Stephen Dubner, over at the Freakonomics blog, is pointing out that The New Yorker has issued a correction to an article about Wikipedia from last summer. The article talked to one of Wikipedia’s site administrators and contributors, who goes by the name Essjay. The article claimed that Essjay was a tenured professor of religion at a private university, who had a Ph.D. in theology. However, the correction notes that Essjay is really a 24-year-old who has no advanced degrees and has never taught. This is getting some attention from the usual Wikipedia haters, suggesting that this is somehow proof of the problems with Wikipedia. However, that seems incredibly backwards. It actually highlights the reverse. It shows the fallibility of The New Yorker — a publication known as one of the few media outlets that still does serious fact checking, but apparently was not able to verify the identity of this individual. If anything, this highlights the fact that the so-called “professionals” often make mistakes too. Also, while mistakes in Wikipedia are a lot more easily correctable, it’s a bit of a process to correct this kind of mistake in The New Yorker — which is why it’s now getting attention.
The whole point of the Wikipedia model is that it doesn’t rely on the credibility of any one contributor to get its facts right. If one contributor doesn’t do his homework or outright makes things up, there will be a hundred other users visiting the page, at least one of whom is likely to notice the error. So it’s downright bizarre to fault Wikipedia for failing to engage in the kind of fact-checking that it has always explicitly disclaimed doing.
The video is 16 seconds long. Kareem’s face flashes by during the first few seconds. As he is being escorted toward the prisoners’ truck, you can hear people shouting out in Arabic, “Allahu akbar wa li Allah al-hamd!” (English: “Allah is the greatest, and to Allah we praise!”. This chorus was lead by extremist prosecuting lawyer Mohamed Dawoud, who in a previous court session told The Associated Press: “I am on a jihad here … If we leave the likes of him [Kareem] without punishment, it will be like a fire that consumes everything.” At 00:09, Kareem disappears into the truck and gets out of sight, and you can then hear him getting hit, which is followed by a painful scream (as was previously confirmed by The Associated Press). Ana 7orr also confirms noticing that, as Kareem left the court, his face was red with beating marks.
Paul Kouroupas, a lobbyist for Global Crossing, makes a good point about network neutrality:
Why would government agencies that have historically shown a preference for the incumbent interest over the public interest all of the sudden get it right with net neutrality? Isn’t it more likely that these agencies will favor the incumbent interests when they adopt regulations implementing a vague Congressional statute? (And you know it is going to be vague because it has to be the subject of compromise in order to garner enough votes.) And won’t this lead to protracted litigation before several layers of federal courts? And don’t the Bell Companies hold the advantage in resources for this sort of war of attrition? After all, AT&T has the legal, regulatory, and political resources of the former SBC, Pacific Bell, Ameritech, SNET, AT&T and BellSouth. For those of us who remember the CLEC wars of the 1990s, any one of these former companies was a formidable foe. Now all of those resources sit under the control of one company! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how this movie ends.
Obviously, anything a lobbyist says should be taken with a grain of salt. An interesting question is how one would apply Matt Yglesias’s “vulgar Marxist” method of political analysis to GC’s stance. In a nutshell, Matt’s theory (which he expands on here) is that when we’re unsure about the details of a complex policy issue, we should line up with the companies whose interests are most likely to be aligned with our own.
Developing one of the most important ideas of the 20th century, Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek attacked socialist planning on the grounds that no planner could possibly obtain the “dispersed bits” of information held by individual members of society. Hayek insisted that the knowledge of individuals, taken as a whole, is far greater than that of any commission or board, however diligent and expert. The magic of the system of prices and of economic markets is that they incorporate a great deal of diffuse knowledge.
Wikipedia’s entries are not exactly prices, but they do aggregate the widely dispersed information of countless volunteer writers and editors. In this respect, Wikipedia is merely one of many experiments in aggregating knowledge and creativity, that have been made possible by new technologies.
I’ve previously covered Tim Wu’s excellent paper making a similar point in greater depth.
Tech Policy Weekly from the Technology Liberation Front is a weekly podcast about technology policy from TLF’s learned band of contributors. The shows’s panelists this week are Jerry Brito, Tim Lee, Adam Thierer, and Jim harper. Topics include,
The REAL ID Act gets hot in the states and in Washington
Rep. Rick Boucher introduces a watered-down copyright fair use bill
the FCC slaps it largest fine ever on Spanish-language broadcaster Univision
There are several ways to listen to the TLF Podcast. You can press play on the player below to listen right now, or download the MP3 file. You can also subscribe to the podcast by clicking on the button for your preferred service. And do us a favor, Digg this podcast!
The Department of Homeland Security issued regulations to implement the REAL ID Act today. Well, it issued regulations to delay implementation, anyway. The regs really don’t explain anything in this fundamentally flawed national ID law. They just kick the can down the road.
I’ll compile here some links to Cato@Liberty blog posts about what I’ve been up to. Apologies to C@L readers forced to slog through my meanderings twice.
First of all, it’s interesting to watch the slow-motion collapse of so many government ID programs because they are so poorly designed and poorly thought through.
That isn’t stopping politicians from trying to shore them up. Representative Barbara Cubin (R-WY), for example, has been misdirecting her state’s legislators about what the law says.
I originally thought that Senator Collins (R-ME) was confused about REAL ID. Her state was the first to pass legislation rejecting REAL ID, so you would think she would not try to help force states to implement a national ID. But it now is quite clear that Senator Collins (R-DHS) supports REAL ID.
Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune has long been one of my favorite newspaper columnists. He’s penned another excellent piece for today’s Trib pointing out how illogical it is that the government continues to regulate broadcast speech as if nothing has changed over the past 30 years.
He points out that the FCC’s recent fines for “indecent” content on broadcasting are increasingly silly in a world where kids can get the same programming online simultaneously. He also points out the absurdity of this week’s record $24 million fine against Univision for violating the hopelessly out-of-date Children’s Television Act. He argues:
Wharton professor Kevin Werbach has posted an interesting new paper on net neutrality that’s not really about net neutrality. His thesis is that while he agrees with the proponents of regulation that broadband network operators will disadvantage content and application providers and thus stifle innovation, he doesn’t think anti-discrimination rules are the way to go. In fact, he does a great job of explaining why they’re not a good idea and how discrimination of all kinds–from content delivery networks (CDNs) like Akamai, to propriety video services like ESPN 360–serve the interests of both consumers and network operators. He also highlights how difficult it would be under neutrality rules to distinguish anti-competitive discrimination from benign discrimination like spam blocking or legitimate traffic management.
Instead he argues that the real issue missed by the neutrality debate is interconnection. “The defining characteristic of the Internet is not the absence of discrimination, but a relentless commitment to interconnection,” he writes. Networks withholding interconnection is the real threat to innovation. In particular, he is concerned about access tiering, “[broadband networks] charging content and application providers additional fees for preferential access to their broadband access customers.”
EFF linked to this summary of Microsoft v. AT&T which, unfortunately, completely misunderstands the thrust of the case:
AT&T’s position is that its speech recognition software is protected by US patent, on the grounds that it constitutes a “component of a patented invention.” Microsoft was apparently granted license to utilize that software in the US, but AT&T contends that the duplication of that software outside of US boundaries, with the intent to sell the duplicates overseas, is a violation of that license. That view was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeals, and Microsoft is appealing that decision…
Olson built a case against AT&T’s position: For foreign replication to work, a golden disk is shipped abroad to the replication service, containing the master of the Vista operating system that includes AT&T’s drivers. It’s not software at that point, Olson says, because no one can execute it. When it’s installed onto a hard drive, then it becomes software, and it’s the end customer who does that.
If you accept that argument, Olson’s case goes on, then Microsoft did not copy AT&T’s software. And since the physical components – the hard drive, processor, and optical drive – necessary for the copying process to happen may or may not have been supplied by manufacturers in the US, then US courts may not have jurisdiction anyway.
Last Friday’s Cato Podcast was about the free Kareem movement, a campaign to secure the release of a young Egyptian blogger who was jailed for four years for the crime of criticizing Islam, his school, and the Egyptian authorities:
The Free Kareem Coalition is an interfaith alliance of young bloggers and college students committed to the principles of freedom of thought and freedom of speech.
This campaign is our way of fighting to further the cause of brave people who continue to practice their right to freedom of expression even when such rights are not recognized. The creators and main supporters of the Free Kareem Coalition are Muslim, and we are doing this despite what Kareem said about our religion. Free speech doesn’t mean “speech that you approve of.” It includes criticism.
You may be disgusted at what he said, even angered. That’s okay, so are we! But we will defend with all our might his right to express such opinions, because it is his basic, inalienable human right.
Kareem is a writer who always found the courage within him to keep speaking his mind freely in the name of not only freedom of speech, but the freedom to think in an otherwise sheltered society. Because of that, he has been sentenced to four years in prison. We stand by and fully support Kareem through these difficult times and will continue working on this campaign until he is freed.
A worthy cause. Click over to find out what you can do to help.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. Learn more about TLF →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.