Thought Garage

Creating Passionate Users is one of my favorite blogs and very happy to see this post after a long time (since those blog threats).  I love to see this blog with those vivid pictures that convey the pragmatism and real wisdom that could otherwise takes 1000s of words and yet unclear.  The revolutionary way of  teaching  concepts(HeadFirst Series) is beyond any comparison to any other book I have ever read. I love to see her back on the blog and with new books.

It is very difficult to say any visualization as my favorite, as I love almost all her graphs and pictures. Just linked two of them, that are quite relevant to a discussion that I am bringing up in my next post.

While it is tough to beat an argument on table that a team of people bring a lot to the table and consensus always brings better results, in reality it is quite the opposite in almost all ocassions.  Consensus is something everybody is comfortable with, not necessarily better or the best. More over, argument of consensus assumes that everyone in the team has the same goal of achieving the best possible outcome, while in reality, it is totally just an assumption and something there will never be a consensus on.

While many of us talk about  ’empowering’ , we always tend to and love to ‘control’ the entire environment to our whims and wishes. There are very few people I have seen or met, that really bring the best in others by giving them an autonomy and by respecting individual talents. Talent is normally not a key factor in environments where ‘control’ favors. Its always the level of ’sub-servience’ that matters. People often confuse ‘difference of opinion’ with ‘disloyalty’ and any reasoning for a fair act as ‘challenging’ and ’disrespecting’ their authority. What these ‘control’ freaks never realize is that the other person becomes a zombie over time.

Its always such an inspiring and mind-blowing simplicity in conveying a message,  that I admire a lot in the blog and her books and I love to see it back in full throttle.

Another book on the block that is vehemently complaining about internet and its ill effects on Culture.

The Cult of the Amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture  

I remember an earlier discussion about Wikipedia, complaining about its amateurish mob made content compared to so called validated and trusted expert content from famous encyclopedias. Whether there is any truth in that matter or not, first website I and most of my friends and collegues refer to when in doubt is undoubtedly wikipedia. On subjects we knew in depth, we compared the quality of content and found no truth in those allegations.   

Coming to key arguments made in this book, here are few exceprts (taken from 37Signals post, linked at the bottom of the page, highlights by me)

Mr. Keen argues that “what the Web 2.0 revolution is really delivering is superficial observations of the world around us rather than deep analysis, shrill opinion rather than considered judgment.” 

Another word for narcissism is “personalization.” Web 2.0 technology personalizes culture so that it reflects ourselves rather than the world around us. Blogs personalize media content so that all we read are our own thoughts. Online stores personalize our preferences, thus feeding back to us our own taste. Google personalizes searches so that all we see are advertisements for products and services we already use.

In the Web 2.0 world, however, the nightmare is not the scarcity, but the over-abundance of authors. Since everyone will use digital media to express themselves, the only decisive act will be to not mark the paper. Not writing as rebellion sounds bizarre—like a piece of fiction authored by Franz Kafka. But one of the unintended consequences of the Web 2.0 future may well be that everyone is an author, while there is no longer any audience.

The content on youtube and flickr may be naive and amateurish. But it is original, fresh and so refreshing. They are  lot better than boring and stereotyped TV shows and reality crap.

I agree that the more we personalize and customize we read only what we like and might miss a different perspective. But we do this kind of personalization all the time, even without web2.0. Not everybody read every page in a news paper, every page of a magazine or every program aired on 100s of channels. We choose  a certain channel, certain program or a certain series. Do you watch every basket ball game that is ever played? You choose your team. You choose your game. Do you listen every music CD that is ever released? Have you ever been to every restaurent that is open in the world? You pick one you like.

So personalization is nothing new and internet can not be blamed for that.

Everybody is an author.

Regarding everybody becoming an author, in a democractic world every citizen has equal opportunity to become the leader of Nation. Does that mean there will be no leaders and no followers?  In most parts of the world, everybody has an equal opportunity to own a business and produce a valuable product or service. Does that mean, there is no consumer and there is no meaning of business? 

Is it chaging/killing our culture?

Yes it is. For sure. But that is the essence of culture. Culture is an evolution of how we live. Not a static representation of a life style. Our culture is how we live, then culture is a post-martem representation of a lifestyle. Not the other way. Internet is changing the way we live, communicate and collaborate. Its a new culture. But an empowering culture.

Internet is providing an equal opportunity to everybody to become what they want. And in that aspect, internet is the best thing that has ever happened to the civilization. One that treats everyone equal and provides an equal opportunity.

( | Via RSS Feed | Link to Article | )

The debate is open yet again between Wikipedia and Britannica. This time it is not between readers or proponents or bloggers but between the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales and Dale Hoiberg, senior vice president and editor-in-chief of Britannica. The Wall Street Journal Online invited both for this E-Debate over Email.  Check it out here.

The Wall Street Journal Online also hosted a poll asking its readers to vote on the following question: “Does Wikipedia’s open-editing approach yield better results than traditional encyclopedias?”. At the time of writing, 2654 have voted with 56% says YES while 31% says NO.

It is difficult to say who won the debate or whether the debate is finished at all? But just a little conversation between them without any one clearly making a point or proving some thing right or wrong. 

I rarely visited Britannica online, though I referred to it a lot while in college. Mainly due to the fact that we did not have any alternative and wikipedia did not exist at that time. But after I once came to know about wikipedia, I never visited any other site but wikipedia for any reference.  Critics ramble that people who are writing wikipedia are not experts. But I tend to disagree, based on my experience. All the articles in which I have expertise, they are accurate and most importantly very much up-to-date. And more over, even if there is a slight inaccuracy, it does not matter to me. I do not make mission critical or life changing decisions based on wikipedia or for that matter on britannica. The up-to-date information, openness, free to use and vast coverage of wikipedia are most important to me.   

As a followup on my previous post "Passionate vs Professional Programmer", here is an Excerpt from How To Be CREATIVE by Hugh MacLeod ( http://www.gapingvoid.com) that put the discussion in context. I totally agree that Merit can be bought but not passion.

The only people who can change the world are people who want to. And not everybody does.

Human beings have this thing I call the “Pissed Off Gene.” Itʼs that bit of our psyche that makes us utterly dissatisfied with our lot, no matter how kindly fortune smiles upon us.

Itʼs there for a reason. Back in our early caveman days being pissed off made us more likely to get off our butt, get out of the cave and into the tundra hunting woolly mammoth, so weʼd have something to eat for supper. Itʼs a survival mechanism. Damn useful then, damn useful

Itʼs this same Pissed Off Gene that makes us want to create anything in the first place—drawings, violin sonatas, meat packing companies, websites. This same gene drove us to discover how to make a fire, the wheel, the bow and arrow, indoor plumbing, the personal computer, the list is endless.

Part of understanding the creative urge is understanding that itʼs primal. Wanting to change the world is not a noble calling; itʼs a primal calling.

We think weʼre “providing a superior integrated logistic system” or “helping America to really taste freshness.” In fact weʼre just pissed off and want to get the hell out of the cave and kill the woolly mammoth.

Your business either lets you go hunt the woolly mammoth or it doesnʼt. Of course, like so many white-collar jobs these days, you might very well be offered a ton of money to sit in the corner-office cave and pretend that youʼre hunting. That is sad. Whatʼs even sadder is if you agree to take the money.

Tags: Software, Passion, Merit, Programming

The upcoming edition (June 26th 2006) of Time magazine focusses on “India Inc” with interesting and revealing stories on ambitious and enterprising India.  

India Inc. – Why the world’s biggest democracy is the next great economic super power – and what it means for America http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601060626,00.html

Tags: Time, India, Inspions, economic, democracy