{"id":4251,"date":"2009-11-16T07:33:04","date_gmt":"2009-11-16T07:33:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/principles\/2009\/11\/16\/links-for-2009-11-16\/"},"modified":"2009-11-16T07:33:04","modified_gmt":"2009-11-16T07:33:04","slug":"links-for-2009-11-16","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/2009\/11\/16\/links-for-2009-11-16\/","title":{"rendered":"Links for 2009-11-16"},"content":{"rendered":"<ul class=\"delicious\">\n<li>\n<div class=\"delicious-link\"><a href=\"http:\/\/michaelnielsen.org\/blog\/the-wikipedia-paradox\/\">Michael Nielsen \u00c2\u00bb The Wikipedia Paradox<\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"delicious-extended\">&#8220;To determine whether any given subject deserves an entry, Wikipedia uses the criterion of notability. This lead to an interesting question:<\/p>\n<p>Question 1: What&#8217;s the most notable subject that&#8217;s not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia?<\/p>\n<p>Let&#8217;s assume for now that this question has an answer (&#8220;The Answer&#8221;), and call the corresponding subject X. Now, we have a second question whose answer is not at all obvious.<\/p>\n<p>Question 2: Is subject X notable merely by being The Answer?&#8221;<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"delicious-tags\">(tags: <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/internet\">internet<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/culture\">culture<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/michael-nielsen\">michael-nielsen<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/computing\">computing<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/silly\">silly<\/a>)<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div class=\"delicious-link\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.graspingforthewind.com\/2009\/11\/14\/on-the-opinion-that-authors-should-not-respond-to-reviews\/\">On the Opinion that Authors Should Not Respond to Reviews &#8211; Grasping for the Wind<\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"delicious-extended\">&#8220;I totally understand and agree with all these reasons NOT to respond to reviews.<\/p>\n<p>BUT, I&#8217;m also disappointed that they don&#8217;t, and wish they would for two reasons:&#8221;<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"delicious-tags\">(tags: <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/books\">books<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/writing\">writing<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/review\">review<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/internet\">internet<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/literature\">literature<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/humanities\">humanities<\/a>)<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div class=\"delicious-link\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.theonion.com\/content\/news\/report_yankees_trademarked_yankees\">Report: Yankees Trademarked &#8216;Yankees Suck&#8217; Chant In 1996 | The Onion &#8211; America&#8217;s Finest News Source<\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"delicious-extended\">&#8220;Furthermore, financial records indicate that by also owning the rights to the common anti-Yankee epithet &#8220;Jeter blows,&#8221; the team earned much of the money needed to sign Alex Rodriguez in 2004. In addition, by creating and obtaining the trademarks to the phrases &#8220;A-Roid,&#8221; &#8220;A-Fraud,&#8221; and &#8220;Jeter sucks, A-Rod swallows,&#8221; as well as acquiring partial intellectual property rights to the concept that &#8220;All the Yankees are overpaid assholes who make it virtually impossible for smaller-market teams to compete,&#8221; the team has accumulated a fiscal safety net that is estimated to last until 2210.&#8221;<\/div>\n<div class=\"delicious-tags\">(tags: <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/sports\">sports<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/silly\">silly<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/delicious.com\/orzelc\/onion\">onion<\/a>)<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Michael Nielsen \u00c2\u00bb The Wikipedia Paradox &#8220;To determine whether any given subject deserves an entry, Wikipedia uses the criterion of notability. This lead to an interesting question: Question 1: What&#8217;s the most notable subject that&#8217;s not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? Let&#8217;s assume for now that this question has an answer (&#8220;The Answer&#8221;), and&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/2009\/11\/16\/links-for-2009-11-16\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Links for 2009-11-16<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"1","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4251","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-links_dump","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4251","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4251"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4251\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4251"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4251"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4251"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}