Comments for It's All Just A Ride http://www.itsalljustaride.com On Media, Anthropology, and Technology Sun, 03 Aug 2008 18:24:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on Czech and Slovak Harvest Festival, Bannister Michigan by John http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=7&cpage=1#comment-47 John Sun, 03 Aug 2008 18:24:41 +0000 http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=7#comment-47 There isn't really a parade, they just have a procession for about a block before the dancing begins. The dinner is something like $5 I think, and the food is awesome. There isn’t really a parade, they just have a procession for about a block before the dancing begins. The dinner is something like $5 I think, and the food is awesome.

]]> Comment on Czech and Slovak Harvest Festival, Bannister Michigan by shabalabadingdong http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=7&cpage=1#comment-46 shabalabadingdong Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:28:27 +0000 http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=7#comment-46 hey I wanted to go to the festival but I had a few questions first Is there a parade how much is the dinner??? hey I wanted to go to the festival but I had a few questions first Is there a parade how much is the dinner???

]]> Comment on Sorapot by Sorapot reviews - comments by users, customer opinions and reactions | Sorapot http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=47&cpage=1#comment-32 Sorapot reviews - comments by users, customer opinions and reactions | Sorapot Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:29:27 +0000 http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=47#comment-32 [...] John unboxes his Sorapot and makes tea for the first time. [...] [...] John unboxes his Sorapot and makes tea for the first time. [...]

]]> Comment on Early Morning Miscellany by Phil M http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=35&cpage=1#comment-15 Phil M Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:23:36 +0000 http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=35#comment-15 Hello - I am tracking down information on the schedule for the August 2007 Czech and Slovak Festival in Bannister MI. Can you help? I saw the video on YouTube. It was great! Regards, Phil M Hello – I am tracking down information on the schedule for the August 2007 Czech and Slovak Festival in Bannister MI. Can you help? I saw the video on YouTube. It was great!

Regards,
Phil M

]]> Comment on Wikipedia, Academia, Apathy…dia by Trip Kirkpatrick http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=24&cpage=1#comment-11 Trip Kirkpatrick Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:37:45 +0000 http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=24#comment-11 But there’s anonymous and there’s anonymous. We all know the admonition to say in emails only that which you’d say F2F, and yet . . . I feel like anonymity has been shown online to be no more a companion to objectivity than it has offline. Rather, online anonymity more frequently gives rise to honesty. But honesty isn’t as important in an online reference as is authority, something gained in my eyes only with a long history of accuracy and an apparent attempt at objectivity. Maybe Wikipedia will be there in a few years, when they’ve worked out a better way to indicate what of their content is verified, what’s unreliably verified, and what’s completely unverified. Citizendium seems to be trying out one way, and I’ll be interested to see if it works. But there’s anonymous and there’s anonymous. We all know the admonition to say in emails only that which you’d say F2F, and yet . . .

I feel like anonymity has been shown online to be no more a companion to objectivity than it has offline. Rather, online anonymity more frequently gives rise to honesty. But honesty isn’t as important in an online reference as is authority, something gained in my eyes only with a long history of accuracy and an apparent attempt at objectivity. Maybe Wikipedia will be there in a few years, when they’ve worked out a better way to indicate what of their content is verified, what’s unreliably verified, and what’s completely unverified. Citizendium seems to be trying out one way, and I’ll be interested to see if it works.

]]> Comment on Wikipedia, Academia, Apathy…dia by John http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=24&cpage=1#comment-10 John Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:34:51 +0000 http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=24#comment-10 Good points. I mean, there's a reason why course evals are done anonymously. Also, you could say that anonymity frees one from the burden of prejudging, or stereotyping (such as the article mentioned, a 15 year old highschooler comes in with the same clout as a 50 year old PhD), and it also allows one "freedom of intellectual movement" so to speak. In person someone might tend to want to present a coherent line of thinking or philosophy, but in anonymity one might be more free to admit faults in logic, bias, or concede other flaws as well. Perhaps an anonymous persona is "more fluid" so to speak. Depending on how much stock one puts in an online, anonymous persona as opposed to their "real" one, that is. Good points. I mean, there’s a reason why course evals are done anonymously. Also, you could say that anonymity frees one from the burden of prejudging, or stereotyping (such as the article mentioned, a 15 year old highschooler comes in with the same clout as a 50 year old PhD), and it also allows one “freedom of intellectual movement” so to speak. In person someone might tend to want to present a coherent line of thinking or philosophy, but in anonymity one might be more free to admit faults in logic, bias, or concede other flaws as well. Perhaps an anonymous persona is “more fluid” so to speak. Depending on how much stock one puts in an online, anonymous persona as opposed to their “real” one, that is.

]]> Comment on Wikipedia, Academia, Apathy…dia by Barbara http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=24&cpage=1#comment-9 Barbara Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:36:35 +0000 http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=24#comment-9 Huh. While I agree there is indeed a wisdom in crowds (loved the book) and I have talked about dynamic systems theories as a form of pedagogy until people's ears bleed, I think it is actually not always necessary to have a LARGE group to accomplish objectivity and dynamic learning. What you need is buy-in from all of the participants. What you need is a shared goal. What you need is TIME to set establish those parameters. That's the hard part. Often, I have found, it is really hard to achieve that in F2F settings... my students have shown me it is easier to be objective (and candid and make mistakes and and and) when you don't actually know or see the person. Be it a small group or a large one. So do objectivity and anonymity go hand in hand? I dunno. My two cents. Huh. While I agree there is indeed a wisdom in crowds (loved the book) and I have talked about dynamic systems theories as a form of pedagogy until people’s ears bleed, I think it is actually not always necessary to have a LARGE group to accomplish objectivity and dynamic learning. What you need is buy-in from all of the participants. What you need is a shared goal. What you need is TIME to set establish those parameters. That’s the hard part.

Often, I have found, it is really hard to achieve that in F2F settings… my students have shown me it is easier to be objective (and candid and make mistakes and and and) when you don’t actually know or see the person. Be it a small group or a large one. So do objectivity and anonymity go hand in hand? I dunno.

My two cents.

]]> Comment on Wikipedia, Academia, Apathy…dia by John http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=24&cpage=1#comment-8 John Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:15:21 +0000 http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=24#comment-8 That's a great article Barbara. And yes, objectivity is the name of the game, but unless you have a robust user community, the chances of objectivity fall lower and lower. In a way, wikipedia's controversial nature and it's status by some as "a nightmare embodiment of relativism and the withering of intellectual standards" is exactly what gives it the degree of objectivity that it has. If there are 4 users editing an obscure wikipedia entry, the odds of that entry being N.P.O.V. probably are not as good as if you have 40. The fewer people you have editing the more you rely on that personal dedication to non-biased editing. When you get more users there exists some room for people with outright biases, in either direction, to spar and debate and contribute and ultimately end up with a zero-sum objectivity. Depending on your outlook, it is either the place where you can finally read and write information that is not tied to the commercial needs of sensationalism, or it is the Bill O'Rielly that you can actually do something constructive about, rather than just throw the remote at. That’s a great article Barbara. And yes, objectivity is the name of the game, but unless you have a robust user community, the chances of objectivity fall lower and lower. In a way, wikipedia’s controversial nature and it’s status by some as “a nightmare embodiment of relativism and the withering of intellectual standards” is exactly what gives it the degree of objectivity that it has.

If there are 4 users editing an obscure wikipedia entry, the odds of that entry being N.P.O.V. probably are not as good as if you have 40. The fewer people you have editing the more you rely on that personal dedication to non-biased editing. When you get more users there exists some room for people with outright biases, in either direction, to spar and debate and contribute and ultimately end up with a zero-sum objectivity.

Depending on your outlook, it is either the place where you can finally read and write information that is not tied to the commercial needs of sensationalism, or it is the Bill O’Rielly that you can actually do something constructive about, rather than just throw the remote at.

]]> Comment on Wikipedia, Academia, Apathy…dia by Barbara http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=24&cpage=1#comment-7 Barbara Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:26:54 +0000 http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=24#comment-7 Did you see the July 1 2007 NYT Sunday magazine section article on Wikipedia?. Interesting stuff. Rather than veracity perhaps we should be talking about objectivity, and whether it is possible to have an objective reporting of the news...be it by one person or a cadre of people. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin Did you see the July 1 2007 NYT Sunday magazine section article on Wikipedia?. Interesting stuff. Rather than veracity perhaps we should be talking about objectivity, and whether it is possible to have an objective reporting of the news…be it by one person or a cadre of people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01WIKIPEDIA-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin

]]> Comment on IALLT Flickr Set by Barbara http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=20&cpage=1#comment-6 Barbara Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:18:18 +0000 http://www.itsalljustaride.com/?p=20#comment-6 Thanks for the comment.... I will make a link to your photoset both off of our site as well as the IALLT wiki! Be sure to use the tag IALLT07! Cheers! Thanks for the comment…. I will make a link to your photoset both off of our site as well as the IALLT wiki!

Be sure to use the tag IALLT07!

Cheers!

]]>