"Now... more than ever"

One of the promos they play on 680 News is the Deep Voice Radio Man saying "Now... more than ever... you need 680 News... so tune in for news, weather..." etc., etc. No disrespect to 680 News, I listen to it all the time, but the expression "Now... more than ever" is one of those marketing clichés that fills me with dark hatred and righteous indignation.

Let us dissect this "clever" turn of phrase.

If we are to assume that this is actually true, that we need 680 News NOW more than EVER, then this implies that at any given moment, our need for 680 News is greater than at any other time in the past. That is, our need for 680 News (call this β), is a non-decreasing function of time, t. To illustrate:




So eventually, our need for 680 News will reach infinity, and we will all become helplessly glued to the radio.

(If this post seemed kind of crazy, I am just trying to demonstrate how we use certain expressions and phrases that don't really make sense if you think about it. This kind of thing is especially prevalent in marketing; working in the tech industry, I've seen plenty of impressive-sounding, but empty, doublespeak to promote products. Perhaps a topic for a future post.)

In Defence of Wikipedia

There's been some controversy over Wikipedia lately, and it takes the form of a lawsuit against the online encyclopedia. Someone has started a website at WikipediaClassAction.org, which plans to file a lawsuit against Wikipedia, on the basis that there is harmful and inaccurate information in some Wikipedia articles.

Wikipedia is well known for being an open encyclopedia, i.e. anyone can edit the articles. The idea is that for any given topic, someone in the world has the knowledge to be able to write about it. If this person posts some erroneous information (either intentionally or not), then someone else in the world will have the knowledge to correct it. In my experience, this model works, and Wikipedia has become one of my favourite sources of information. If something in an article seems controversial or somehow "not right" to me, a quick look at the discussion page for the article will show that the community is aware of the potential issues and is working to amend the entry.

There is no doubt that Wikipedia will never be 100% accurate at all times. The fact that it's a collaborative effort necessarily implies that any information posted can evolve. Also, differences between one author's perspective of a certain topic and another's are bound to arise. The point is that it's open for everyone to discuss and decide on an article's final content cooperatively. I believe that when it comes to information, a large open community has more to offer than a single "authoritative" source, even if it means the occasional error or bug.

This lawsuit was sparked in part by an incident involving the biographical entry of John Seigenthaler Sr. Someone posted false information (apparently as a joke) implying that Seigenthaler had been involved in JFK's assassination. The lawsuit claims that because of Wikipedia's open nature, such misinformation is more likely to be spread. The ironic part of it is, as soon as the story came out, it was loudly discussed, and much attention was brought to that particular article. It has since been fixed, and in fact, there is now another article explaining the whole situation. Doesn't this show the openness of the system actually serves to increase its accuracy? People will make false statements, through all kinds of media, whether they are open to the public or not. What's worse, a self-correcting system such as Wikipedia, where information becomes fact only when agreed upon by everyone? Or supposedly authorative sources (e.g. the news media) which routinely present opinions as fact?

I fear that this lawsuit might actually have some success. They'll never be able to shut down Wikipedia (at least, I certainly hope not), but they might succeed in forcing them to do something stupid like dropping the "pedia" from the name, just because it's "misleading." No matter what happens, I'll continue to use and support the Wikipedia project.

Credit card telemarketers are mindless automata

Ring, ring

“Hello?”

“Hello, may I speak with Albert Choi, please?”

“Yes, speaki…”

“Good evening, Mr. Choi, I’m calling from MBNA to tell you about our credit card offer for students…”

“Uh, well, actually…”

”...this student card offers a low interest rate, no annual fee, and many other features. We have your address as ******, Mississauga, Ontario, is this correct?”

“Actually, I’m not a student anymore, I’ve recently graduated…”

“That’s not a problem, sir. Our card has many features, it can help you around the house, do some cleaning, some vacuuming…”

“Hello? I actually already have an MBNA card.”

“That’s not a problem, this card is loaded with features, you can play MP3’s, download movies…”

“No, I don’t…”

”...with this card, you can reduce gang violence and inner-city homelessness…”

“No thank you, bye.”

”...this credit card can cure cancer! Solve world hunger!”

“Good-bye.”

Click

iJohn

Evidence of John Lennon’s god-like power: my iPod has played his songs more frequently over the past couple days (since December 8, the anniversary of his death). The spirit of John Lennon permeates all portable electronic music playing devices.