Comment le débat entre les blogs qui sont du journalisme ou non ne fait pas de sens, car un blog n'est qu'un outil. Le contenu détermine le type de billet qui est traité.
20 years ago, Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web. For his next project, he's building a web for open, linked data that could do for numbers what the Web did for words, pictures, video: unlock our data and reframe the way we use it together.
Jane McGonigal décrit en conférence comment les jeux en réalité alternée peuvent canaliser les efforts des joueurs pour résoudre des problèmes de la vie réelle.
The vocal patterns parents everywhere tend to adopt during exchanges with infants and toddlers are marked by a higher-pitched tone, simplified grammar, and engaged, exaggerated enthusiasm. Though this talk is cloying to adult observers, babies can’t get enough of it. Not only that: One study showed that infants exposed to this interactive, emotionally responsive speech style at 11 months and 14 months knew twice as many words at age 2 as ones who weren’t exposed to it,” she writes.
Children learned the word when the teaching was not interrupted, but when the interaction was interrupted, they didn’t learn the word.
unwittingly likely to increase the bad behaviour and tantrums that youngsters often rely on to get attention
Perhaps more alarmingly, Christakis also points out that distracted parents put their children in danger.
"If somebody had run in and talked endlessly about their company, or tried to sell me something, my partner and i would have made our excuses and got another drink. It's no different on-line as it is off-line."
I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies.
Yahoo is saying "We understand
better than you how the world is organized, because we are trained professionals. So if you mistakenly think
that Books and Literature are entertainment, we'll put a little flag up
so we can set you right, but to see those links, you have to 'go' to
where they 'are'."
You don't have to have
just a few links, you could have a whole lot of links.
A URL can only appear in three places.
That's the Yahoo rule.
They missed the end of this progression,
which is that, if you've got enough links, you don't need the
hierarchy anymore. There is no shelf. There is no file system. The
links alone are enough.
One reason Google was adopted so quickly when it came along is
that Google understood there is no shelf, and that there is no file
system. Google can decide what goes with what after hearing from the user, rather than trying to predict in
advance what it is you need to know.
Laisser les usagers se faire leur langage et le tagger à leur façon puis, en tant que Google, prendre cette info et l'utiliser pour créer une ''taxonomie''.
"Well, that's going to be a useful
category, we should encode that in advance."
They point to the signal loss from the fact that
users, although they use these three different labels, are talking
about the same thing.
You can also turn that list around. You can say "Here are some characteristics where ontological classification doesn't work well":
Domain
Large corpus
No formal categories
Unstable entities
Unrestricted entities
No clear edges
Participants
Uncoordinated users
Amateur users
Naive catalogers
No Authority
The other big problem is that predicting the future turns out to be hard, and yet any classification system meant to be stable over time puts the categorizer in the position of fortune teller.
Here is del.icio.us, Joshua Shachter's social bookmarking service. It's for people who are keeping track of their URLs for themselves, but who are willing to share globally a view of what they're doing, creating an aggregate view of all users' bookmarks, as well as a personal view for each user.
chouette description concrète de l'utilisation de del.icio.us!
" If you find a way to make it valuable to individuals to tag their stuff, you'll generate a lot more data about any given object than if you pay a professional to tag it once and only once.
Tags are simply labels for URLs, selected to help the user in later retrieval of those URLs. Tags have the additional effect of grouping related URLs together. There is no fixed set of categories or officially approved choices. You can use words, acronyms, numbers, whatever makes sense to you, without regard for anyone else's needs, interests, or requirements.
The chart shows a great variability in tagging strategies among the various users.
But this is what organization looks like when you turn it over to the users -- many different strategies, each of which works in its own context, but which can also be merged.
We are moving away from binary categorization -- books either are or are not entertainment
But they either had no way of reflecting that debate or they decided not to expose it to the users. What instead happened was it became an all-or-nothing categorization, "This is entertainment, this is not entertainment." We're moving away from that sort of absolute declaration, and towards being able to roll up this kind of value by observing how people handle it in practice.
What you do instead is you try to find ways that the individual sense-making can roll up to something which is of value in aggregate, but you do it without an ontological goal.
you believe that we make sense of the world, if we are, from a bunch of different points of view, applying some kind of sense to the world
''we make sens of the world together thru what's worth aggregating'' = not ontology
we're going to be able to build alternate organizational systems, systems that, like the Web itself, do a better job of letting individuals create value for one another, often without realizing it.
If you think
the movies and cinema people were going to have a fight, wait til you
get the queer politics and homosexual agenda people in the same room.
Un article de Clay Shirky qui nous donne son analyse de l'Ontologie, un point de vue intéressant sur les différentes façons de classer l'information sur le Web.
Le document donne un bon premier tour d'horizon du sujet "Social bookmarking".
La section "Bringing it all together…" m'a éclairé sur la façon de rassenbler l'ensemble de mes signets sociaux.
sociaux permet de jauger l’intérêt des internautes pour une page web donnée.
Vrai et faux. En fait, il ne donne généralement que de l’information concernant sa communauté d’utilisateurs, qui constitue une fraction de l’ensemble des internautes.
6. Il est mal vu de reprendre un lien déjà retenu par un autre utilisateur pour le publier.
Faux. En fait, l’utilisateur sera vraisemblablement content de trouver quelqu’un qui partage l’un de ses intérêts !
7. Les signets sociaux ont fait leur entrée dans certaines entreprises.
Vrai. La firme IBM se sert des signets sociaux depuis 2005.
Seeing AI est une application gratuite développée par Microsoft et disponible sur l'App Store. Conçu pour la communauté des mal voyants, ce projet de recherche exploite le pouvoir de l'intelligence artificielle pour décrire les personnes, le texte et les objets détectés par la caméra de l'appareil.