You search for anything on Google and its secret algorithm does a bunch of calculations, taking in factors unknown, and then it inevitably spits out the same site as one of its top five non-sponspored links, Wikipedia. This has been useful in cementing Wikipedia’s place as the predominant source for knowledge. Google noticed how many people visit Wikipedia and was secretly working out a way to capitalize on that traffic. At least it was secret, until Thursday when they announced the creation of their own knowledge database using a tool called knol.
A knol is drastically different from a wiki, but it has the same goal of getting information about a specific topic to as many people as possible. Knol is really little more than a glorified webpage template. Every knol has the same format and anyone will be capable of creating one. There are a few major differences between knols and wikis. Only the creator can edit a knol, but others can submit recommendations. Multiple knols can be created for a topic. Each knol features prominently who the creator is. The creator can choose to place Adsense ads on the knol with revenue being shared between Google and the creator.
The theory behind this move is that many people will create knols both to get information on the internet and to make a little money for their effort. Then people will judge the knols based upon the content and who wrote them. Those that hold better knowledge will rise in popularity getting better rankings on Google searches. In addition, since a knol is not anonymous, it will be acceptable to cite it as a source (though you should probably make sure that the creator is worthy of a citation before you put it in your term paper). I also wonder if the decision was partially fueled by Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikiepdia) dedicating his energy to creating Search Wikia, a direct rival to Google’s flagship product.
The counterargument is that you are monetizing knowledge. The facts no longer matter nor does taking a neutral stand point. Instead, you want to write what the most people want to read to increase traffic and ad revenue. This probably will mean writing polarizing articles often using information that is not that reliable. If you want to see what could happen when you monetize facts, turn on Fox News.
I like to give Google the benefit of the doubt, because their products are usually well executed and they do not often release a product that do not believe is at least its rivals’ equal. I am still find it hard to believe that this knol project will take off. The Wikipedia supporters are fanatical in their devotion. They like that it is nonprofit and community driven. I do believe that both knol and Wikipedia can coexist with knol having numerous pages written by prominent figures within their respective fields of study and Wikipedia providing general knowledge.
My safe prediction: Wikipedia will continue to be the predominant encyclopedia, but knol will find a nitch in providing content on more complicated subjects.
My long shot prediction: Larry Sanger’s (estranged co-founder of Wikipedia) current project, Citizendium (essentially a hybrid of Wikipedia and knol where experts can approve community written articles), will become the main internet encyclopedia during the battle between Wikiepdia and knol.
To read more about Wikipedia’s recent troubles read about the ban and the secret mailing list.
I finally have the Socrates and Descartes’ designs up and ready to go. I decided to take a different approach with these ones for the time being and put them up on Cafe Press. While this means that they are not the high quality American Apparel shirts you all know and love, Cafe Press has improved their quality over the years. It also gives you the opportunity to buy a few other products as well (buttons, posters, bags). I still dream of the day that I will be able working hard printing shirts on my own silkscreen machine, assisted by my diligent team of helper monkeys, but for now this will have to remain a dream.
Act quickly and you may even be able to get your shirts delivered before Christmas! W00t!
There is a memorable scene in Back to the Future 2 where Michael J. Fox is walking down the street in the future and a hologram of Shark tries to eat him. This causes him to cower in fear for his life. It turns out that the shark was just an advertisement for the newest installation o the Jaws series. Fortunately, we are yet to see this type of advertising, however there is a new form of advertising in New York City that has the potential to be far worse. Holosonic has a developed a way to create an “audio spotlight” from a billboard that is capable of targeting messages to specific people. The signal is precise enough that the signal can be broadcast to only one person, making it seem like the voice is within the listener’s head. This has proved especially effective when promoting an A&E show about ghosts.
Holosonic argues that the technology is beneficial, because it reduces noise pollution (and they said that it usually would not be that targeted). That may be true for those not hearing the message, but I can only imagine how horrible this could get. I have no idea how loud the messages are broadcast, but if it is anything above a whisper, then I see this quickly becoming a problem. In large cities, we might start getting bombarded by multiple ads while walking down a downtown street. On top of that, if this technology becomes popular, it could get horribly overwhelming to have numerous, simultaneous ads broadcast to you. There is potential that this could lead to an escalating war resulting in louder and louder “audio spotlights”. I hope that this advertising system becomes quickly regulated, but part of me does want to head to New York to hear the ghosts.
Today, I was perusing the Economist online, and they had an interesting column on robots in Japan. The main focus of the article was on the incredible advances that robots were making in Japan. It featured a cool, storm trooperesque, violin playing robot (Wisconsin still holds the record for the largest animatronic orchestra). The article also talked about how robots are taking on jobs such as receptionists as face recognition ability gets better. Combine that with Korea’s previous announcement earlier this year that they are building Robot Land and things are getting pretty interesting in Asia.
All of that is impressive, but the most interesting part of the article has to do with how the Japanese view robots. Here in America, as in most of the world, robots are seen as a tool and nothing more. Apparently, Japanese culture, built upon the Shinto faith, believe that everything has an inherent spirit (Kami). As the objects become closer and closer to being human like, so does the spirit within the object. This strikes most Westerners as a bit bizarre, but it also seems to make a certain amount of logical sense. The economist argues that it is this cultural affinity for objects that has led the Japanese to make more, better humanoid robots. If you look at the depictions of robots in the media, these prejudices seem to be largely confirmed. In America, Kyle Reese is sent to stop the evil Terminator. Robots created the Matrix. RoboCop (with a human brain) battles ED-209. In Japan, Robots are often the heroes. Astro Boy is the best example of this theme, but doing a google search for Japanese robot anime brings up numerous more examples. Honestly, the only example of hero robots I can think of in America are Iron Giant, A.I., and Transformers (I don’t count the Gobots). The plot of Iron Giant and A.I. involve humans seeking to destroy the misunderstood robots. Transformers is clearly capitalizing on the exceedingly popular Japanese animes.
What does this mean? It means that the robots will probably continue to be developed in entirely different veins in Japan and the West. Perhaps by building robots built to be best for their specific function with no concern for human appearance, Western robots will be more efficient and affordable giving the economy here a nice boost. On the other hand, maybe humanoid robots will prove to be far more useful in the long run. They certainly tend to have a more polished look. At least, we know that if the robots become sentient and decide to attack their creators, we know which group will be more prepared for the ensuing struggle. Until then, I am thinking about learning Korean so I can be greeted by Japanese robots in Robot Land (I assume it will have the best theme park ever with moving sidewalks and such).
Last weekend I wrote about some New Jersey Schools’ decisions to ban Wikipedia. It turns out that it was the least of Wikipedia’s worries. What has always made Wikipedia such a powerful tool is the dedication of its editors to both submit new content and edit/fact check material already out there. It is the devotion of these volunteers that has made the website so wonderfully successful. There is more information on Wikipedia than any physical encyclopedia and it’s far easier to navigate than other large databases of knowledge, such as the Library of Congress. The problems start when this network of editors starts to be less dedicated either through corruption or apathy. Editors have always been able to keep each other in check to ensure, in my opinion, a surprisingly good level of nonpartisan writing (it is admittedly skewed toward the young, middle class, male demographic). The problems start if the network of editors becomes too small or a group of editors decides to overthrow the rest of them.
The Register, the British based technology focused website, decided this week to live up to its tagline by investigating the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. They were not impressed by what they found. First, came the revelation that an elite core of administrators had a secret mailing list that they used to enforce their view point. One of the core administrators made the mistake of using the list to try and ban a longtime editor, which resulted in another core administrator revealing the existence of the list in an act of protest. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s founder, blew off the incident by pointing out that the banned editor was reinstated just over an hour after being banned. However, it is hard to say if this reinstatement would have occurred without the rogue administrator taking drastic action or how often and when has the list been used in the past.
To add to the attack, The Register, published another lengthy article today detailing a battle between Overstock.com and Wikipedia, an unlikely rivalry. The rivalry itself is not the main issue (the CEO and some high profile members of Overstock are large, outspoken rivals of certain Wall Street practices, and some high profile administrators on Wikipedia disagree), but the speed and manner in which Wikipedia banned contributors is a concern. First, in an attempt to prohibit an Overstock employee, Wikipedia blocked anyone from his ISP from editing Wikipedia articles, in this case around a 1000 people. Wikipedia was entirely unapologetic to the innocent bystanders that were affected. Then a major administrator (though apparently not part of the core group) made a minor edit to one of the articles involved in the Overstock rivalry. He was quickly banned from Wikipedia, despite being the seventh most prolific editor on the site. He was reinstated 24 hours later, but this punishment still seems pretty severe for a site that wants its editors to feel comfortable making edits with the knowledge that mistakes are fixed relatively quickly by other editors.
Both of these articles point out the problem of a controlling group growing too powerful and enforcing their views on Wikipedia entries. With the large base of editors that exist at this time, the group probably only has the ability to significantly influence a relatively minor number of articles without causing too much of a commotion, creating the possibility of a mutiny. The bigger problem is that these specific instances of control are going to be a deterrent to the work of other volunteer editors of Wikipedia. It is the numerous, diverse editors that keep any groups from gaining too much control, introducing unacceptable levels of bias. This is the major threat facing Wikipedia at this time. No one wants to put in the effort of writing articles, only to be insulted by being banned, or to think that their work will be ignored if it doesn’t match the ideology of a few top level administrators.
Most likely this whole issue will blow over and Wikipedia will continue growing as it has over the last few years. Then again, maybe the New Jersey librarian will be proven correct, and Wikipedia will become an unreliable reference. Unless this issue becomes a national story, I do not see Wikipedia making drastic changes to its structure at this time. This does seem to be the first major weakness (other than the authenticity of user submitted content) I have seen in Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia’s declared stance of “Wikipedia is not a democracy, and its governance can be inconsistent” will be its Achilles’ Heel. In any case, I know that I will be monitoring the Wikipedia article on The Register to see what shows up.
“But until women evolve the ability to move objects telepathically–
and they will–physical strength remains a primary utility.
Here’s to brute strength then.“
That excerpt is from the opening dialogue of the darkly funny 2002 film, Roger Dodger. As time goes on, it seems the film was more prophetic than it probably intended. There are more women in undergraduate programs than men. According to the same report, even more women are graduating from college than men. The only area that men have been able to hold onto their advantage over women is in math and science. That is until now…
The New York Times has reported that women have swept top honors in the Siemens competition in math, science, and technology. It seems that the women are finally overcoming this last academic barrier to reach parity with men. In fact, the situation is looking pretty dire for men. The quick rise of women, the ability ratios were almost entirely skewed towards males in the 1950’s, is now not only an awe inspiring achievement, but also a cause for concern. Why are men falling behind women? The feminist movement was aiming to create equality between men and women, not female superiority. Has the recent changes been caused entirely by improvements in educating women, or has it been also partially caused by not sufficiently focusing on male education?
I am not suggesting that men are facing discrimination in the same manner that women have been forced to endure for so long. Men still face huge advantages economically, by having better pay and better jobs (the interesting data is at the end of the article). But even these areas are becoming closer to equality (which is a good thing). But the education statistics are a little unsettling. I am yet to read one report of these statistics leveling off. If they do not balance out soon, then I imagine there will be a backlash against the achievements made by women. If women are overwhelming surpassing men in academics, they may do the same in the economic arena as well. The 21st century may very well be defined by a massive gender war. Before it is all over, as Roger pointed out, men may be left with only their primary utility. Here’s to brute strength!
Today the Supreme Court heard a case on whether or not pharmaceutical companies should be held liable for products that the FDA has approved as safe. The specific case involves a patient that was injured during surgery when the FDA approved balloon catheter malfunctioned. The Supreme Court will hear another case in February concerning an FDA approved diabetes drug that led to injuries; the drug is no longer FDA approved. These cases sound like they could be a scenario in an introduction to medical ethics course. The plaintiffs hope to be awarded settlements for the pain and trauma, while the pharmaceutical companies hope to be protected from paying any damages.
The patient’s argument is pretty self-evident, so it is more interesting to look at the pharmaceutical company’s case. They are arguing that the FDA was created to ensure that all approved treatments are safe for patients. If the treatment has been proven by the government to be safe for patient use, then the pharmaceutical company should not be held liable for problems arising from the drugs. While there is some merit to this argument, it is by no means airtight. A comparable situation is if the EPA gives a new electronics product, its Energy Star for being energy efficient. If the product was then found defective and not as energy efficient as the product initially appeared to be, most people would agree that the customer has the right to complain and return the product to the manufacturer or retailer. If harm came from the fact that the product was not what it claimed to be, then that person would probably be entitled compensation from the manufacturer.
Instead, the pharmaceutical companies are trying make it seem that they are the victim of overly zealous lawyers. They argue, somewhat truthfully, that frivolous lawsuits are the cause of rising medical costs that have become a major problem in the US. The pharmaceutical company’s believe that if they are made exempt from these lawsuits, after their products have been approved by the FDA, then they will be able to lower the cost of products and spend more money on researching new, better drugs.
Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical companies appear to live in a theoretical world that will not work as they seem to think it will. First, rising medical costs is far more complicated than simply the effect of lawsuits against medical companies. Next, protecting the companies from litigation will primarily benefit them, not the publics. The FDA is bound to make mistakes, even if it is adequately funded. It is not realistic that the FDA should be able to completely understand a drug and all of its potential short and long term side effects. This is especially the case with long term side effects, because it would take far too long for treatments to be approved for general use. Making this extra complicated, would be that there would be huge benefits for the drug company to falsify studies to make their treatment appear safer and more effective. This was the problem with the memorable Vioxx scandal. If applicable, both the drug company and the FDA should be held accountable when an approved product causes unnecessary harm.
If the Supreme Court does decide that FDA approval means that the drug developers cannot be sued, then I hope that the role of the FDA is drastically changed. The FDA will need to take on more of an enforcement role. Instead of the pharmaceutical companies being liable for injury from approved drugs, the FDA will need to be held liable for wrongfully approving unsafe drugs. The FDA will then need to pass on the costs of these liabilities, if possible, to the pharmaceutical companies by punishing them if they were negligent during the approval process. If carried out correctly, this may not be a bad situation since it will provide a centralized process of dealing with injuries from unsafe drugs. The worst situation would be if either the victims are left without any means of being compensated for their troubles or if the tax payers are forced to pay the damage caused by unsafe drugs. Either way, I do not think that ambulance chasing lawyers need to be too worried about this case.
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences recently published an interesting article concerning nerve regeneration of amputees. Scientists attached the severed nerves of amputees to their chest muscles. To the delight of the scientists and the patients, the nerves regenerated their endings, so that the patients felt sensations on their chest as if they belonged to their severed limbs. Even more impressive is that the patients’ nerves managed to remain separate from the chest muscles, allowing the patients to distinguish the feeling of being touched in the chest and the phantom limb simultaneously. The scientists hope to eventually be able to place regenerated nerve endings onto prosthetic limbs. This will greatly enhance the mobility of the amputees.
The research also raises the question of identity. What constitutes a person’s self? Is it, as Locke suggested, our memories that define who we are. Or was Descartes correct in arguing that the mind and the body are separate, but our identity is within the domain of the mind. Perhaps, Spinoza was right in suggesting that the mind and the body are two congruent depictions of one identity. I am not sure how right any of these theories are. We still think of Alzheimer patients as being the same person they were before they lost their memory. Scientific advances has shown that the body, especially the brain, plays a large role on mind. The separate depictions of the same identity is neat little concept, but lacks the ability of being tested. I am yet to hear of a theory that is both logical and follows the feeling that most people already have on the topic. These questions of identity will become crucial when people become significantly artificial in nature. Will these cyborgs be given the same rights and protections as other people? If artificial intelligence is developed, will these beings be protected under the law?
As we develop more ways to artificially recreate sensations we are moving closer to artificial life. At first, we will develop the relatively uncontroversial sensation to the limbs, but even this presents complications. Will these patients be allowed to participate in sports? The American Disabilities Act would seem to suggest that they would. Would they still be allowed if the artificial limbs conveyed advantages over those lacking prosthetics? What happens when other parts also become artificial? At this point, many of the major organs, including the heart, can be replaced with mechanical devices. It does not seem that unrealistic that we could soon have an entirely artificial being powered by a brain and its nervous system. When we do, we will finally have reached the age of cyborgs. With the possibility of artificial intelligence, the world may quickly become a different place. It is impossible at this point to predict how far this technology will develop, but I only wonder if these cyborgs will finally make Detroit a safe place to live.
Last week researchers in Wisconsin and Japan independently announced that they created stem cells from adults that acted very similar to embryonic stem cells. Researchers and doctors jumped with joy at the discovery, since they would provide the medical benefits of the embryonic stem cells without all the complications of the debate over the morality of the manner in which embryonic stem cells are attained. This enthusiasm was quickly dampened when it was realized that the new stem cells relied upon the use of a gene that is a known carcinogenic. The new stem cells would be useless if the transplant recipients wound up getting cancer through the treatments.
Friday, the same team of researchers in Japan announced that they had revised their technique to avoid the use of the carcinogenic gene. This is an amazing achievement for medical science. More tests need to be carried out, but if these new stem cells have potential anywhere near the levels that embryonic stem cells have been hyped to be capable of then we could be seeing huge advances medically. Scientists have argued for years about the untapped potential of the embryonic stem cell. Now, if these new stem cells are comparable to the embryonic variety and relatively easy to acquire, these scientists will be put to the test to attain the achievements that they have hypothesized.
Before I get too carried away, it is important to point out that the new stem cells are heavily modified, and it is not clear how well they will adapt to the body of the recipient. It is possible that there are many unforeseeable consequences with the use of the cells. Speaking about the manner in which the new stem cells are developed, one of the researchers even said that “I don’t think the FDA would allow us to use these virally modified cells.” More research needs to be put towards these new cells before they can be used in standard medical practice, but there is clearly potential in these new stem cells. Fortunately, by avoiding the controversy of the embryonic stem cells, the researchers should be able to get the support that they need to carry out this research.
I have a feeling that there will soon be quite a few headlines about the miraculous achievements of stem cells. This time these articles will not be filled with caveats about the moral implications of the use of the treatments. We shall finally see if stem cells can live up to their decade long hype.
The philosophical zombie has made frequent appearances in modern philosophy, especially concerning physicalism. While there are plenty of arguments for whether these zombies are or are not relevant, these beings have remained entirely within the domain of the hypothetical. That may be changing soon.
Nature.com has recently posted an article discussing wasps that turn cockroaches into zombies. The wasps stun the cockroaches by stinging them, then inject a chemical directly into the brain of the helpless cockroaches. The wasp then walks the cockroach calmly into the wasp’s nest where it is consumed without any fight. Scientists apparently do not really understand how the wasps pull off this amazing feat, but it is still impressive. It makes me wonder if maybe there is some merit to the Haitian urban legend of Voodoo powder that can create the living dead. How long until someone decides it is a good idea to create an army of zombies? When they do, will Will Smith be able to save the world?
