Comments on: In the eye of the beholder http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/ Cautious web criticism Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:36:44 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Violet Vernon http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/comment-page-1/#comment-2464 Violet Vernon Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:02:48 +0000 http://akahele.org/?p=267#comment-2464 If I had a nickel for every time I came to akahele.org! Great read! If I had a nickel for every time I came to akahele.org! Great read!

]]> By: Paul Wehage http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/comment-page-1/#comment-260 Paul Wehage Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:35:19 +0000 http://akahele.org/?p=267#comment-260 Well, Mr. Awbrey, why don't you write a piece about what should be happening? We're going to be opening up to other contributors pretty soon... Well, Mr. Awbrey, why don’t you write a piece about what should be happening? We’re going to be opening up to other contributors pretty soon…

]]> By: Jon Awbrey http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/comment-page-1/#comment-258 Jon Awbrey Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:44:31 +0000 http://akahele.org/?p=267#comment-258 Re: "An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics." Observation of the dynamics is necessary to form a fair hypothesis about the intent. Just how long do you plan on staring at this particular cobra before you do that? Re: “An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.”

Observation of the dynamics is necessary to form a fair hypothesis about the intent.

Just how long do you plan on staring at this particular cobra before you do that?

]]> By: Paul Wehage http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/comment-page-1/#comment-257 Paul Wehage Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:29:21 +0000 http://akahele.org/?p=267#comment-257 Shouldn't one first try to examine the underlying patterns and reactions to THE ABSURD in order to find the underlying meaning in all of this? If you haven't defined the problem, you certainly can't solve it. An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics. Shouldn’t one first try to examine the underlying patterns and reactions to THE ABSURD in order to find the underlying meaning in all of this? If you haven’t defined the problem, you certainly can’t solve it. An examination of intent seems to be necessary in understanding the dynamics.

]]> By: Jon Awbrey http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/comment-page-1/#comment-256 Jon Awbrey Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:06:35 +0000 http://akahele.org/?p=267#comment-256 It appears that Akahele has quickly, all too quickly reached that old Kierkegaardian Either-Or — it will have to choose Either the response of the conversional aesthete, running the mill from effete to hysterical, Or it will have to convert the moral outrage that is our due into the concerted action that it will take to ameliorate, not celebrate the Absurd. It appears that Akahele has quickly, all too quickly reached that old Kierkegaardian Either-Or — it will have to choose Either the response of the conversional aesthete, running the mill from effete to hysterical, Or it will have to convert the moral outrage that is our due into the concerted action that it will take to ameliorate, not celebrate the Absurd.

]]> By: Emperor http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/comment-page-1/#comment-248 Emperor Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:33:46 +0000 http://akahele.org/?p=267#comment-248 Ah the infamous electric knife, with "cheeto-colored beaver teeth". Good times. Speaking of trolling, readers might be interested in the SureFire M6 Guardian article, and Jimmy Wales' response to the creation of the article. He titles it, "A little advice from an Internet old timer about trolls". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASureFire_M6_Guardian&diff=177094663&oldid=177092001 Ah the infamous electric knife, with “cheeto-colored beaver teeth”. Good times.

Speaking of trolling, readers might be interested in the SureFire M6 Guardian article, and Jimmy Wales’ response to the creation of the article. He titles it, “A little advice from an Internet old timer about trolls”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASureFire_M6_Guardian&diff=177094663&oldid=177092001

]]> By: Barry Kort http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/comment-page-1/#comment-246 Barry Kort Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:59:54 +0000 http://akahele.org/?p=267#comment-246 There are two or three alternative venues that can be used for a serious round-table discussion. There are two or three alternative venues that can be used for a serious round-table discussion.

]]> By: Nihiltres http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/comment-page-1/#comment-240 Nihiltres Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:14:36 +0000 http://akahele.org/?p=267#comment-240 My previous comment might make less sense than I thought it did, especially in the light of the comments I missed by leaving the window open for a long time. :/ I find the responses interesting, (and indeed I acknowledge that you're right about the importance of a theory of mind, though I want to point out that it's not black-and-white) and think it would be worthwhile to continue this conversation in a better forum than a blog comment system. Perhaps I'll get around to registering an account on Wikipedia Review; while I dislike the atmosphere there, if discussion there could produce ideas to improve Wikipedia without sacrificing its nature*, it would be constructive. *that is, sacrificing those elements which are arguably strengths of Wikipedia, such as open editing. Nupedia's already been proven to not work. My previous comment might make less sense than I thought it did, especially in the light of the comments I missed by leaving the window open for a long time. :/

I find the responses interesting, (and indeed I acknowledge that you’re right about the importance of a theory of mind, though I want to point out that it’s not black-and-white) and think it would be worthwhile to continue this conversation in a better forum than a blog comment system.

Perhaps I’ll get around to registering an account on Wikipedia Review; while I dislike the atmosphere there, if discussion there could produce ideas to improve Wikipedia without sacrificing its nature*, it would be constructive.

*that is, sacrificing those elements which are arguably strengths of Wikipedia, such as open editing. Nupedia’s already been proven to not work.

]]> By: Nihiltres http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/comment-page-1/#comment-238 Nihiltres Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:22:43 +0000 http://akahele.org/?p=267#comment-238 Rather, I think it is one's responsibility to not rip the chicken from the person's head and cook them something like in that picture I found so amusing above. Instead, perhaps merely holding up a mirror will do the trick—if it turns out that the chicken is a pet by the name of Fedora… :) Rather, I think it is one’s responsibility to not rip the chicken from the person’s head and cook them something like in that picture I found so amusing above. Instead, perhaps merely holding up a mirror will do the trick—if it turns out that the chicken is a pet by the name of Fedora… :)

]]> By: Barry Kort http://akahele.org/2009/03/in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/comment-page-1/#comment-237 Barry Kort Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:59:39 +0000 http://akahele.org/?p=267#comment-237 <i>"What’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?"</i> The first thing to do is to verify the hypothesis that an edit is "designed to be disruptive." Can you tell me how you establish a reliable <i>theory of mind</i> regarding another editor's intentions? However, if one is disturbed or upset by an unexpected edit, a reasonable way to react is to 1) candidly disclose that one is surprised, disturbed, or upset, 2) inquire if that was the intended reaction, and 3) inquire further as to the editor's intended purpose. It occurs to me that jumping to a haphazard conclusion about another editor's intentions is a classic recipe for absurdist drama. “What’s a reasonable way of dealing with edits designed to be disruptive? What do you suggest is the proper way to react?”

The first thing to do is to verify the hypothesis that an edit is “designed to be disruptive.” Can you tell me how you establish a reliable theory of mind regarding another editor’s intentions?

However, if one is disturbed or upset by an unexpected edit, a reasonable way to react is to 1) candidly disclose that one is surprised, disturbed, or upset, 2) inquire if that was the intended reaction, and 3) inquire further as to the editor’s intended purpose.

It occurs to me that jumping to a haphazard conclusion about another editor’s intentions is a classic recipe for absurdist drama.

]]>