Thread
My68kSpace
Should we make a 68k version of the sites of the ilk of myspace, facebook, and the slightly superior IMO imeem?
I know they have there detractions.... but the ability to upload different files and send and recieve messages in one particular website does have an appeal to me..... to be able to upoad a picture in .iff format or a sound in .aiff, these things could be useful & to be able to send and recieve messages simply could be good.
imeem is superior for me, because I can upload different types of media & I've not recieved so much spam from imeem (Puts me hands over me head thinking now the torrent will start!)
I know they have there detractions.... but the ability to upload different files and send and recieve messages in one particular website does have an appeal to me..... to be able to upoad a picture in .iff format or a sound in .aiff, these things could be useful & to be able to send and recieve messages simply could be good.
imeem is superior for me, because I can upload different types of media & I've not recieved so much spam from imeem (Puts me hands over me head thinking now the torrent will start!)
NO
The RetroMacCast guys have a site on Ning.com that's for the podcast and it has gotten quite popular with their listeners. I think it would be nice, but it might actually conflict with theirs....just my opinion.
I'd never use it. The 68kMLA forums/wiki serve my needs.
NO.
MySpace is the Devil.
The Devil I tells ya!
MySpace is the Devil.
The Devil I tells ya!
Yeah, the forum is good for discussion, and the wiki is a good place if you really want to create a "profile' of sorts.
What I'd love is a replacement for PHPbb that wasn't only accesible via web.
Basically make it possible to write readers without the overhead and trouble of HTML and CSS. There's really nothing in the basic principle of a forum that requires the web... it's just text in a predictable format, like e-mail. Actually simpler than e-mail. It'd be great to have a native 'forum reader' in the style of a newsreader for System 7. Actually that's pretty near the top of my app wish list for any platform...
Basically make it possible to write readers without the overhead and trouble of HTML and CSS. There's really nothing in the basic principle of a forum that requires the web... it's just text in a predictable format, like e-mail. Actually simpler than e-mail. It'd be great to have a native 'forum reader' in the style of a newsreader for System 7. Actually that's pretty near the top of my app wish list for any platform...
MySpace and other like it serve their purpose. It's when you start adding people to your friends list like rabbits in heat that it becomes a nuisance. I just have some family and friends on my personal page and that's about it. Maybe a few people that have shown some interest, but it's mainly family, friends, and long lost friends from the past.
I still think it would be nice to have some profile pages similar to those social networking sites where we can highlight our conquests and whatnot. It doesn't have to have a "friends" component per se since we all talk it up here and on the IRC channel. But it would be nice to have something where you can post a quick message to members of the 68KMLA and vice versa.
I still think it would be nice to have some profile pages similar to those social networking sites where we can highlight our conquests and whatnot. It doesn't have to have a "friends" component per se since we all talk it up here and on the IRC channel. But it would be nice to have something where you can post a quick message to members of the 68KMLA and vice versa.
That would be quite good as long as the emphisis is on 68k (and maybe old PPC) Macs, and as long as the site is fully compatible with these. e.g. I would expect to be able to use it without problem on a 68k Mac.
I agree with paws that some kind of programme which could be run on the computer could be used as an alternative to the web. I'm assuming you mean something like Hotline, but for a specific site only?
I agree with paws that some kind of programme which could be run on the computer could be used as an alternative to the web. I'm assuming you mean something like Hotline, but for a specific site only?
Well, filesharing is very useful but I'm really more interested in the forum/wiki side of things - asking questions, getting answers, writing articles and commenting.. showing off your conquests... Pretty much exactly what we're doing with this bulletin board.
I love the forum format because it's so simple and free form.
Think about how it works in the most abstract terms: I login to the server and enter a post, text with a bit of formatting, nothing fancy at all.. It goes into a database. Other people login and read my posts, and post their replies.
Look at the contents of our posts. Is there anything at all in there that requires the complexity of HTML+CSS+JavaScript? It's wasted! A 128K Mac should be able to handle this! The only reason it requires a huge memory hog of browser is because the presentation of the data is tied to the Web and the technolgies the Web is built on.
A protocol for accessing and replying to posts in plain text or a simple rich text format - or even complicated rich text, with multimedia and what have you - on a remote server is trivial. You could have a web client for those that love the web, or you could have a real desktop app, all interfacing with the same servers, seamlessly.
You gain flexibility (choose the client you want), lose complexity by using existing functionality (think opening videos in QT Player instead of the browser plugin hell I'm sure we all remember), and you kill this horrible idea of making user interfaces with HTML+CSS instead of, you know, user interface toolkits...
I have to go to bed now. This is an idea that's been brewing for a while, and really, it's quite obviously superior to the web in every single way for communities like ours. I'll write more about it sometime soon.
A long time ago I thought of the same idea, except my program worked with any existing phpBB, and "screen-scraped" the information off any ordinary phpBB forum and formulated it into a newsreader type format. I never really started on it though.
Isn't that called "Usenet"?
If we could get online storage so we could like share our software easier, and give out public address for these too, like .Mac basicly but with way lower space. Like 2GB 
But I am serious about this.
But I am serious about this.
I don't think I would really use it, besides, you can do a lot with a wiki profile.
Why would a faceless person with no space want a facebook or myspace clone?
NNTP access to the forums would be nice, since that allows the use of any old news reader. And there are a few good ones available for System 7 (and I think System 6), not to mention Unix (if you use a unix shell to do stuff, as I do). And Windows. And MS-DOS. With the appropriate software, you can even have a bridge to QWK message packets, thus allowing you to read messages offline on an Apple II (or was it IIgs). I did the latter with usenet for a while, back in my dialup days.
The other thing is that phpBB supports some sort of theming. It would probably be possible to make a theme that is dead simple for an old browser to parse. That would mean things like getting rid of gratuitous graphics (e.g. buttons that are just links anyway), getting rid of avatars and extraneous user information (user information doesn't really slow things down, but it makes it harder to read on small screens), getting rid of signatures (same as above, actually I think phpBB allows you to have this as a user preference), and replacing the table that the messages are embedded in with something more linear.
It would also make it easier to develop software to parse it and present it in a newsreader.
NNTP access to the forums would be nice, since that allows the use of any old news reader. And there are a few good ones available for System 7 (and I think System 6), not to mention Unix (if you use a unix shell to do stuff, as I do). And Windows. And MS-DOS. With the appropriate software, you can even have a bridge to QWK message packets, thus allowing you to read messages offline on an Apple II (or was it IIgs). I did the latter with usenet for a while, back in my dialup days.
The other thing is that phpBB supports some sort of theming. It would probably be possible to make a theme that is dead simple for an old browser to parse. That would mean things like getting rid of gratuitous graphics (e.g. buttons that are just links anyway), getting rid of avatars and extraneous user information (user information doesn't really slow things down, but it makes it harder to read on small screens), getting rid of signatures (same as above, actually I think phpBB allows you to have this as a user preference), and replacing the table that the messages are embedded in with something more linear.
It would also make it easier to develop software to parse it and present it in a newsreader.
I like the idea! Facebook won't even load on my IE 5-equipped iBook G3 (OS 9) and MySpace doesn't work well on it.
We could have dithered bitmap pictures on there...I already do that with pics of my friends and I so I can use them as wallpaper on my Plus. Perhaps give it a HyperCardish interface?
BTW: Is anyone maintaining the 68KMLA page on MySpace?
We could have dithered bitmap pictures on there...I already do that with pics of my friends and I so I can use them as wallpaper on my Plus. Perhaps give it a HyperCardish interface?
BTW: Is anyone maintaining the 68KMLA page on MySpace?
In theory, it might be possible to develop a "ewb application" using filemaker pro 4 as a back-end slash webserver, and claris homepage 3 for design and whatnot. It would be really interesting to see/try, actually.
I had a feeling I'd get a few replies with this...
I wonder what a wiki is! I thought wiki was just that stupid encyclopedia site that puts up information of dubious validity!
Flixster, the film reviewing/social networking site, is saying it now has a wiki.... but I don't get it, or even know or undersatnd what it is.... I'll have to go and have a look I suppose (I drags my feet & look sullen).
I didn't know we had a myspace page, bugger I don't take enough notice of what goes on here!
my thought was to have a site like the others, but more like imeem (which I accessed fairly successfully on my Quadra 650), but specifically for 68k computers & I was thinking for Atari's and Amiga's to be able to get involved too as well as macs.
I would guess that by the very nature of the machines we'd be running hopefully we'd keep out of the loop of those horrible nasty side effects of the myspace ilk sites, where if you're unfortunate you just get bombarded by fake profiles offering porn, but giving out spyware.
I wonder what a wiki is! I thought wiki was just that stupid encyclopedia site that puts up information of dubious validity!
Flixster, the film reviewing/social networking site, is saying it now has a wiki.... but I don't get it, or even know or undersatnd what it is.... I'll have to go and have a look I suppose (I drags my feet & look sullen).
I didn't know we had a myspace page, bugger I don't take enough notice of what goes on here!
my thought was to have a site like the others, but more like imeem (which I accessed fairly successfully on my Quadra 650), but specifically for 68k computers & I was thinking for Atari's and Amiga's to be able to get involved too as well as macs.
I would guess that by the very nature of the machines we'd be running hopefully we'd keep out of the loop of those horrible nasty side effects of the myspace ilk sites, where if you're unfortunate you just get bombarded by fake profiles offering porn, but giving out spyware.
Screescraping presents a load of problems and would still require that at least part of the HTML was parsed... It might work if used with a theme, as someone suggested.
No, but it'd look pretty much the same way.
We already have a 68kMLA group on Facebook...
...and someone made a MySpace profile.
I know this isn't what was originally intended (as someone mentioned an actual site as opposed to the groups listed above), but I'm just throwing those out there.
...and someone made a MySpace profile.
I know this isn't what was originally intended (as someone mentioned an actual site as opposed to the groups listed above), but I'm just throwing those out there.
I cringe when I see people say that. But I don't know if it's because I hold Wikipedia with too much esteem, or because I regard traditional print and online publishing with less regard.
Things to consider:
- Virtually no website undergoes peer review. (Peer review involves another expert checking the document for accuracy.) That includes websites that people usually regard as being more authoritative, such as university websites. Most of the content that is peer reviewed and accessible online require you to pay heafty access fees.
- Very few print publications undergo peer review. If you are looking at a popular book, chances are that a friend or colleague of the author reviewed it. As such they can hardly be considered independent, and may even share the same views on controversial topics. A credible form of peer review is usually adopted by the publishers of academic journals. They usually use a form of peer review called single-blind. That means that the author of the article doesn't know who reviews the article. In theory, this allows the reviewer to be honest. In reality, the reviewer can still see the name and institutional affiliations of the author. This can bias the reviewer because of anything ranging from affiliation, the author's stature, gender, or many other factors.
- Peer reviewers are often experts. Experts usually have considerable training in the field. While this may make them authoritative, there is a flip-side. Only the strongest of personalities will be able to withstand the conventional wisdom of their field, which leads to a sort of intellectual stagnations. (Granted, you're safer listening to the conventional wisdom than you are to a raving nut-bar.) It is also worth noting that people pick up misconceptions during the learning process. That applies as much to experts as it does to outsiders. And yeah, it's a concern. There is a lot of knowledge that experts rarely use, but are expected to comment on. See my comment on textbooks below.
- Relatively few online publications undergo editorial review. While most print publications will under go some form of editorial review, it is worth noting that editors are not fact-checkers. They may catch glaring errors, but since they are rarely experts in the field they will rarely catch more obscure errors. You also have the case of editors who are more concerned with what can sell than what is true.
- The popular press has this weird convention: thou shalt not cite. Or if you do, it is in a bibliography that doesn't connect the source with the content. Or if you're dealing with an asshat author that demands some sort of academic integrity, make it as end notes that can (at best) be associated with a particular page and not with a particular fact.
- At the end of the day, you can always find people who will print books if you pay them to do so.
I have read too many books with too many errors during my life. Some of these errors are can be considered as typographical issues or accidents that can be attributed to the rush of writing or editing or proof reading prior to shoving the things into presses. But some of these errors are more glaring and are more critical. These errors pop up in things like elementary school textbooks where the kids often don't have the means to assess the validity of the content (and quite often their teacher doesn't either). I also find it kinda weird that these errors are not caught while writing or editing the book. Yes, I know that many books are rushed, but we are talking about stuff that the experts should have known when they were 12 years old.
And at the end of the day you always have to fret about the credibility of the authors and publishers. Some people have an agenda that they are trying to push. Maybe they truly believe in it, but their slanted beliefs will result in a slanted book. Other people simply want to make a few bucks and will say what they want in order to do so. After all, it should be no surprise that doom-and-gloom makes more money than balance or happy-happy. (What do you think newspapers are about?)
When I look at everything, I look at the Wikipedia and see an institution that does have things like peer review and editors to back the factual content. And even though you don't have a true single blind or double blind peer review system, it is probably close enough to a double blind review process for practical purposes. A lot of the articles even include citations. And they include something better than all of the above: they maintain a history of edits and discussions relating to the article. This means that you can check the article for a history of vandalism and you can check to see if there is more controversy.
Yeah, the Wikipedia has its own faults. It is possible for people to vandalize pages -- either for kicks, to prove a point, or to promote an agenda. But the Wikipedia does have a self-correction mechanism. Yeah, that self-correction mechanism will only work for more popular articles. But you take that into consideration. If you find an article on an obscure topic that has received a couple of edits, then you know that the article may be a bit more dodgy because it is more difficult for those self-correction mechanisms to kick it.
So at the end of the day, I don't see why people should automatically say that the Wikipedia is automatically a stupid site with information of dubious value just because an online magazine article written by a green reporter in 2005 said so.
Now wait a second. How much peer review did that article receive? None. How much editorial review did it receive? Very little. Did they site their sources? Maybe, but only in a cursory way that makes the source article hard to find. Is it's source biased? In some respects the Wikipedia is their competition. Does the publisher have an alterior motive for publishing the article? Well, negativity sells more than happy-happy.
Why the hell should I treat that article as credible?!
I'm with you ][2//. Nicely said.
I also agree with Paws. I looked into phpBB to see if there was an API or a plugin that lets you get the data as XML, or make db queries. Didn't find anything. I was hoping to make a 68k client so I can keep up with 68kmla on my 68kmac. Oh well.
I also agree with Paws. I looked into phpBB to see if there was an API or a plugin that lets you get the data as XML, or make db queries. Didn't find anything. I was hoping to make a 68k client so I can keep up with 68kmla on my 68kmac. Oh well.
There used to be an app on Mac OS X that queried a phpBB2 database directly and acted as a forum interface, allowing you to download a local copy of the forum, and type replies in this interface.
I'm not terribly fond of sites like Facebook or Myspace as they just all seem to be clones of each other and are often devoted to complete drivel. I'm not saying this would happen with a 68K site though, but I have seen other good forums and websites being wrecked by getting turned into Myspace clones.
The exception is the RetroMacCast site which seems to be working well at the moment with most topics, photos and videos being relevent. The fact that the site is based around the central core of the podcast helps alot as well and provides good topical fuel for listeners to discuss.
Personally I like the 68KMLA forums as they are since they're neat, easy to navigate and search, the conversation is generally sensible and on-topic etc. The 68KMLA forum also loads on older browsers and machines but you can almost guarantee that a bloated social networking site would not load on your favorite Quadra with Netscape 4. The only thing I would change about the current forum is the look, it would be great if we had that System 7 look of the old forum back...
So yes, I would say that the current forum fits it's purpose well and I reckon that a social-networking style thing would pretty much ruin things.
The exception is the RetroMacCast site which seems to be working well at the moment with most topics, photos and videos being relevent. The fact that the site is based around the central core of the podcast helps alot as well and provides good topical fuel for listeners to discuss.
Personally I like the 68KMLA forums as they are since they're neat, easy to navigate and search, the conversation is generally sensible and on-topic etc. The 68KMLA forum also loads on older browsers and machines but you can almost guarantee that a bloated social networking site would not load on your favorite Quadra with Netscape 4. The only thing I would change about the current forum is the look, it would be great if we had that System 7 look of the old forum back...
So yes, I would say that the current forum fits it's purpose well and I reckon that a social-networking style thing would pretty much ruin things.
Hey II2II...
I won't quote your whole post...
But if I say that I altered a fact about the British isles on wikipedia & then the next day the "fact" was altered back the way it was..... Now obviously me being from the British isles I am obviously so ignorant as to not know what I'm talking about... no it is better for peer moderation that some nerdy American computer geek corrects my facts and gives me their American version of the facts.
If I can just say here that I use wiki, when I want to look things up quite often..... I just double or triple check the facts elsewhere afterwards.
For me the biggest problem wiki has is how I think of politics.... who wins in the politics? the smartest guy? the person with the best policies? Most often no, most often it's the people with the loudest voice who win & so it is with wiki, hang being correct or fair, the loudest win.
The other problem with wiki of course is that no matter how long one may argue, there are allways at least two versions of history, both may hold truths, and both may be different!
I was harsh & expected a fairly harsh rebutt but wiki has some serious delusions..... I think I just don't see that it can do what it beilieves it does, it is just too ambitious.
I won't quote your whole post...
But if I say that I altered a fact about the British isles on wikipedia & then the next day the "fact" was altered back the way it was..... Now obviously me being from the British isles I am obviously so ignorant as to not know what I'm talking about... no it is better for peer moderation that some nerdy American computer geek corrects my facts and gives me their American version of the facts.
If I can just say here that I use wiki, when I want to look things up quite often..... I just double or triple check the facts elsewhere afterwards.
For me the biggest problem wiki has is how I think of politics.... who wins in the politics? the smartest guy? the person with the best policies? Most often no, most often it's the people with the loudest voice who win & so it is with wiki, hang being correct or fair, the loudest win.
The other problem with wiki of course is that no matter how long one may argue, there are allways at least two versions of history, both may hold truths, and both may be different!
I was harsh & expected a fairly harsh rebutt but wiki has some serious delusions..... I think I just don't see that it can do what it beilieves it does, it is just too ambitious.
Bloody oath... And even when you double and triple check things, there is no guarantee that the source you're verifying from hasn't got their information from wikipedia. It's poisoning the entire web. Wikipedia seems to be the no. 1 result for any query where there is an article on that subject, so it's very tempting for most people to get all their information from the one source, without bothering to check more complicated web pages or to verify what they're reading.
The facts ALWAYS end up being coloured on wikipedia. Just one example of many - their article for Pope St. Pius X stated something like "his body was claimed to be incorrupt and entirely intact upon exhumation". I thought the "was claimed to be" was unnecessary, since anyone can see his incorrupt body in Rome, and the article even had a picture of his body taken recently - but no, every time it was edited, some geek took it upon himself to change it back. Shortly after that, I gave up on ever editing anything again, except for vandalism.
What's even more frightening is that google is now talking about making their own encyclopedia - I imagine that due to their monopoly, they will probably replace wikipedia as the first and last word on everything, effectively giving them a monopoly on information. They are a freakin' scary company - they almost make Microsoft look benevolent.
http://tinyurl.com/3lpaw9 <----- my friend gets quoted in the Manchester Evening News as a music critic, entirely due to a wikipedia article he vandalised (!!)
The facts ALWAYS end up being coloured on wikipedia. Just one example of many - their article for Pope St. Pius X stated something like "his body was claimed to be incorrupt and entirely intact upon exhumation". I thought the "was claimed to be" was unnecessary, since anyone can see his incorrupt body in Rome, and the article even had a picture of his body taken recently - but no, every time it was edited, some geek took it upon himself to change it back. Shortly after that, I gave up on ever editing anything again, except for vandalism.
What's even more frightening is that google is now talking about making their own encyclopedia - I imagine that due to their monopoly, they will probably replace wikipedia as the first and last word on everything, effectively giving them a monopoly on information. They are a freakin' scary company - they almost make Microsoft look benevolent.
http://tinyurl.com/3lpaw9 <----- my friend gets quoted in the Manchester Evening News as a music critic, entirely due to a wikipedia article he vandalised (!!)
You can level that criticism at an source of information. Do you think that any American textbook is going to give a flattering account of the British side of the story leading up to their declaration of independence. Heck no. But that doesn't mean that either side of the story fails to exist. It just means that you find it in different places.
The Wikipedia is one place where those ideas have the potential to come together, and for people to discuss those varying ideas. Yes, you may personally lose out for whatever reason. No, that doesn't mean that they are wrong. But if you do lose out, at least someone can go through the history of the document to see where the debate over facts popped up. You cannot do that in a book. (It's also worth noting that just because you personally believe that something is true, that doesn't make it true.)
Another issue was brought up, and that is people using the Wikipedia as a first-stop and only-stop for information. That is not the fault of the Wikipedia. It is the fault of the researcher. I have heard the same criticism leveled at the CIA World Factbook. I have heard the same criticism leveled at encyclopedias. Heck, I've even heard the same criticism leveled at the web at large.
I think a big part of the reason for that is that online sources (and encyclopedias) are usually secondary sources and the dependence upon these sources is more of a sign of intellectual laziness. Not only do these sources do a lot of the interpretation for you, but they are also a one-stop source of anything you want. No thought required.
But that doesn't mean that the Wikipedia is bad. It just means that you should broaden your horizons. And I still standby what I said earlier on issues like peer review.
Indeedle, but just because something reaches a certain level of consensus on wikipedia, that doesn’t make it true either – yet that seems to be a common belief. The idea that passing information past the critical eyes of a thousand internet editors will somehow iron out all the inaccuracies and bias is not a realistic one. It always ends up being majority rule, and the majority of wikipedia users haven’t yet managed to grasp the concept of maintaining a neutral persective.
It doesn’t matter whose fault it is – the point is, if wikipedia didn’t exist, this wouldn’t happen. It’s not only the fault of researchers anyway, but also people who constantly link to wikipedia, and only wikipedia, when discussing a subject online, as though no other source is worth consulting.
“The Britannica has become the first and last word on everything”?? When has anyone ever made any similar claim? Even if they did, it would hardly be comparable when you consider the accessibility of a traditional encyclopaedia vs. the ubiquitous wikipedia.
The CIA Factbook maybe, but that’s mainly statistical information and is thoroughly checked, without the ability to be edited discreetly and anonymously. If it was suddenly put online and open to anyone’s edits it would quickly become a joke, yet wikipedia has somehow gathered credibility simply through repeated use. Besides, there aren’t too many ways you can colour statistics, and for most statistics no-one would have any interest in colouring them anyway.
It’s a valid criticism of the web. People should consult books more. But, this is a society of remote controls and dishwashers.
I'm lumping in those who cite Wikipedia with researchers. The reason being that they are using the Wikipedia for research purposes in order to express their point. I can't say that I have seen too many people referencing the Wikipedia online, outside of forums like these. (I have seen students reference it in papers, but that receives the same scorn as a student who refernces a print encyclopedia.) At the end of the day, people citing Wikipedia in forums may be a god-send. I say that because I doubt that people would try to support their ideas in casual discussion if they didn't have a convenient resource to reach for.
I also think that the Wikipedia is a great source for getting a starting knowledge of something, and how it relates to other stuff. After that you branch off into deeper resources. I'd lump print encyclopedias in the same category: great starting point but go deeper.
I'm trying to figure out if I'm old, or if too much of my life has been spent in schools. But I have seen this "the encyclopedia is an authoritative source" mentality before.
The CIA World Factbook is also published by a highly biased source (and I'm not talking about the U.S. government in general here, but a particular branch that seems to have close ties with the executive branch of your government). It is also worth noting that it is difficult if not impossible to check upon the data presented in the CIA World Factbook for many countries. Particularly those countries with which the U.S. has antagonistic relationships with.
Dishwashers? Oh, I remember what those are. Those are interesting analogies and I like them because I view the reliance upon online sources as being primarily the product of intellectual (and physical) laziness. But I'm not going to pretend that this association with intellectual laziness makes the Internet any less reliable than the already unreliable print media.
I just read the entire article about the Iranian revolution. It was surprisingly good with plenty of citations, and that's certainly one of the articles you'd expect to be a pile of biased rubbish.