What is a Qwiki anyway? It's probably not this Quantum Physics Wiki: http://qwiki.stanford.edu/
Why I Think (And Hope) Qwiki Will Fail
11–20 of 25 posts
Re: Why I Think (And Hope) Qwiki Will Fail
#12Ugh!!!! This guy is so full of stupid it hurts. Ok, let me not fall into rant mode and just be nice and logical. The fallacy some people fall into when presented with a new product or service is to make an assumption that this new product or service is meant to replace current methods......entirely. It's a black or white world to these people. What you should be thinking instead is how this service could e utilized i…
I based my critique on what Doug Imbruce and Louis Monier actually said and showed in their brief demo.
You should re-read my piece. The whole thing. It's actually full of the appreciation for nuance and shades of gray. My worry is that Qwiki will not be.
By the way, your couch potato scenario makes me wonder if you have seen "Wall-E" and "Idiocracy". While you're in your couch there, check 'em out.
Re: Why I Think (And Hope) Qwiki Will Fail
#13Why would you hope a startup fails?
Exactly. There is a big difference in saying, "i wish they fail" and "this is an idea that will probably fail". The author is lacking the humility to be aware that his analysis might be wrong. I thought twitter would fail and I was proven wrong. This is because I analyzed it from my personal perspective for witch twitter doesn't fit. But undoubtfully twitter provides a significant added value to many other people. Go…
I was quite conscious of what I said and what I meant: based on my 30 years experience doing software and online apps and startups of my own, and based on what the Qwiki guys actually claimed and showed on stage, I think the service will fail, and I hope the service fails, and I worry if it succeeds.
Sure there are compelling ideas there, absolutely. Sure, used in moderation, some of the capabilities demoed would be beneficial.
But I maintain that their "information experience" hype is a hustle that has not been well thought out.
Re: Why I Think (And Hope) Qwiki Will Fail
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. There is a big difference in saying, "i wish they fail" and "this is an idea that will probably fail". The author is lacking the humility to be aware that his analysis might be wrong. I thought twitter would fail and I was proven wrong. This is because I analyzed it from my personal perspective for witch twitter doesn't fit. But undoubtfully twitter provides a significant added value to many other people. Go…
I was quite conscious of what I said and what I meant: based on my 30 years experience doing software and online apps and startups of my own, and based on what the Qwiki guys actually claimed and showed on stage, I think the service will fail, and I hope the service fails, and I worry if it succeeds. Sure there are compelling ideas there, absolutely. Sure, used in moderation, some of the capabilities demoed would be…
"I hope the service fails, and I worry if it succeeds."
Why? What is the point of hoping it to fail? And why would you be worried if it succeeded? If you could answer the latter questions with any sort of logic I would be impressed.
If Qwiki succeeds, some number of people like their product. If people like their product, than Qwiki added value for those people.
So the question is, are you against Qwiki's intrinsic value proposition and offering, even though people might find it valuable? Or are you just against it because you don't think people will find it valuable?
If it is the latter, you should reword your story, title, and comment.
Re: Why I Think (And Hope) Qwiki Will Fail
#15I haven't been given an account on the Qwiki beta yet, so I haven't actually played with it. However, any time someone tells me I'm "drowning in data" I get ready for a fight. Quite simply, we're not drowning in data. Data is the best hope we have to save us from the rise of multiple-choice questions at the college level. http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mccandless_the_beauty_of_data... I'm all for tools that make data…
I believe you are looking for the difference between information and data. Not worth fighting over.
Data is raw material, information is data put into context.
I suspect/hope that Qwiki is trying to do the later. We are over our heads in data, but at the same time we are suffocated by what poses as information. I would argue that we need the ability to turn data into information which suits our purposes.
I think good examples are 'What's the weather for the next 4 days in the places I'm going to be. ' or products like flighcast which tells you if the airline ticket you are looking at buying is likely going to do up or down in price.
Re: Why I Think (And Hope) Qwiki Will Fail
#16I thought Qwiki isn't meant to replace Google. And yet it can make certain kind of information retrieval sexier and very helpful - esp. when you might be multitasking. It can very well focus in a vertical markets where it solves the problem well.
It doesn't have to fail. Or it might fail but the idea will prevail.
Re: Why I Think (And Hope) Qwiki Will Fail
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was quite conscious of what I said and what I meant: based on my 30 years experience doing software and online apps and startups of my own, and based on what the Qwiki guys actually claimed and showed on stage, I think the service will fail, and I hope the service fails, and I worry if it succeeds. Sure there are compelling ideas there, absolutely. Sure, used in moderation, some of the capabilities demoed would be…
" I hope the service fails, and I worry if it succeeds. " Why? What is the point of hoping it to fail? And why would you be worried if it succeeded? If you could answer the latter questions with any sort of logic I would be impressed. If Qwiki succeeds, some number of people like their product . If people like their product, than Qwiki added value for those people. So the question is, are you against Qwiki's intrinsi…
I explain all this in my blog post. My beef with Qwiki is that it dumbs down comprehension, critical thinking, analysis, and learning. It multimediaizes Wikipedia, an unreliable source. If it succeeds on a large scale, it and the inevitable copycats will all combined contribute to hurting society more than helping it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether people like it. Of course people will like it. Just like they like 4000-calorie fast-food meals. Doesn't mean it's good for humanity.
Re: Why I Think (And Hope) Qwiki Will Fail
#18My Grandma will love Qwiki
Re: Why I Think (And Hope) Qwiki Will Fail
#19I haven't been given an account on the Qwiki beta yet, so I haven't actually played with it. However, any time someone tells me I'm "drowning in data" I get ready for a fight. Quite simply, we're not drowning in data. Data is the best hope we have to save us from the rise of multiple-choice questions at the college level. http://www.ted.com/talks/david_mccandless_the_beauty_of_data... I'm all for tools that make data…
I believe you are looking for the difference between information and data. Not worth fighting over. Data is raw material, information is data put into context. I suspect/hope that Qwiki is trying to do the later. We are over our heads in data, but at the same time we are suffocated by what poses as information. I would argue that we need the ability to turn data into information which suits our purposes. I think good…
Only the mind itself can process data into information - we apply a relevance filter to our perceptions and link related concepts together. That means that exposure to more data gives us better-trained filters and more, deeper connections between concepts.
In other words, we become better at thinking and making judgments when we are exposed to more and more data.
To say that "we are over our heads in data" is to see value in only in the the consumption of static, general knowledge, rather than in the ability to synthesize specific and relevant information.
Re: Why I Think (And Hope) Qwiki Will Fail
#20Ugh!!!! This guy is so full of stupid it hurts. Ok, let me not fall into rant mode and just be nice and logical. The fallacy some people fall into when presented with a new product or service is to make an assumption that this new product or service is meant to replace current methods......entirely. It's a black or white world to these people. What you should be thinking instead is how this service could e utilized i…
I based my critique on what Doug Imbruce and Louis Monier actually said and showed in their brief demo. You should re-read my piece. The whole thing. It's actually full of the appreciation for nuance and shades of gray. My worry is that Qwiki will not be. By the way, your couch potato scenario makes me wonder if you have seen "Wall-E" and "Idiocracy". While you're in your couch there, check 'em out.
You're probably right. In the second presentation[1], Mayer (Google's VP of Search prod. and UX) pointed out some problems users who search might experience: 1 of them being the serial presentation of information, and not a full set of information at once (eg. Google presenting you only 1 result at a time, or Wikipedia 1 fact at a time).
[1] thank jeromec: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9900486