I learned the difference between the words "quote" and "quotation" last night. As it turns out, quote should be used solely as a verb, while quotation is a noun. So you couldn’t have a Kanye West quote, but you could quote him. More specifics here.
This is one of those common misusages that has now become accepted, similar to the way octopi is now an acceptable plural for octopus.
I noticed this only because Facebook changed the Favorite Quotes field in their user profiles to Favorite Quotations. This reveals that I either have an eye for detail or just spend too much time on Facebook.
Still, I think Facebook reveals some discussion-worthy issues with the English language.
Another problem the site has confronted is the grammatical person. The issue stems from users who don’t define their gender, which forces the Mini-Feed to report, "Sally Shapiro posted new photos in their album Drunk Party Photos Part 10." This is grammatically incorrect. Even though "they" is gender-neutral, usage is strictly for the plural third person, not singular. Wikipedia documents the trouble in full. The right way would be to say, "Sally Shapiro posted new photos in his/her album," but of course, this looks silly.
Recently, I had a long, nerdy conversation about the development of language and the need for a singular third-person pronoun, even if that meant inventing one. Some writers, most notably Steven Levitt of the Freakonomics blog, default to "she" rather than "he/she." It’s not a bad alternative, but I think we can come up with a better answer. We also have to consider the movement of people who don’t want to specify a gender.
Anyway, back to Facebook. The site has over 80 million users worldwide, and if Zuckerberg and Co. implemented a new singular third-person pronoun – and it really doesn’t matter what that word is – they could have a hand in the way the English language evolves. It's hard to deny that the internet won't have a major effect on how we write and speak in the future.
Hopefully it’s the influence of Facebook rather than this site.
Showing posts with label web. Show all posts
Showing posts with label web. Show all posts
Monday, August 11, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Emails from the (somewhat) famous
I have, on occasion, sent email to moderately famous people. I know, it sounds a bit like writing letters to a movie star.
Last week, I sent an email to The New York Times personal tech columnist David Pogue detailing my experiences with Cuil. Pogue is a great writer known for his good-natured, dorky sense of humor. I figured that the story would amuse him. He replied:
He’s probably the kind of guy who responds to all of his email.
Earlier this semester, my International Political Economy professor said that Robert Gilpin established the hegemonic stability theory and invented the Peanut M&M. This fact tickled me--maybe I couldn’t decide which achievement was greater--so I sent him an email for confirmation.
I didn’t have the heart to tell my prof that he was wrong.
In high school, I took an Intro to Psychology class that I loathed. My teacher mainly used a video lecture series by Philip Zimbardo, the psychologist best known for the Stanford Prison Experiment. His videos were pretty tacky, and since I was in high school, I thought it would be hilarious to send him an email. My sarcasm-drenched message “complimented” Zimbardo’s lectures and talked about the textbook we were using in class.
His response:
I bet Stanley Milgram would never be arrogant enough to recommend his own textbooks.
Last week, I sent an email to The New York Times personal tech columnist David Pogue detailing my experiences with Cuil. Pogue is a great writer known for his good-natured, dorky sense of humor. I figured that the story would amuse him. He replied:
weird!
---
David Pogue
Tech Columnist, The New York Times
www.davidpogue.com
www.missingmanuals.com
He’s probably the kind of guy who responds to all of his email.
Earlier this semester, my International Political Economy professor said that Robert Gilpin established the hegemonic stability theory and invented the Peanut M&M. This fact tickled me--maybe I couldn’t decide which achievement was greater--so I sent him an email for confirmation.
I understand that Raymond Vernon, associated until his death some years ago with Harvard University, was the originator. RGG
I didn’t have the heart to tell my prof that he was wrong.
In high school, I took an Intro to Psychology class that I loathed. My teacher mainly used a video lecture series by Philip Zimbardo, the psychologist best known for the Stanford Prison Experiment. His videos were pretty tacky, and since I was in high school, I thought it would be hilarious to send him an email. My sarcasm-drenched message “complimented” Zimbardo’s lectures and talked about the textbook we were using in class.
His response:
kevin
thanks for your supportive note
Makes me glad I did that series
Regards to your teacher
But your teacher should be using one of my textbooks which are both great
Psychology and Life, 17th ed, Allyn & Bacon Pub
or
Core Concepts in Psychology, 5th ed. Allyn & Bacon.
Ciao,
Phil Zimbardo
I bet Stanley Milgram would never be arrogant enough to recommend his own textbooks.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Cuil: Identity Crisis
There’s a lot of buzz about the launch of Cuil (pronounced "cool," ugh), a search engine by former Google folk. It’s attractive, but it does some strange things.
In a move of narcissistic predictability, I searched for my name in Cuil. I don’t know why I do that, because there are a number of people who share my name (which really has to do with the ubiquitous surname Nguyen). So, naturally, Cuil came up with hundreds of results, most of which were not me.
But what’s odd is the way it attributed the same photo to a handful of different Kevin Nguyens.
One of the first results is for a Kevin Nguyen who hosts a radio show on 90.1 FM The Sound. That’s definitely me, but that’s definitely not my photo.
I am way cuter.
On page two, there’s a Kevin Nguyen who swims at Cerritos College. Cuil uses the same picture, but when I click through to the site, it reveals an entirely different Kevin Nguyen.
The third page has a Vimeo user.
On the fourth page, the same photo links to a motorcycle enthusiasts group on Meetup.com (which cannot be found). This dude definitely cannot ride a motorcycle. Look at him again.
Page five features a doctor from Van Nuys, California. Six, a dude selling soybeans (broken). Seven, a poker player. Eight, spam. (My work on The Bygone Bureau doesn’t show up until page nine, but it’s the second result in Google.)
Aside from the fact that half the links I clicked through were broken, the photo of this one jerk has been prescribed to every single person on the internet with the name Kevin Nguyen. That's idiotic. There were also a disproprtionately high number of results from Meetup.com, Vimeo, and IMEEM.
I know hindsight is 20/20, but here’s the lesson to learn from Cuil: get your shit together before you launch. Or at least use my picture.
In a move of narcissistic predictability, I searched for my name in Cuil. I don’t know why I do that, because there are a number of people who share my name (which really has to do with the ubiquitous surname Nguyen). So, naturally, Cuil came up with hundreds of results, most of which were not me.
But what’s odd is the way it attributed the same photo to a handful of different Kevin Nguyens.
One of the first results is for a Kevin Nguyen who hosts a radio show on 90.1 FM The Sound. That’s definitely me, but that’s definitely not my photo.
I am way cuter.
On page two, there’s a Kevin Nguyen who swims at Cerritos College. Cuil uses the same picture, but when I click through to the site, it reveals an entirely different Kevin Nguyen.
The third page has a Vimeo user.
On the fourth page, the same photo links to a motorcycle enthusiasts group on Meetup.com (which cannot be found). This dude definitely cannot ride a motorcycle. Look at him again.
Page five features a doctor from Van Nuys, California. Six, a dude selling soybeans (broken). Seven, a poker player. Eight, spam. (My work on The Bygone Bureau doesn’t show up until page nine, but it’s the second result in Google.)
Aside from the fact that half the links I clicked through were broken, the photo of this one jerk has been prescribed to every single person on the internet with the name Kevin Nguyen. That's idiotic. There were also a disproprtionately high number of results from Meetup.com, Vimeo, and IMEEM.
I know hindsight is 20/20, but here’s the lesson to learn from Cuil: get your shit together before you launch. Or at least use my picture.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Way down in the Knol
On Wednesday, I linked to Knol on Bureaucracy:
(That’s right, I’m quoting myself. Award me ten ego points.)
The central ideological difference between Wikipedia and Knol is that articles are penned by experts rather than relying on collective knowledge. Instinctually, it sounds like a more reliable system, but past studies have shown that Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.
Of course, this doesn’t stop us from digesting Wikipedia with cautious skepticism. I’ve heard of a handful of professors who’ve jumped on the wiki bandwagon and forced their class to create joint entries on course material. The idea is that each student can bring something new to the table and will collectively tweak the entry to perfection. What actually happens, though, is that the more capable students just end up re-writing everything. (When it’s for a grade, you can’t rely on anyone but yourself, right?)
So I welcome Knol as a competitor, even if Google claims it isn’t. As I said in my Bureaucracy blurb, I’m anxious for a Wikipedia-like resource that can be cited in academic writing. I use Wikipedia as a starting point for unfamiliar topics, but entries too frequently have missing citations, which can lead to a dead end in research. (Though I’ve always suspected that many teachers resent Wikipedia because it makes research too easy.)
There are many obstacles to Knol’s success. Wikipedia has millions of articles, and with the author verification process, Knol will never catch up. Wikipedia is also nonprofit, whereas Knol will be supported by Google AdSense. My biggest issue will be getting past the fact that Knol is short for "knowledge." Also, people forget that even Google is capable of producing a flop.
Google Video, anyone?
Knol also has a ways to go. For example, the site design, though slick, lacks organization. Try finding anything in the directory. Also, from what I've seen, articles lack the linkable footnotes of Wikipedia.
I think the most important development of Knol is Google’s shift from aggregating content to being a provider of content. Knol may or may not succeed, but it’s a sign of the direction Google is moving. That’s a little scary -- the same company controls what you read and how you find it.
Please, don’t be evil.
Some other related errata
It’s just like a Wikipedia, only with named author(s) for each article, meaning that you could probably cite it in a paper. Knol encourages authorship by sharing AdSense revenue with users. Also, you can insert cartoons from The New Yorker. That’s actually not a joke.
(That’s right, I’m quoting myself. Award me ten ego points.)
The central ideological difference between Wikipedia and Knol is that articles are penned by experts rather than relying on collective knowledge. Instinctually, it sounds like a more reliable system, but past studies have shown that Wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.
Of course, this doesn’t stop us from digesting Wikipedia with cautious skepticism. I’ve heard of a handful of professors who’ve jumped on the wiki bandwagon and forced their class to create joint entries on course material. The idea is that each student can bring something new to the table and will collectively tweak the entry to perfection. What actually happens, though, is that the more capable students just end up re-writing everything. (When it’s for a grade, you can’t rely on anyone but yourself, right?)
So I welcome Knol as a competitor, even if Google claims it isn’t. As I said in my Bureaucracy blurb, I’m anxious for a Wikipedia-like resource that can be cited in academic writing. I use Wikipedia as a starting point for unfamiliar topics, but entries too frequently have missing citations, which can lead to a dead end in research. (Though I’ve always suspected that many teachers resent Wikipedia because it makes research too easy.)
There are many obstacles to Knol’s success. Wikipedia has millions of articles, and with the author verification process, Knol will never catch up. Wikipedia is also nonprofit, whereas Knol will be supported by Google AdSense. My biggest issue will be getting past the fact that Knol is short for "knowledge." Also, people forget that even Google is capable of producing a flop.
Google Video, anyone?
Knol also has a ways to go. For example, the site design, though slick, lacks organization. Try finding anything in the directory. Also, from what I've seen, articles lack the linkable footnotes of Wikipedia.
I think the most important development of Knol is Google’s shift from aggregating content to being a provider of content. Knol may or may not succeed, but it’s a sign of the direction Google is moving. That’s a little scary -- the same company controls what you read and how you find it.
Please, don’t be evil.
Some other related errata
- According to Ars Technica, Mahalo and Citizendium are similar concepts.
- Best comment on Bits’s write-up of Knol: "Knol has no information on Optimus Prime."
- The Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia. How postmodern!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
