not sure exactly how regularly, but I'm guessing hourly). The phrase is cross-referenced with phrases in websites around the internet. When the phrase hits a match, the match is added to your list of search results. I'm assuming the most popular websites on the internet are searched first and most often, thus allow Google to provide those websites near the top of their list. After the list is completed (at an insane speed, the site will list the time taken to complete the search), it is displayed to the user, after which they can continue on.

Probably totally wrong, but that's my guess.

Google's "Don't Be Evil" Motto

I have to admit, the motto "Don't Be Evil" is one of the strangest I've ever heard strictly for the fact that it actually doesn't say anything. If one reads the Google Code of Conduct, there isn't much surprise there. However, the actual motto itself is odd.

What exactly does "Don't Be Evil" mean (Google's explanation aside)? It certainly doesn't mean "Be Good". It doesn't mean "Don't be really bad". What exactly would qualify as an "evil" act? Aren't the ideas of good and evil ultimately subjective? One man's good is another's evil. A tax hike for some is good because it pays for social programs. It's evil to others because it causes them to lose their hard-earned dollars. Evil is a shifty term, one that will mean different things to different people, thus leaving a motto that doesn't actually say anything.

Is the invasion of privacy evil? If so, are cookies evil? Or are they a benefit that allows easier access to the web?

Is an attempt to control ideology and create hegemony evil? If so, is the specific manipulation of search results to promote certain ideas evil? Or is it a way to show more popular results over more obscure sites so you don't waste your time sifting through trash?

Are monopolies evil? If so, is the total control of a marketplace evil? Or is it just a result of Google consistently innovating and producing better products?

These are questions that will receive different answers from just about everyone you ask. So, how do we expect every Google employee to understand the meaning of a term that is so shift to us? Is it possible that the company keeps its employees so well informed and educated that there is not the gray area here? I would be surprised if that is the case.

Google, Cookies and Privacy

The privacy debate that continues on ad infinitum is certainly an interesting and timely one. In fact, I believe that the problem of privacy invasion will become one of the major mainstream discussion points of the early 21th century as more and more people educate themselves on some of the practices that websites use.

As to where I fall on the subject, more often than not, I side with the people here. I'm a believer that people should be able to what they chose, within the confines of the law, in private. It should not necessarily be public knowledge that your 45 year-old neighbor spends his evenings in a pink dress while watching Teletubbies, nor if your 15 year-old neighbor spends her time watching explicit videos. I disagree with large sections of the Patriot Act. I'm a firm believer in the freedom of speech and expression People should be free to act however they want in their own private space (and in most instances, in the public space as well). They should not be judged or labeled as a result. Yet, I'm not sure how I feel about cookies, as I believe, for the most part, that this is a privacy issue that gets too much attention.

While some may find it invasive that a company could potentially be looking at your browsing habits and as a result, catering their website to better fit your needs and desires, I find it convenient that the next time that I access the site, parts of it will be pre-loaded as I want it. Some worry that ESPN.com (or for the purposes of our discussion, Google) takes down some info about you to better serve you (and sell to you) the next time you visit the site. I don't. People often think that their actions are more important to massive companies than they actually are. Chances are, that if a cookie is placed on your machine by Amazon, Jeff Bezos isn't looking to use you to take over the world. It's probably so Amazon can give you those nifty recommendations the next time you stop by to check out the daily Gold Box sales. They may use some basic info about you to conduct some marketing. They probably aren't looking over your entire browsing history in order to see if you frequent adult oriented sites. Bezos could care less.

Still, I recognize the fear, the big brother mentality that accompanies this type of "harmless" cookie. I just don't buy it. It's something when a town places cameras at every intersection in town (hello, West Hartford!) and could feasibly track your cars every move (although once again, I'm thinking West Hartford has bigger issues on their mind than whether the white Prius driven by Kevin Simpson has passed over South Main Street yet. Is there a potential cause for concern here? Could cookies feasibly be manipulated to track your every move? Absolutely. Yet, my issues with privacy generally come with their inhibition of your everyday activities, when they get in the way of being able to live a normal life. But, when the "invasion of privacy" comes with faster load times, better website experiences and catered ads? I'll take my chances.

Who Exactly is Google's Client?

Colin posed this question last night and the more I think about it, the less I seem sure of an answer. Let's take a look at some possibilities:

1) The User- Google provides the search according to what you, the internet user, ask for.
2) The Sites Being Searched- Google provides the sites with an easy way for users to find it.
3) Advertisers- Google provides the platform for advertisers to get their message across.

I'm not even sure that these are all of the possible clients. Each have their own argument to go with them and each seem equally valid. What are some of the other clients that Google is invested in? Do they favor one over the other? Is the user really the main concern for Google or are they siding in a different way? I've got to admit that this question is really fascinating me. Previously, I had always thought that their primary client was me, the user. However, the sites that I'm searching for are being helped nearly as much, if not more so than I am. How else would I find obscure sites around the web? I'm really not sure.

Google: The New Microsoft?

This idea has been a long lingering one but if we're going to be discussing Google, it deserves a mention and a look. I think it's been more or less established and agreed upon that when Microsoft achieved total market domination, the quality of their operating systems (and products in general) took a hit. Rather than not resting on their laurels and continuing to push the products that made the company what it was then, Microsoft sat back and lost most of its steam. Windows XP ended up a decent product, but it took many service packs to get there. Vista was an unmitigated disaster, nearly destroying the Windows name in the process. Now, with Windows 7, which I haven't used (a converted-Mac user) but have heard very good things about, Microsoft may have started to feel the heat again and push out a quality product during its initial release, not 2 years down the road.

Where's the heat coming from? As far as I can tell, two places: the fine folks at Apple and our study for the week, Google. First, Apple is as innovative a company that exists today (yes, even more so than Google). In roughly the past decade, Apple has completed the following:

1) The creation of the iMac in 1998, which almost single-handedly helped the company survive.
2) Threw total game-changer #1 into the mix with the iPod in 2001, the same year they opened their first retail store.
3) Threw total game-changer #2 into the mix with the iPhone in 2007, which has revolutionized the cell phone industry and even made people question what is possible for a hand-held computer.
4) Launched the iTunes Music Store, legitimizing digital downloads in the process and creating what-is-now the largest music retailer in the United States and potentially putting traditional record stores out of business.
5)Has continually improved and perfected upon their own OS, Mac OS X, now in it's 7th iteration, Snow Leopard.

Google, on the other hand, has seemingly revolutionized everything we think about the internet. With their search engine, Google Maps, Gmail, Google News, etc, internet computing has been Google's bread and butter. In terms of software, very few companies can hold a candle to what Google has done since it's creation in late 1998. However, their story is eerily similar to Microsoft's. Apple is relatively safe from this as most of their innovation this decade has come from the creation of game-changing hardware and their acceptance of being a specialty producer, in which their users pay a premium for the product. Microsoft and Google on the other hand exist much more strongly on the software side of the equation, which leaves the question. Can Google continue to innovate for the mass-market when there is no one else really innovating alongside them? Microsoft launched Bing this year and while it has enjoyed a good dose of popularity, I believe that there are very few that believe it will unseat Google as the de-facto search engine of choice.

Is there anyone else out there producing a quality, innovative product that will appeal to the mass market and cut into Google's dominance? I'm not sure. While there are many highly qualified companies producing exciting and innovative work, few, if any, are achieving mainstream popularity and success. While that may seem like a good thing for Google now, it may seem like a bad thing for the users in another couple of years, when Google launches Google Vista, to the world's horror.

Facebook, Malls and Greens

I like Matt's thoughts on Facebook, especially his comparison of Facebook being most like a mall. I had never really thought of the site in this manner but given the time and consideration, I'm surprised at how much those ads seem to grab my attention. Now, I don't necessarily click on them but they certainly divert my eye at times when I'm clicking through the site. However, I'm not sure that the mall and town green need to be mutually exclusive or in some respects, if they are even inseperable today.

As society has become increasingly materialistic, the mall has become the defacto meeting place for people of all ages for all reasons. Some get together specifically to shop for a certain item. Others, to shop for the sake of shopping. Others (I'm thinking teens here) seem to get together at malls just because it's a place to get together and hang out. My friends and I did it as teens as the prospect and idea of walking around a mall seemed far better than sitting in a basement.

I can't remember the last time, if ever, my friends have ever decided to get together at a town green (and I lived in Boston for a couple of years, decidedly underutilizing the Common). This wasn't due to any aversion to the outdoors (as a group, we're fairly adventurous) or really, anything specific. However, we would go to the mall in order to shop, eat, get out of the house. My question is then, has the mall become the new town green? Does the Facebook-as-mall idea change the site's intent or potential at all? I'm not so sure. If people are now using the the more capitalistic mall instead of the town green to meet, who's to say that Facebook can't do the same?