Tuesday, December 27, 2005

TV Charity Drives: Toys for Tots, Money for Stations, by Paul Farhi, Washington Post. To become "partners" with WUSA and WRC, such entities as SunTrust and the D.C. Lottery pay the stations. The payments buy TV ads that tout the charitable campaigns and the companies' involvement in them. The stations, in turn, often feature their paying sponsors on news reports about the charitable drives, usually without disclosing to viewers that the station is receiving money from the ad buys. Station representatives have said such "community outreach" drives are a winning proposition for all parties: The charity reaps publicity and public contributions, and the station and its corporate partners gain recognition and goodwill. "We're part of the community and should be active participants in it," said Darryll J. Green, Channel 9's president and general manager. But critics have said the practice has troubling aspects. Other local stations said they resist turning sponsors into news because that might suggest that the sponsor has paid to influence coverage -- a violation not just of journalistic practice, but potentially of federal rules against payola. 10:10:05 PM    comment []

The best and worst in television. Use the holidays to give your TiVo new marching orders! Here's an overview of what to watch, and what to banish from your TV forever. [Salon] 5:02:54 AM    comment []

Piracy on the bounding main. By Pajamas Media in Sydney. [PJM - Top Stories] 4:03:29 AM    comment []

Virtual worlds for military simulation. Recent advances in display technology, data processing and software have lead to spectacular improvements of military simulations. Military designers are looking at all kinds of technology improvements, but this overview is focused on specific advances in display technology. Links: short version, long version [Smart Mobs] 4:03:25 AM    comment []

Not your grandfather's encyclopedia.... I've been talking a lot about Wikipedia lately. I don't consider myself an expert on Wikipedia, but I think I get some of the issues that are cropping up after the Curry and Seigenthaler flaps. In case you missed those, Adam Curry changed a Wikipedia item on podcasting and John Seigenthaler complained bitterly about a Wikipedia article that referred to his possible involvement in the Kennedy Assassination (which is absurd; this was evidently an ill-conceived prank). These flaps turned up the volume on discussions of Wikipedia's accountability for its contents. If bad facts appear in Wikipedia, who do you blame? In traditional publishing, you blame the publisher, and that's justified because the publisher has a system for collecting, vetting, and editing content before it's published. However Wikipedia has volunteer editors who review articles and updates after they're posted, not before. The actual contributors can be anybody, and until recently they could be anonymous (though generally traceable through their IP numbers). It's a decentralized system where no single person or entity is clearly accountable for what's posted, yet it works – you've probably heard about Nature's investigation showing that Wikipedia, overall, is about as accurate as Brittanica. Wikipedia is now requiring authentication for new posts, though you can make still anonymous updates to existing content. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's fearless leader, has said he doesn't want to pursue strong verification of identity, and that Wikipedia should be assessed on the quality of the content, and not identity or reputation. Is Wikipedia an authoritative source? The Nature study suggests accuracy comparable to Brittanica's – and what source of information will ever be wholly authoritative? Wikipedia actually has advantages: bringing collective intelligence to bear means more minds and more perspectives are represented, and this would tend to mitigate bias. Wikipedia is also more current, and has articles on subjects you would never find in Brittanica. However there's always going to be lag between publication and editorial review, and in some cases (like Seigenthaler's) bad information will find its way into an article and linger. I wouldn't consider Wikipedia a single authoritative source (though I often use it as a reference, and link to its articles). (BTW, fans of Wikipedia should note there's a fund drive under way.) [Weblogsky] 4:02:30 AM    comment []

Cognitive ornithology: the evolution of avian intelligence. Nathan Emery (abstract): "Comparative psychologists interested in the evolution of intelligence have focused their attention on social primates, whereas birds tend to be used as models of associative learning. However, corvids and parrots, which have forebrains relatively the same size as apes, live in complex social groups and have a long developmental period before becoming independent, have demonstrated ape-like intelligence. Although, ornithologists have documented thousands of hours observing birds in their natural habitat, they have focused their attention on avian behaviour and ecology, rather than intelligence. This review discusses recent studies of avian cognition contrasting two different approaches; the anthropocentric approach and the adaptive specialization approach. It is argued that the most productive method is to combine the two approaches. This is discussed with respects to recent investigations of two supposedly unique aspects of human cognition; episodic memory and theory of mind. In reviewing the evidence for avian intelligence, corvids and parrots appear to be cognitively superior to other birds and in many cases even apes. This suggests that complex cognition has evolved in species with very different brains through a process of convergent evolution rather than shared ancestry, although the notion that birds and mammals may share common neural connectivity patterns is discussed." (The Royal Society) [Follow Me Here...] 3:51:06 AM    comment []