We'll try this...

Not sure about this, but I'm willing to give it a go. Click on the 'A' above to find out about the OUT Campaign.

Fizzle? It didn't! (repost from other blog)

Last Saturday evening BBC1 aired the finale of Jekyll, and what was briefly hinted at in the penultimate of six instalments came to its complex conclusion. This clever, sophisticated and funny series must be a landmark for British speculative TV drama. Not since Channel Four's Ultraviolet, written by Joe Ahearne and broadcast in 1998 has the traditional horror genre been given serious science-fictional treatment on British TV.

Quite what happens next I've no idea. We have the Jackman twins - that could be another story, but it looks like this one is over.

Or is it?

(Previous witterings here and here.)

The Wikipedia Story (repost from other blog)

Clive Anderson investigated Wikipedia earlier this week on BBC Radio 4: The Wikipedia Story

He dealt with the usual criticisms ("it can't be relied on; how do we know the expertise of those who edit pages; it's easily vandalised, etc") with the typically incisive mind of a lawyer, and at the same time engendered enthusiasm for what is undoubtedly a laudable project. He visited the UK branch of Britannica to get a view from the establishment side of the encyclopaedia business, and he even elicited a sound-bite or two from renowned internet doomsayer Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur and whose broadcast comments reeked of sour grapes.

The radio programme is available as an audio stream here (I don't know for how long - but it will shortly be released as a podcast*):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/ram/wikipediastory.ram

Download RealPlayer here

Anderson and his interviewees emphasised the essential point about Wikipedia and Web 2.0 - that there is no way this is going to be like a traditional encyclopaedia, nor should it be. We now live in a different information age. By all means trot down to your local library and heft a massive tome from the shelf in order to find out what you want to know. Meanwhile those of us with more pressing knowledge-needs can log on, check out, cross reference and be on to the next item before the traditional researchers have located their bicycle clips.

*UPDATE: The stream and podcast are no longer available, but you can download the mp3 from RapidShare here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/296133897/WikipediaStory_The_BBCR4-20070724.mp3

Saturday evenings are still fun (repost from other blog)

Doctor Who has finished on BBC 1 for the time being (until the Christmas Special with Kylie Minogue), so Saturday evenings are now focussed on James Nesbitt's bravura performance in Jekyll. This series, now up to episode 4, has edged further from the surreal melodramatics of the opening episodes into out-and-out science fiction. And pretty good sci fi it's turning out to be, if you don't mind your suspension of disbelief being stretched spider-web thin.

Nesbitt, Gina Bellman and Denis Lawson are a joy to watch, as if they're fully aware this isn't meant to be classical drama and have decided to run with its absurdities for all they're worth. Some great lines too: "You have my husband in a box!" Stating the obvious, but said out loud it does emphasise the craziness of the whole premise.

This week we were treated to some sizeable chunks of flashback, when we saw how Dr Jackman first became aware of his peculiar disorder, at about the same time he first met his wife-to-be. It's greatly to writer Steven Moffat's credit that these scenes were convincing and sympathetic, despite being in a different style from the rest of the production so far.

Jekyll is huge fun, and not to be missed.

What's up with those Scots?

I finally found time to listen to a short audio clip from BBC Radio Scotland -- a programme called "Sally on Sunday" that was linked from RichardDawkins.net a couple of weeks ago.

Sally Magnusson talked with Gordon Graham, Alister McGrath and Alistair Noble about Intelligent Design. Unfortunately the audio clip is no longer available (the BBC's 'listen again' service is only for seven days, though there are exceptions), but I was able to listen because I had streamed the audio to my hard disk.

I posted a comment, and invited people over here.

Significant new media ... or pointless bloggery? (repost from other blog)

Andrew Keen has published (using 'old media') a book about the evils of new media: The Cult of the Amateur. Naturally he wants to promote it on the Today Programme:

Click here for streaming audio
(the relevant piece is at 21'09" into this 26'22" clip)*


Download RealPlayer here

Sorry, Mr Keen, the new media is here to stay. It has its faults, just like old media, but your bleating about 'authority' and 'editors' won't make it go away. It's the lack of the old kind of regulation that makes the new media so attractive to its users.

(More later, when I've had time to collate my thoughts on this important subject.)
.
.
.
(Later...)

Now that I've listened to the clip again, and had time to consider, here's my take (note that I've not read Mr Keen's book):

Historically, people have been less likely to question the authority of the old media than they are to question the authority of the new media. Now, they are savvy enough to know that just because something is on a web page doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

When people read stuff on blogs, or MySpace, or wherever, they know it has no built-in authority and will interpret what they read accordingly. Youngsters growing up with the new media are fully aware that they are free to create stuff themselves, and they are also aware of how much authority they themselves have in doing so (that is, none at all) so they are naturally inclined to question what they read.

As a result of this default mode of questioning, they're likely to apply the same critical thinking to all media, new and old -- which can only be a good thing.

If you ask people whether they believe everything they read in a traditionally printed newspaper, they'll likely say, "No, of course not." But until recently if you questioned what someone was telling you about a reported event, they're likely to have told you, "It's true, I read it in the Daily Such-&-Such."

Wikipedia is often brought up as an example of how the internet shouldn't be trusted, but Wikipedia's self-correcting mechanism ensures that its information is mostly reliable. Not completely, but mostly reliable. Just like Britannica, as a December 2005 report has shown.

One of Andrew Keen's objections to the new media is that it has 'zero value'. By which I suspect he means it's free, and therefore worthless. Aside from any frustrations he might have with being unable to monetize his own internet-based efforts, this is a particularly blinkered view. Something is only worth what you pay for it? Hard cash or you're not interested? Tell that to Google. Tell that to Scott Sigler.

Web 2.0 is not, as Brian Appleyard incorrectly states in this clip, to do with interactivity -- we had that to some degree in Web 1.0 -- it's mainly to do with the separation of form from content, which is what makes the creation of web-content so easy for the non-technical user. Web 2.0 is facilitating a medium that allows people to make themselves heard -- to communicate, to create, to think. Long may it continue.

*UPDATE: If the streaming audio is unavailable, download the mp3 of the clip from RapidShare here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/296130093/Today_AndrewKeen_Amateur_BBCR4i-20070625.mp3

One justice away...

This is really scary.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2829599695690924108


Edward Tabash gave this speech to members of the Center For Inquiry during a recent cruise in the Galapagos.

(via RichardDawkins.net)

Here's the Q&A session:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4191917977194347234


I hadn't realised that the separation of church and state in America was so precarious. If the US becomes a theocracy in just a matter of months, what hope do we have of avoiding global holy war?