On the other hand, you're anchoring on the worst possible idea. Afterwards even barely mediocre will seem pretty great compared to the McD idea.
The McDonald's Theory of Bad Ideas
131–140 of 141 posts
Re: The McDonald's Theory of Bad Ideas
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with your assessment that Wikipedia doesn't add value. It acts as an awesome aggregator and is usually a good place to start when learning about any topic. Im not going to play "name that fallacy", but your points against it seem weak to me. Of course its info is scraped and aggregated from other sources. Thats how information works. Thats normal even in academia. Im sure that on pages that don't have many…
So wikipedia is a low quality content farm that shows up for every google search and prevents actual expert pages from being seen--taking revenue and visibility from experts--while providing lower quality content. And that's a good thing to you. An unreliable encyclopedia is the most useless thing in the world. An unreliable encyclopedia with the most powerful SEO in history...is a grave threat to human knowledge.
This is an interesting take on it. What are some examples of experts that are being silenced?
Usually when people criticize SEO, its over the methods used to get irrelevant links on pages, putting junk in your serps. Afaik wikipedia does well because people link to its content, not because of spam tactics.
Re: The McDonald's Theory of Bad Ideas
#133Re: The McDonald's Theory of Bad Ideas
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
So wikipedia is a low quality content farm that shows up for every google search and prevents actual expert pages from being seen--taking revenue and visibility from experts--while providing lower quality content. And that's a good thing to you. An unreliable encyclopedia is the most useless thing in the world. An unreliable encyclopedia with the most powerful SEO in history...is a grave threat to human knowledge.
This is an interesting take on it. What are some examples of experts that are being silenced? Usually when people criticize SEO, its over the methods used to get irrelevant links on pages, putting junk in your serps. Afaik wikipedia does well because people link to its content, not because of spam tactics.
The experts aren't bing silenced, they just show up on the second page of google so get no hits.
The first page will often have literally 5+ links to wikipedia, and those articles will cite the never-visited reliable page but get a lot of the details wrong.
You're absolutely right that it's a cultural issue more so than a tech issue. Wikipedia marketing has managed to convince people that an amateur content farm should be the first stop for information. But why should your first stop be amateurs who often get it wrong?
Ask any academic how good wikipedia is for their specialty. It always ranges from "ok" to "terrible". And why would we expect anything else? How can amateurs be expected to understand, interpret, and report on reams of subtle developments in any area?
The best wikipedia articles are the ones that tend most toward plagiarism--literally just copying the words and concepts of an academic while barely rephrasing them to avoid copyright infringement. It's not worthwhile.
Meanwhile, every important article on wikipedia has a high quality, professionally written counterpart on Encyclopedia Britannica. What's the point of wikipedia?
For an easy example just search any topic in philosophy. Wikipedia comes up first. Read that, then read Stanford Encyclopedia, then read Encyclopedia Britannica.
Why is wikipedia the top hit? Because their SEO/marketing is overwhelming. It's definitely not due to quality! In contrast, the other two options being beat out by Wikipedia SEO are written by notable experts. The quality difference is enormous. EB and SEP can actually be relied on. On wikipedia you never know what important subtlety they got wrong.
Wikipedia is the eHow or expertsexchange of information. It's a drag on human knowledge. It needs to die.
Re: The McDonald's Theory of Bad Ideas
#135Of course, there is the risk that everyone thinks McDonalds is a swell idea, and then no one will ever do anything nicer for lunch ever again. Not to stretch the analogy too far, but I have had this happen both literally and figuratively.
If everyone thinks McDonald's is a swell idea, it probably is.
This means that either A) Lunch isn't as important as everyone seems to make it out to be , or B) McDonald's is "good enough" or C) some combination of factors including A and B that suggest worrying about where you are eating for lunch isn't worth any of your time today.
Re: The McDonald's Theory of Bad Ideas
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real ramen has nothing in common with those packaged noodles. A big bowl of ramen soup with lots of meat, seafood & a hardboiled egg is heaven.
See, what you do is buy the ramen packets, a bag of frozen shrimp, and a dozen eggs. Bring the water to a boil, let the ramen rehydrate, then crack an egg right into the pot. Add some frozen shrimp and let it sit for a minute, then break the yolk and stir. Cook until the yolk solidifies and serve. Duh.
It's probably a lot cheaper and easier to go and buy Chinese noodles if that is the end result.
Re: The McDonald's Theory of Bad Ideas
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an interesting take on it. What are some examples of experts that are being silenced? Usually when people criticize SEO, its over the methods used to get irrelevant links on pages, putting junk in your serps. Afaik wikipedia does well because people link to its content, not because of spam tactics.
The experts aren't bing silenced, they just show up on the second page of google so get no hits. The first page will often have literally 5+ links to wikipedia, and those articles will cite the never-visited reliable page but get a lot of the details wrong. You're absolutely right that it's a cultural issue more so than a tech issue. Wikipedia marketing has managed to convince people that an amateur content farm shou…
I can't reproduce your results: I find typical searches give 1 or 2 links to Wikipedia on the first page. And if you add "-wikipedia" you can get rid of the lot.
I do realise Wikipedia is far from perfect. So many articles don't cite their sources, for example, or cite some personal website that doesn't cite any sources at all.
Re: The McDonald's Theory of Bad Ideas
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
The experts aren't bing silenced, they just show up on the second page of google so get no hits. The first page will often have literally 5+ links to wikipedia, and those articles will cite the never-visited reliable page but get a lot of the details wrong. You're absolutely right that it's a cultural issue more so than a tech issue. Wikipedia marketing has managed to convince people that an amateur content farm shou…
I can't reproduce your results: I find typical searches give 1 or 2 links to Wikipedia on the first page. And if you add "-wikipedia" you can get rid of the lot. I do realise Wikipedia is far from perfect. So many articles don't cite their sources, for example, or cite some personal website that doesn't cite any sources at all.
Understand that it isn't MY problem. I find it easy to avoid wikipedia because I know how to do things like -wikipedia.
But I'm not the vulnerable population. Most people don't know to do that, and just think wiki info is fine when it's not.
The results that give 5+ wikipedias on one search are usually long tailed.
Here's one search I just made up:
logic axioms encyclopedia
First 4 hits are wikipedia, all 4 of them are shit. If you just add -wikipedia the results are infinitely better. Therefore, wikipedia is a low quality content farm shitting up the Internet.
It also doesn't help that google, apple products and other services now directly prioritize wikipedia.
Example:
continental philosophy definition
Google first gives a big bold wikipedia box, presenting wikipedia info as if it is the fucking gospel.
Then the next hit is wikipedia.
Then the rest are a mix of reliable sites that wikipedia stole its content from, and wikipedia subsidiaries (Jimmy Wales affiliated) like Citizendium.
How is this considered ok? It's an intellectual travesty and a giant threat to public education. How many people will click the first link, or the giant google endorsed wikipedia box, and ignore all the reliable experts below it?
Re: The McDonald's Theory of Bad Ideas
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't reproduce your results: I find typical searches give 1 or 2 links to Wikipedia on the first page. And if you add "-wikipedia" you can get rid of the lot. I do realise Wikipedia is far from perfect. So many articles don't cite their sources, for example, or cite some personal website that doesn't cite any sources at all.
Understand that it isn't MY problem. I find it easy to avoid wikipedia because I know how to do things like -wikipedia. But I'm not the vulnerable population. Most people don't know to do that, and just think wiki info is fine when it's not. The results that give 5+ wikipedias on one search are usually long tailed. Here's one search I just made up: logic axioms encyclopedia First 4 hits are wikipedia, all 4 of them a…
I just did your "logic axioms encyclopedia" search, it supports what you say about google giving preference to wikipedia. However, if you compare wikipedia's page to britannica's i think it undermines your argument against wikipedia's inferiority. Wikipedia not only has more information, but it also lists all of the contributors and has a complete list of citations. Britannica's banner ad plastered page featured only 3 paragraphs, no citations for deeper reading and no list of contributors to help you evaluate the content. I know this is just a sample size of one, but I think it shows that your opinion is extreme. As I said before, it doesn't matter where you get your info, you have to practice critical thinking and demand sources. I totally see where you are coming from, but i am not convinced that it is as bad as you are making it out to be.
Imo, its the lack of education on how to evaluate information (this includes the ability to determine the "authority" of its sources) that is an intellectual travesty and a giant threat.
Re: The McDonald's Theory of Bad Ideas
#140There's never really anything new in IT. Looking at past revolutions of the eternal IT wheel the next article will be about Fred Brook's "second system effect" where a simple 1st choice like McDonalds for lunch inevitably leads to a ridiculously overengineered second solution in reaction, like a $300/plate steakhouse or perhaps a strange ethnic restaurant for lunch 90 miles away. This article is basically a rehash of…
Where would you recommend one look for a collection of this wisdom? Brooks is one example, what are others? Where would one look to find a cannon of this type of thing?
The mythical man-month is one, and peopleware is another, then there is innovators dilemma. These three cover it all pretty well.