![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now here's a Forest Gump moment, podcast was chosen word of the year by the editors of the New Oxford American Dictionary. "Podcast was considered for inclusion last year, but we found that not enough people were using it, or were even familiar with the concept. This year it's a completely different story. The word has finally caught up with the rest of the iPod phenomenon."  New Flickr set: In December 2003, a few Berkman-Thursday people went up to New Hampshire to see Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman campaign.  
What Jeff Jarvis said. "Use SSE young man." Cooolyo!  Four years ago today: "As an alpha male, in a society that thinks we're the problem, it's nice to see another alpha male gain total acceptance in his alpha-ness."  Dan Farber reports from When 2.0. 
Andrew Hargadon: "From the glass house they live in, the NYT editorial staff should be much more careful about throwing stones at online reference material."  News.com: "Can another Google still emerge? Never say never. But industry experts say the barrier to entry gets higher as the big companies become more."  Dan Fost: Salon marks 10 years on Internet.  The Chronicle piece from yesterday was corrected per my comment. Excellent. 
Technorati's posts that are tagged "lesblogs" which the mind keeps wanting to parse as "lesbians." Also just heard about a conference today at Stanford, hosted by Esther Dyson, called When 2.0. This is where Google's calendar is rumored to be rolled out. Random thought: Someone ought to do a feed of the international circuit of industry conferences. Or maybe a calendar of them. Heh. BTW, don't confuse When with Where 2.0, which was an O'Reilly conference in June in SF. Of course now we're all waiting for What 2.0, and then we can roll around to the 3.0's. Hi John -- I'm writing to you today as the Executive Director at Berkman. I wonder if you've been following the whole mess over Wikipedia and podcasting over the last few days. I think basically it's going to turn out to be a good thing that it happened, because we can now perhaps involve some serious academics in the process, for touchy subjects like podcasting, where all the principals are alive and active, and some have commercial interests, and some of them start abusing the Wikipedia for those commercial interests. There's an email being circulated among some of the people involved in podcasting that we all work with a historian to get the accurate story published and perhaps on Wikipedia. I think this is one level too involved, I shouldn't be part of the process of deciding even who the historian is, and I don't think there should be a single "official" historian that's approved of by anyone in particular. Then what's next, Adam's official historian, and my official historian? It could get out of hand quickly, and of course whoever we approve of could be attacked simply because he or she was approved of. So, as far as I know you don't have anything to do with the development of podcasting. What do you think is a good approach for this? Is this something that perhaps Berkman would like to take a role in? Do you have a conflict because I was a fellow there and Wales is one now? Do you have any thoughts on other people I might send such an email to? Dave
|
![]() ![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© Copyright 1997-2005 Dave Winer. The picture at the top of the page may change from time to time. Previous graphics are archived. Previous/Next |