Options

Azimuth on Google+

Over on Azimuth on Google+ Azimuth has announced:

A sense of history unfolding on the Greenpeace Arctic Sunrise.

I am joining Greenpeace on a fortnight-long expedition in the Arctic, where we will steam to the furthest extent of the annual sea ice and document the unprecedented melt.

Regardless of my sympathy/antipathy with respect to Greenpeace, I think this is a really strange way to refer to an newspaper blog article, it suggest that Azimuth is there instead of the journalist! (see e.g. the comment underneath)

I'm not sure if Azimuth on Google+ attracts more people than the blog here, but if it does, I think people's perception of the Azimuth Project will be influenced by what they read there.

Maybe this is not the best example, but there have been some other posts where I was somewhat in doubt of how Azimuth on Google+ rhymes with the Azimuth project here, unfortunately I forgot exactly what it was, I only recall I was in doubt with the formulation, because it was much less nuanced than is common in 'your' blog articles here.

(In case this would matter: I want to make clear that this does not change my personal perception of the Azimuth project, because I already know it. I'm just a bit worried about the people that don't know. What's the use of reaching out to a broad public if the message of being scientifically nuanced may get distorted?)

Comments

  • 1.
    nad
    edited September 2012

    "I only recall I was in doubt with the formulation"

    frankly speaking I was not only on doubt with "the formulation" but also with the content of some posts, but it was getting too much and too fast to comment on all of them.

    Comment Source:>"I only recall I was in doubt with the formulation" frankly speaking I was not only on doubt with "the formulation" but also with the content of some posts, but it was getting too much and too fast to comment on all of them.
  • 2.

    Hi Nad, I meant "I only recall" (so I did not mean to write "I recall that I was in doubt with the formulation only")

    Comment Source:Hi Nad, I meant "I only recall" (so I did not mean to write "I recall that I was in doubt with the formulation only")
  • 3.

    "What's the use of reaching out to a broad public if the message of being scientifically nuanced may get distorted?"

    I think the main objective here may have been to display presence. If you publish something only once in a while this may easily drown in these big streams of the internet, it seems only if you somewhat are a steady big stream yourself then people may tend to notice you more, alone by the sheer amount of workpower which is involved with this. Like I think that John's success on google+ is a lot due to the fact that he is continously and quite fast paced coming up with interesting things. How he does this is though quite an enigma to me.

    This "stream appearance" may still work even if there may sometimes be not so sensical stuff amongst the posts (like at Azimuth) But of course if there is too much bullshit then people may turn away. Another important feature of presence seems to be how much an internet source like Azimuth appears to be linked to important organisations, so may be the Greenpeace thing was mainly for namedropping. That is you would be inclined to accept also more bullshit if you expect to get some information from and about more or less powerful institutions through a channel.

    Comment Source:>"What's the use of reaching out to a broad public if the message of being scientifically nuanced may get distorted?" I think the main objective here may have been to display presence. If you publish something only once in a while this may easily drown in these big streams of the internet, it seems only if you somewhat are a steady big stream yourself then people may tend to notice you more, alone by the sheer amount of workpower which is involved with this. Like I think that John's success on google+ is a lot due to the fact that he is continously and quite fast paced coming up with interesting things. How he does this is though quite an enigma to me. This "stream appearance" may still work even if there may sometimes be not so sensical stuff amongst the posts (like at Azimuth) But of course if there is too much bullshit then people may turn away. Another important feature of presence seems to be how much an internet source like Azimuth appears to be linked to important organisations, so may be the Greenpeace thing was mainly for namedropping. That is you would be inclined to accept also more bullshit if you expect to get some information from and about more or less powerful institutions through a channel.
  • 4.

    I did not mean to write "I recall that I was in doubt with the formulation only"

    ?????? I didnt say that YOU were "in doubt with the formulation only", but only that I (Nadja Kutz) was also in doubt with the content.

    Comment Source:>I did not mean to write "I recall that I was in doubt with the formulation only" ?????? I didnt say that YOU were "in doubt with the formulation only", but only that I (Nadja Kutz) was also in doubt with the content.
  • 5.
    edited September 2012

    There are currently 3 people posting as 'Azimuth' on Google+: John Baez, Jim Stuttard and Rasha Kamel.

    Rasha Kamel is very energetic about reading articles on science news sources, so I brought her in and have been trying to teach here which articles deserve to be posted under the 'Azimuth' name. Sometimes I delete posts of hers that don't meet my standards, and explain to her why I've done so.

    But often I have trouble keeping up with all the things she is posting! I hadn't even seen the one that starts

    A sense of history unfolding on the Greenpeace Arctic Sunrise.

    I am joining Greenpeace on a fortnight-long expedition in the Arctic, where we will steam to the furthest extent of the annual sea ice and document the unprecedented melt.

    I've fixed that one now. I would never have quoted part of the text without indicating that it's a quote! Either Rasha or Jim did this. (It's impossible to be sure who.)

    Frederik De Roo: if you want, I can give you the power to post as 'Azimuth' yourself. Even if you only use that power to fix mistakes like this, I would find it very helpful! I trust your judgement.

    Comment Source:There are currently 3 people posting as 'Azimuth' on Google+: [John Baez](https://plus.google.com/u/0/117663015413546257905/about), [Jim Stuttard](https://plus.google.com/u/0/104403527645636890322/about) and [Rasha Kamel](https://plus.google.com/u/0/113678234815944346418/about). Rasha Kamel is very energetic about reading articles on science news sources, so I brought her in and have been trying to teach here which articles deserve to be posted under the 'Azimuth' name. Sometimes I delete posts of hers that don't meet my standards, and explain to her why I've done so. But often I have trouble keeping up with all the things she is posting! I hadn't even seen the one that starts > A sense of history unfolding on the Greenpeace Arctic Sunrise. > I am joining Greenpeace on a fortnight-long expedition in the Arctic, where we will steam to the furthest extent of the annual sea ice and document the unprecedented melt. I've fixed that one now. I would never have quoted part of the text without indicating that it's a quote! Either Rasha or Jim did this. (It's impossible to be sure who.) [[Frederik De Roo]]: if you want, I can give you the power to post as 'Azimuth' yourself. Even if you only use that power to fix mistakes like this, I would find it very helpful! I trust your judgement.
  • 6.
    edited September 2012

    Nad wrote:

    But of course if there is too much bullshit then people may turn away.

    Right. The challenge is: how can we get a number of people to contribute to the Azimuth stream on Google+ while still maintaining a high quality of articles? I would like to be able to spend a week not paying much attention to the Azimuth stream, and come back and not feel embarrassed.

    My current hope is that I can get Frederik to serve as a 'negative contributor', or 'editor', who deletes or edits posts that annoy him more than a certain fixed amount.

    Of course this is just one of many problems we face if we want to 'scale up' Azimuth. While avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy, we need some ways to ensure that our products are high-quality.

    (Ideally the system will eventually grow to the point where I'm no longer needed, and can just goof off. )

    Comment Source:Nad wrote: > But of course if there is too much bullshit then people may turn away. Right. The challenge is: how can we get a number of people to contribute to the Azimuth stream on Google+ while still maintaining a high quality of articles? I would like to be able to spend a week not paying much attention to the Azimuth stream, and come back and not feel embarrassed. My current hope is that I can get Frederik to serve as a 'negative contributor', or 'editor', who deletes or edits posts that annoy him more than a certain fixed amount. Of course this is just one of many problems we face if we want to 'scale up' Azimuth. While avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy, we need some ways to ensure that our products are high-quality. (Ideally the system will eventually grow to the point where I'm no longer needed, and can just goof off. <img src = "http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/emoticons/tongue.gif" alt = ""/>)
  • 7.

    John wrote:

    Even if you only use that power to fix mistakes like this, I would find it very helpful! I trust your judgement.

    Thank you for this compliment.

    Because I started this thread, I can't really decline this demand for help, I guess. However I am not so often looking on Google+, so I can't promise I will be able to catch everything. But if you think I can help, I think I should. (I already feel slightly guilty for not contributing much lately, but not guilty enough to really do something about it...)

    If you have a short explanation about what deserves to be posted by Azimuth, like you told Rasha Kamel and Jim Stuttard, I would like to hear it too.

    'scale up' Azimuth. While avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy

    since we're all volunteers, I suppose we will all try to limit the amount of bureaucracy necessary to keep Azimuth running ;-)

    PS if you want to link to my name, you need a capital "D" ;-)

    Comment Source:John wrote: > Even if you only use that power to fix mistakes like this, I would find it very helpful! I trust your judgement. Thank you for this compliment. Because I started this thread, I can't really decline this demand for help, I guess. However I am not so often looking on Google+, so I can't promise I will be able to catch everything. But if you think I can help, I think I should. (I already feel slightly guilty for not contributing much lately, but not guilty enough to really do something about it...) If you have a short explanation about what deserves to be posted by Azimuth, like you told Rasha Kamel and Jim Stuttard, I would like to hear it too. > 'scale up' Azimuth. While avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy since we're all volunteers, I suppose we will all try to limit the amount of bureaucracy necessary to keep Azimuth running ;-) PS if you want to link to my name, you need a capital "D" ;-)
  • 8.

    I just saw the post by Azimuth which has again a confusing header:

    Global carbon trading system has 'essentially collapsed'. The UN clean development mechanism, designed to give poor countries access to green technologies, is in dire need of rescue

    which may be true but if so it needs more support than a blog in the Guardian that starts with those words... (maybe there's some links further in the article, I didn't check that, but given the usual lack of links in newspaper I guess not)

    So, John, I would like to ask you for editor permission so that I can put at least quotes around it if I spot posts like these.

    Comment Source:I just saw the post by Azimuth which has again a confusing header: > Global carbon trading system has 'essentially collapsed'. The UN clean development mechanism, designed to give poor countries access to green technologies, is in dire need of rescue which may be true but if so it needs more support than a blog in the Guardian that starts with those words... (maybe there's some links further in the article, I didn't check that, but given the usual lack of links in newspaper I guess not) *So, John, I would like to ask you for editor permission so that I can put at least quotes around it if I spot posts like these.*
  • 9.
    nad
    edited September 2012

    since we're all volunteers, I suppose we will all try to limit the amount of bureaucracy necessary to keep Azimuth running ;-)

    It seems John tries to voluntarily goof off in order to avoid too much bureaucracy :) :

    Ideally the system will eventually grow to the point where I'm no longer needed, and can just goof off.

    Comment Source:>since we're all volunteers, I suppose we will all try to limit the amount of bureaucracy necessary to keep Azimuth running ;-) It seems John tries to voluntarily goof off in order to avoid too much bureaucracy :) : >Ideally the system will eventually grow to the point where I'm no longer needed, and can just goof off.
  • 10.

    Frederik wrote:

    So, John, I would like to ask you for editor permission so that I can put at least quotes around it if I spot posts like these.

    Okay, I have made you a 'manager', by telling Google+ your email address is added to the list of 'managers'. I think if you go to the upper right-hand corner of any Google+ page and click on your name, you will see something that says 'Azimuth Google+ page'. If you click on that, you will 'become' Azimuth. In that state, you can post articles under the name Azimuth and also edit articles posted under that name. If you have any questions about that, let me know.

    If you have a short explanation about what deserves to be posted by Azimuth, like you told Rasha Kamel and Jim Stuttard, I would like to hear it too.

    The short description: Important news regarding environmental and energy problems, and their possible solutions.

    Rasha Kamel tends to post a bit too much - too many short articles that aren't deeply informative, and articles that aren't truly important. However, I don't want to discourage her, so I only delete articles of hers if there's something really bad about them. If you delete a post of hers, please post an article to +rasha kamel (not the whole world!) politely telling her why you did it.

    For smaller corrections this isn't so important... but if you feel you have spare energy, it's still good to do: she is learning to do better, but people learn faster when they get feedback.

    Comment Source:Frederik wrote: > So, John, I would like to ask you for editor permission so that I can put at least quotes around it if I spot posts like these. Okay, I have made you a 'manager', by telling Google+ your email address is added to the list of 'managers'. I think if you go to the upper right-hand corner of any Google+ page and click on your name, you will see something that says 'Azimuth Google+ page'. If you click on that, you will 'become' Azimuth. In that state, you can post articles under the name Azimuth and also edit articles posted under that name. If you have any questions about that, let me know. > If you have a short explanation about what deserves to be posted by Azimuth, like you told Rasha Kamel and Jim Stuttard, I would like to hear it too. The short description: *Important news regarding environmental and energy problems, and their possible solutions*. Rasha Kamel tends to post a bit too much - too many short articles that aren't deeply informative, and articles that aren't truly important. However, I don't want to discourage her, so I only delete articles of hers if there's something really bad about them. If you delete a post of hers, please post an article to +rasha kamel (not the whole world!) politely telling her why you did it. For smaller corrections this isn't so important... but if you feel you have spare energy, it's still good to do: she is learning to do better, but people learn faster when they get feedback.
  • 11.

    Frederik wrote:

    since we’re all volunteers, I suppose we will all try to limit the amount of bureaucracy necessary to keep Azimuth running ;-)

    That's one reason an all-volunteer project is so nice! You may have noticed that when new people come to Azimuth, some of them want to introduce more bureaucracy. However, in most cases, they either leave or adapt to the principle that we don't mainly need more managers.

    Comment Source:Frederik wrote: > since we’re all volunteers, I suppose we will all try to limit the amount of bureaucracy necessary to keep Azimuth running ;-) That's one reason an all-volunteer project is so nice! You may have noticed that when new people come to Azimuth, some of them want to introduce more bureaucracy. However, in most cases, they either leave or adapt to the principle that we don't mainly need more managers.
  • 12.

    Frederik wrote:

    since we’re all volunteers, I suppose we will all try to limit the amount of bureaucracy necessary to keep Azimuth running ;-)

    That's one reason an all-volunteer project is so nice! You may have noticed that when new people come to Azimuth, some of them want to introduce more bureaucracy. However, in most cases, they either leave or adapt to the fact that we are not a bunch of employees waiting for a manager to come along.

    Comment Source:Frederik wrote: > since we’re all volunteers, I suppose we will all try to limit the amount of bureaucracy necessary to keep Azimuth running ;-) That's one reason an all-volunteer project is so nice! You may have noticed that when new people come to Azimuth, some of them want to introduce more bureaucracy. However, in most cases, they either leave or adapt to the fact that we are not a bunch of employees waiting for a manager to come along.
  • 13.

    Hi John, so far I haven't managed to do real editing, at some points I wanted to but I couldn't find a good way to edit some posts. Sorry! It will become better, I hope, when I have more time.

    Comment Source:Hi John, so far I haven't managed to do real editing, at some points I wanted to but I couldn't find a good way to edit some posts. Sorry! It will become better, I hope, when I have more time.
  • 14.

    Okay, fine. Better to do it a not-so-good way than not do it!

    Comment Source:Okay, fine. Better to do it a not-so-good way than not do it!
  • 15.

    I made some edits (rather, I removed some posts).

    Since I don't really know who posted which, it may be more useful -- I think -- if you really want me to say why I did what to provide feedback, to start a thread on the Forum to briefly comment on it.

    For example, there were two posts pointing to two different magazines that pointed to the same study! I mean, in some sense this appears ridiculous to me, so I removed the post that seemed the least good.

    Comment Source:I made some edits (rather, I removed some posts). Since I don't really know who posted which, it may be more useful -- I think -- if you really want me to say why I did what to provide feedback, to start a thread on the Forum to briefly comment on it. For example, there were two posts pointing to two different magazines that pointed to the same study! I mean, in some sense this appears ridiculous to me, so I removed the post that seemed the least good.
  • 16.

    Some feedback:

    I think this 'post-editing' approach is clearly suboptimal: although I'm deleting posts that seem irrelevant or have a too high 'might/could/...' content, it seems they are being posted at an even higher rate (probably my impression). So I did not even get to the point of really editing. (If the original posting editor did not care to write some accompanying sentences, i don't see why I should do that, if I think the post is hardly relevant in the first place)

    I don't really want to get caught in an arms race where one editor is posting almost continuously and I'm almost deleting continously.

    From my point of view, it would make more sense for each editor to reflect before posting something. A suggestion could be, for example, impose a limit of maximum three posts per day for each editor. Even though it's not possible to impose this as a constraint by the software, it should be possible to agree on something. We're all adults so we should be able to settle this without running into arms races.

    Comment Source:Some feedback: **I think this 'post-editing' approach is clearly suboptimal**: although I'm deleting posts that seem irrelevant or have a too high 'might/could/...' content, it seems they are being posted at an even higher rate (probably my impression). So I did not even get to the point of really editing. (If the original posting editor did not care to write some accompanying sentences, i don't see why I should do that, if I think the post is hardly relevant in the first place) **I don't really want to get caught in an arms race where one editor is posting almost continuously and I'm almost deleting continously.** From my point of view, it would make more sense for each editor to reflect before posting something. **A suggestion could be, for example, impose a limit of maximum three posts per day for each editor**. Even though it's not possible to impose this as a constraint by the software, it should be possible to agree on something. We're all adults so we should be able to settle this without running into arms races.
  • 17.

    I don’t really want to get caught in an arms race where one editor is posting almost continuously and I’m almost deleting continously.

    may be they are now posting so much BECAUSE you are deleting :) death may trigger survival

    Can't you talk to each other?

    Comment Source:>I don’t really want to get caught in an arms race where one editor is posting almost continuously and I’m almost deleting continously. may be they are now posting so much BECAUSE you are deleting :) death may trigger survival Can't you talk to each other?
  • 18.
    edited October 2012

    I can only post a short note atm.

    Azimuth is a publisher. All publishers need an editorial policy with standards and guidelines. We haven't got enough of one.

    Here's the BBC on accuracy - pretty self-evident but takes work to do properly.

    "Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth.

    Where appropriate to the output, we should:

    gather material using first hand sources wherever possible
    check and cross check facts
    validate the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material
    corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible.
    

    In news and current affairs content, achieving due accuracy is more important than speed."

    Some good sources of scientific reporting guidelines might include Scientific American, New Scientist and the Columbia School of Journalism.

    I'd say a standard news story has a format something like:

    headline
    strapline - explanation of the headline
    who, what, when, where, how and why?
    conclusion
    signoff ~ implication | futurology | joke | other.
    

    I like the alleged translation of the japanese word for news: "surprising and relevant".

    I try not to post without having:

    read what I've found,
    read links to whatever original sources might be cited
    decided which is/are the best link(s) and 
    added a "why this is interesting and why you should read it" strapline; unless an existing one is already good enough. 
    

    A good rule for the scientifically literate Azimuth audience might be not to bother posting what's in in the mass media, the pop science magazines and even reputable online sites like Science Daily unless it's particularly relevant.

    Just my 2c.

    Excuse the brevity; in too much of a rush.

    Comment Source:I can only post a short note atm. Azimuth is a publisher. All publishers need an editorial policy with standards and guidelines. We haven't got enough of one. Here's the BBC on accuracy - pretty self-evident but takes work to do properly. "Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth. Where appropriate to the output, we should: gather material using first hand sources wherever possible check and cross check facts validate the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible. In news and current affairs content, achieving due accuracy is more important than speed." Some good sources of scientific reporting guidelines might include Scientific American, New Scientist and the Columbia School of Journalism. I'd say a standard news story has a format something like: headline strapline - explanation of the headline who, what, when, where, how and why? conclusion signoff ~ implication | futurology | joke | other. I like the alleged translation of the japanese word for news: "surprising and relevant". I try not to post without having: read what I've found, read links to whatever original sources might be cited decided which is/are the best link(s) and added a "why this is interesting and why you should read it" strapline; unless an existing one is already good enough. A good rule for the scientifically literate Azimuth audience might be not to bother posting what's in in the mass media, the pop science magazines and even reputable online sites like Science Daily unless it's particularly relevant. Just my 2c. Excuse the brevity; in too much of a rush.
  • 19.

    @ Jim: what you write sounds like a set of very good suggestions to me!

    (I hope I didn't offend you by writing 'one editor', since I believe it was not you.)

    Comment Source:@ Jim: what you write sounds like a set of very good suggestions to me! (I hope I didn't offend you by writing 'one editor', since I believe it was not you.)
  • 20.

    @ Nadja Kutz:

    may be they are now posting so much BECAUSE you are deleting :) death may trigger survival

    true: the hare is running faster than the fox, because the fox is only running for its dinner while the hare is running for its survival ;-)

    By the way, and unrelated, don't you want to use your real credentials on Azimuth? Since all of us do this here?

    Comment Source:@ Nadja Kutz: > may be they are now posting so much BECAUSE you are deleting :) death may trigger survival true: the hare is running faster than the fox, because the fox is only running for its dinner while the hare is running for its survival ;-) By the way, and unrelated, don't you want to use your real credentials on Azimuth? Since all of us do this here?
  • 21.
    nad
    edited October 2012

    ?????

    http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=&search=credential you want me to show a Berechtigungsnachweis?!!

    reminds me of: "Bis zur deutschen Wiedervereinigung bestand in West-Berlin ebenfalls eine Mitführpflicht des Personalausweises, was auf Rechtsverordnungen der Siegermächte des Zweiten Weltkriegs zurückging."

    (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitführpflicht)

    Comment Source:????? http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=&search=credential you want me to show a Berechtigungsnachweis?!! reminds me of: "Bis zur deutschen Wiedervereinigung bestand in West-Berlin ebenfalls eine Mitführpflicht des Personalausweises, was auf Rechtsverordnungen der Siegermächte des Zweiten Weltkriegs zurückging." (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitführpflicht)
  • 22.

    ????

    With credentials I meant your full name Nadja Kutz. (Ok, I admit the term was a bit "over the top")

    It's simply a form of politeness, we are all using our real names, instead of a three-letter abbreviation. And I personally believe this improves our credibility. I don't see what the second world war has to do with that.

    Comment Source:> ???? With credentials I meant your full name Nadja Kutz. (Ok, I admit the term was a bit "over the top") It's simply a form of politeness, we are all using our real names, instead of a three-letter abbreviation. And I personally believe this improves our credibility. I don't see what the second world war has to do with that.
  • 23.
    nad
    edited October 2012

    It’s simply a form of politeness, we are all using our real names

    I had chosen my login name before this policy of using real names was set and - even if I wanted - it would be not so easy to change this, that is I would probably need to set up a new account, (what about my earlier writings ?) etc. Apart from this I had said earlier that the first name Nadja (which is the german spelling of the short form of the russian name Nadeshda) is often connected with offers as they appear in certain mails and that influences the way people read my comments, so I am not sure that using my real name would really enlarge my credibility, but the contrary could happen. Nad sounds more neutral and actually english speaking people seem to prefer this ultrashort version of Nadeshda, because it is clear how to pronounce it. Moreover little tags or abbreviations could serve as links in recommendations (if there would be too many recomendations then it would of course be better to set up a link to a recommendations listing). In addition the abbreviation nad is linked to my real name and website. So if someone is interested in who I am this is rather straightforward to find out. But who knows wether all the people here at Azimuth are really the people they pretend to be.

    So I don't really see why you think I am unpolite.

    Apart from this Azimuth question: I see that there is a need for real authentifications in certain networks, however I think there is also some need for free space where one doesn't need to appear as an easy identifyable person. Last but not least if you see a stranger on the streets then this person also only reveals his or her outer appearance to you. In some sense it is mostly true that the more people know about you the more you are also vulnerable.

    I got the above Mitführpflicht into my head when I read the word Berechtigungsnachweis. For the non-german speakers: Until the reunification (1990) it seems there was a law by the allied forces that every person in Westberlin (where I was born) had to wear an identification card. I remember that the rumors were at that time that if you didn't then you could even be shot, but I had sofar not found out wether this was really true.

    Comment Source:>It’s simply a form of politeness, we are all using our real names I had chosen my login name before this policy of using real names was set and - even if I wanted - it would be not so easy to change this, that is I would probably need to set up a new account, (what about my earlier writings ?) etc. Apart from this I had said earlier that the first name Nadja (which is the german spelling of the short form of the russian name Nadeshda) is often connected with offers as they appear in certain mails and that influences the way people read my comments, so I am not sure that using my real name would really enlarge my credibility, but the contrary could happen. Nad sounds more neutral and actually english speaking people seem to prefer this ultrashort version of Nadeshda, because it is clear how to pronounce it. Moreover little tags or abbreviations could serve as links in recommendations (if there would be too many recomendations then it would of course be better to set up a link to a recommendations listing). In addition the abbreviation nad is linked to my real name and website. So if someone is interested in who I am this is rather straightforward to find out. But who knows wether all the people here at Azimuth are really the people they pretend to be. So I don't really see why you think I am unpolite. Apart from this Azimuth question: I see that there is a need for real authentifications in certain networks, however I think there is also some need for free space where one doesn't need to appear as an easy identifyable person. Last but not least if you see a stranger on the streets then this person also only reveals his or her outer appearance to you. In some sense it is mostly true that the more people know about you the more you are also vulnerable. I got the above Mitführpflicht into my head when I read the word Berechtigungsnachweis. For the non-german speakers: Until the reunification (1990) it seems there was a law by the allied forces that every person in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westberlin">Westberlin</a> (where I was born) had to wear an identification card. I remember that the rumors were at that time that if you didn't then you could even be shot, but I had sofar not found out wether this was really true.
  • 24.

    Changing is quite easy, you can just send an email to Andrew Stacey to change "nad" to your real name.

    I think it is not polite to keep an abbreviation because all new members are required to use their real names. See for example this discussion from almost two years ago:

    http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/394/use-of-real-names/?Focus=2229#Comment_2229

    Comment Source:Changing is quite easy, you can just send an email to Andrew Stacey to change "nad" to your real name. I think it is not polite to keep an abbreviation because all new members are required to use their real names. See for example this discussion from almost two years ago: [http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/394/use-of-real-names/?Focus=2229#Comment_2229](http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/394/use-of-real-names/?Focus=2229#Comment_2229)
  • 25.
    nad
    edited October 2012

    As I understood it is Andrew Stacy who is responsible for the forums' servers, so it would actually be him, who would be in charge for setting the rules for the forum. But maybe he transferred the handling of this to John. ????? In particular there exists something as a real name option in the forums member section, as you can see e.g. here at my example: http://forum.azimuthproject.org/account/171/

    And this is one reason why I interpreted John's comment rather as a pledge to use real names and not really as mandatory. (Apart from this by looking at Johns comment it seems I am a ghost anyway)

    I understand that if Azimuth should get more institutionalized (like for funding) then it needs to have at least some "real task-accepted" persons who throw in their names in order to give Azimuth a better standing. With "real task-accepted" I mean here persons who have a certain level of acceptance in real societies for being able to accomplish the tasks involved here or people with some reputation. In particular if Azimuth would be mainly a Crackpot-only community then "real names" wouldn't help too much in raising its acceptance.

    So apart from the above mentioned reasons for my hesitation to use my real name, I may add that I don't know how this project is evolving and what kind of members there are going to join in and frankly speaking I have already now some strange feelings about some members, actions and policies. Up to now I was able to live with this, but it might be that this changes. Using an abbreviation is for me also some way to express this ambivalence.

    Moreover I want to emphasize again that anonymity or pseudonomity might be important. Just imagine someone wants to communicate about some real awkward real environmental scandal and fears to get in trouble because of this? Alone critisizing one's boss actions may pose a problem in some cases.

    Comment Source:As I understood it is Andrew Stacy who is responsible for the forums' servers, so it would actually be him, who would be in charge for setting the rules for the forum. But maybe he transferred the handling of this to John. ????? In particular there exists something as a real name option in the forums member section, as you can see e.g. here at my example: <a href="http://forum.azimuthproject.org/account/171/">http://forum.azimuthproject.org/account/171/ </a> And this is one reason why I interpreted <a href="http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/394/use-of-real-names/?Focus=2299#Comment_2299">John's comment</a> rather as a pledge to use real names and not really as mandatory. (Apart from this by looking at Johns comment it seems I am a ghost anyway) I understand that if Azimuth should get more institutionalized (like for funding) then it needs to have at least some "real task-accepted" persons who throw in their names in order to give Azimuth a better standing. With "real task-accepted" I mean here persons who have a certain level of acceptance in real societies for being able to accomplish the tasks involved here or people with some reputation. In particular if Azimuth would be mainly a Crackpot-only community then "real names" wouldn't help too much in raising its acceptance. So apart from the above mentioned reasons for my hesitation to use my real name, I may add that I don't know how this project is evolving and what kind of members there are going to join in and frankly speaking I have already now some strange feelings about some members, actions and policies. Up to now I was able to live with this, but it might be that this changes. Using an abbreviation is for me also some way to express this ambivalence. Moreover I want to emphasize again that anonymity or pseudonomity might be important. Just imagine someone wants to communicate about some real awkward real environmental scandal and fears to get in trouble because of this? Alone critisizing one's boss actions may pose a problem in some cases.
  • 26.
    edited October 2012

    Frederik wrote:

    I think this ’post-editing’ approach is clearly suboptimal: although I’m deleting posts that seem irrelevant or have a too high ’might/could/…’ content, it seems they are being posted at an even higher rate (probably my impression).

    Did you take my suggestion and tell Rasha Kamel that you were deleting these posts, and why? I wrote:

    If you delete a post of hers, please post an article to +rasha kamel (not the whole world!) politely telling her why you did it.

    If you don't, the necessary feedback isn't taking place.

    The only people who have the ability to post under the Azimuth name on Google+ are you, me, Jim Stuttard and Rasha Kamel. I'm not posting much these days, and I don't think Jim is either, so I'm pretty sure it's Rasha whose posts you are deleting. But if you want to be cautious, you can post something on Google just to the three of us, containing the link and explaining why you deleted the post containing that link.

    I believe this will work much better than just deleting posts, especially since she probably doesn't even notice that you're deleting them: only very careful people go back to look at old posts unless someone comments on them.

    Comment Source:Frederik wrote: > I think this ’post-editing’ approach is clearly suboptimal: although I’m deleting posts that seem irrelevant or have a too high ’might/could/…’ content, it seems they are being posted at an even higher rate (probably my impression). Did you take my suggestion and tell Rasha Kamel that you were deleting these posts, and why? I wrote: > If you delete a post of hers, please post an article to +rasha kamel (not the whole world!) politely telling her why you did it. If you don't, the necessary feedback isn't taking place. The only people who have the ability to post under the Azimuth name on Google+ are you, me, [[Jim Stuttard]] and [[Rasha Kamel]]. I'm not posting much these days, and I don't think Jim is either, so I'm pretty sure it's Rasha whose posts you are deleting. But if you want to be cautious, you can post something on Google _just to the three of us_, containing the link and explaining why you deleted the post containing that link. I believe this will work much better than just deleting posts, especially since she probably doesn't even notice that you're deleting them: only very careful people go back to look at old posts unless someone comments on them.
  • 27.
    edited October 2012

    Nad wrote:

    I had chosen my login name before this policy of using real names was set and - even if I wanted - it would be not so easy to change this, that is I would probably need to set up a new account...

    It actually is quite easy: you just need to agree to do it. I believe your old posts will automatically get your new username attached to them.

    We had a big discussion about this in 2011. The conclusion was that new members would only be allowed in if they used their real names, while existing members would be gently pressured to use their real names. Most of them agreed to do so, including Frederik and also Martin Gisser.

    I'm sorry that I forgot to list you among the people to be 'gently pressured' at the time, but anyway: it's happening now.

    However, if you don't want to do it, it's no big deal. Everyone here who cares knows your real name.

    In particular if Azimuth would be mainly a crackpot-only community then “real names” wouldn’t help too much in raising its acceptance.

    Even in that case, using real names would be good for the world! What matters is not "raising the acceptance" of Azimuth but giving people a transparent picture of who is involved, to help them adequately assess our work. If we're all crackpots, they deserve to know that.

    Comment Source:Nad wrote: > I had chosen my login name before this policy of using real names was set and - even if I wanted - it would be not so easy to change this, that is I would probably need to set up a new account... It actually is quite easy: you just need to agree to do it. I believe your old posts will automatically get your new username attached to them. We had a [big discussion about this](http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/394/use-of-real-names/?Focus=2202) in 2011. The conclusion was that new members would only be allowed in if they used their real names, while existing members would be gently pressured to use their real names. Most of them agreed to do so, [including Frederik](http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/415/username-changes/?Focus=2293#Comment_2293) and also Martin Gisser. I'm sorry that I forgot to list you among the people to be 'gently pressured' at the time, but anyway: it's happening now. However, if you don't want to do it, it's no big deal. Everyone here who cares knows your real name. > In particular if Azimuth would be mainly a crackpot-only community then “real names” wouldn’t help too much in raising its acceptance. Even in that case, using real names would be good for the world! What matters is not "raising the acceptance" of Azimuth but giving people a transparent picture of who is involved, to help them adequately assess our work. If we're all crackpots, they deserve to know that. <img src = "http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/emoticons/tongue2.gif" alt = ""/>
  • 28.
    edited October 2012

    Jim wrote:

    A good rule for the scientifically literate Azimuth audience might be not to bother posting what’s in in the mass media, the pop science magazines and even reputable online sites like Science Daily unless it’s particularly relevant.

    I can tell Rasha this... but right now the only way I know to get a lot of good content on the Azimuth part of Google+ is to post it myself, since nobody else seems sufficiently energetic to do it. And unfortunately, right now even I am not sufficiently energetic to do it: I'm busy writing online books, course notes and the like.

    So, I don't see any way to really solve this problem except by finding someone who is energetic, motivated to solve it, and capable of doing it in a way we all admire. And I don't know how to find that person, though I've been trying.

    However, I see you (Jim) have invited Irina Tcherednichenko to help post to Azimuth, and she just accepted... when she gets less busy in a few weeks. This may help.

    Comment Source:Jim wrote: > A good rule for the scientifically literate Azimuth audience might be not to bother posting what’s in in the mass media, the pop science magazines and even reputable online sites like Science Daily unless it’s particularly relevant. I can tell Rasha this... but right now the only way I know to get a _lot_ of good content on the Azimuth part of Google+ is to post it myself, since nobody else seems sufficiently energetic to do it. And unfortunately, right now even I am not sufficiently energetic to do it: I'm busy writing online books, course notes and the like. So, I don't see any way to really solve this problem except by finding someone who is energetic, motivated to solve it, and capable of doing it in a way we all admire. And I don't know how to find that person, though I've been trying. However, I see you (Jim) have invited [Irina Tcherednichenko](https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/104603011082997519952/114264685127168390839/about) to help post to Azimuth, and she just accepted... when she gets less busy in a few weeks. This may help.
  • 29.

    Why the pressure to post a lot? There is an information-deluge out there and most of your readership/volunteers are time-pressed.

    The comment count on G+ seems to bear this out: most people seem to be waiting for 'real' Azimuth comments.

    My vote would be against 'a lot' of content (although perhaps, as ever, I'm missing the point).

    Comment Source:Why the pressure to post a lot? There is an information-deluge out there and most of your readership/volunteers are time-pressed. The comment count on G+ seems to bear this out: most people seem to be waiting for 'real' Azimuth comments. My vote would be against 'a lot' of content (although perhaps, as ever, I'm missing the point).
  • 30.

    John Baez (thank you for commenting) wrote:

    Did you take my suggestion and tell Rasha Kamel that you were deleting these posts, and why? I wrote:

    I agree that's a good way to provide feedback, but I didn't because

    (a) I don't have his/her contact information, and I never even got into touch with him/her here on the Forum.

    (b) as I wrote above here it would make more sense to post my reasons for editing here on the Forum, because I don't see this as a personal issue. My edits may be wrong too, and then someone else can disagree here, so I can get feedback too.

    It's maybe naïve, but I would have hoped that the editors of Azimuth+ would also care to look at the Forum. At least is partially correct, it seems.

    (c) I haven't got infinite time, and if someone doesn't care to provide even an introductory text to a post, I don't care too much to spell out in detail why I decided it was irrelevant. But well, maybe I should, since there may not be improvements otherwise and I do care about the perception of Azimuth.

    (d) my main rule is to simply delete everything with too many "might/could/may" especially if there's no text accompanying it. I think this is not really information, just scientific advertisements, in some sense.

    By the way, yesterday a news item was posted, that had already been posted one or two weeks ago or so (correct to use 'or so' here? I use it in combination with a number) before I started deleting. So I would agree with Allan Erskine's comment:

    Why the pressure to post a lot? There is an information-deluge out there and most of your readership/volunteers are time-pressed.

    I think it's better to post a few relevant posts than just make links to whatever might be vaguely related. That's why I suggested a rule of thumb here intended for who might be inclined toward 'high rate, low content'.

    Comment Source:John Baez (thank you for commenting) wrote: > Did you take my suggestion and tell Rasha Kamel that you were deleting these posts, and why? I wrote: I agree that's a good way to provide feedback, but I didn't because (a) I don't have his/her contact information, and I never even got into touch with him/her here on the Forum. (b) as I wrote above [here](http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1041/azimuth-on-google-/?Focus=7556#Comment_7556) it would make more sense to post my reasons for editing here on the Forum, because I don't see this as a personal issue. My edits may be wrong too, and then someone else can disagree here, so I can get feedback too. It's maybe naïve, but I would have hoped that the editors of Azimuth+ would also care to look at the Forum. At least is partially correct, it seems. (c) I haven't got infinite time, and if someone doesn't care to provide even an introductory text to a post, I don't care too much to spell out in detail why I decided it was irrelevant. But well, maybe I should, since there may not be improvements otherwise and I do care about the perception of Azimuth. (d) my main rule is to simply delete everything with too many "might/could/may" especially if there's no text accompanying it. I think this is not really information, just scientific advertisements, in some sense. By the way, yesterday a news item was posted, that had already been posted one or two weeks ago or so (correct to use 'or so' here? I use it in combination with a number) before I started deleting. So I would agree with Allan Erskine's comment: > Why the pressure to post a lot? There is an information-deluge out there and most of your readership/volunteers are time-pressed. I think it's better to post a few relevant posts than just make links to whatever might be vaguely related. That's why I suggested a rule of thumb [here](http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1041/azimuth-on-google-/?Focus=7635#Comment_7635) intended for who might be inclined toward 'high rate, low content'.
  • 31.

    We had a big discussion about this in 2011. The conclusion was that new members would only be allowed in if they used their real names, while existing members would be gently pressured to use their real names. Most of them agreed to do so, including Frederik and also Martin Gisser.

    I’m sorry that I forgot to list you among the people to be ’gently pressured’ at the time, but anyway: it’s happening now.

    So if I understand correctly Frederick and John you are "gently pressuring" me to use my real name. I don't want to make your life unnecessarily difficult, but at the moment I see my hesitance as a small possibility to "gently pressure" you to think about the issues (authentication, organisatorial structure, finance, etc.) mentioned above.

    I think that there will more structural questions show up, if you want to further institutionalize Azimuth, in particular if you want get funding it would better to squeeze it in some legal framework like a 501(c) organization or the german gemeinnütziger Verein.

    Since some juridicial things are just giving me the heavy creeps, you can be quite sure that I don't want to deal with this, so I think it would be rather important to find law-experts for this.

    Comment Source:>We had a big discussion about this in 2011. The conclusion was that new members would only be allowed in if they used their real names, while existing members would be gently pressured to use their real names. Most of them agreed to do so, including Frederik and also Martin Gisser. >I’m sorry that I forgot to list you among the people to be ’gently pressured’ at the time, but anyway: it’s happening now. So if I understand correctly Frederick and John you are "gently pressuring" me to use my real name. I don't want to make your life unnecessarily difficult, but at the moment I see my hesitance as a small possibility to "gently pressure" you to think about the issues (authentication, organisatorial structure, finance, etc.) mentioned above. I think that there will more structural questions show up, if you want to further institutionalize Azimuth, in particular if you want get funding it would better to squeeze it in some legal framework like a 501(c) organization or the german gemeinnütziger Verein. Since some juridicial things are just giving me the heavy creeps, you can be quite sure that I don't want to deal with this, so I think it would be rather important to find law-experts for this.
  • 32.
    edited October 2012

    Frederik wrote:

    I don’t have his/her contact information, and I never even got into touch with him/her here on the Forum.

    You can just contact her on Google+. I tried to explain this before, but I guess I didn't do it very well:

    If you go to "Home" on Google+ you'll see a little box near the top with your icon next to it and faint words saying "Share what's new". You can type a message, and click on the X in the green box that says "Public" to make this green box disappear, so this message will not be sent to the public. Then you can type "rasha kamel" next to that box where it says "+add more people". Then, click "Share" and the message will be sent to just her.

    Or, you can send it to her and John Baez and Jim Studdard - the complete set of people who constitute "Azimuth".

    Or, you can send it to just "Azimuth", and then we'll all see it - but only when we're logged in as "Azimuth", so this is not quite as reliable.

    as I wrote above here it would make more sense to post my reasons for editing here on the Forum, because I don’t see this as a personal issue. My edits may be wrong too, and then someone else can disagree here, so I can get feedback too.

    That makes some sense - but I don't think Rasha reads this forum much, so to get feedback to her, and give her a chance to disagree, the method I suggest will work better.

    I haven’t got infinite time, and if someone doesn’t care to provide even an introductory text to a post, I don’t care too much to spell out in detail why I decided it was irrelevant.

    Okay, but it's not hard to tell her that you deleted it. Right now I doubt she even knows you're deleting some of her posts! So, there's no feedback going on at all... so the situation won't improve; you'll just get tired and quit eventually.

    Comment Source:Frederik wrote: > I don’t have his/her contact information, and I never even got into touch with him/her here on the Forum. You can just contact her on Google+. I tried to explain this before, but I guess I didn't do it very well: If you go to "Home" on Google+ you'll see a little box near the top with your icon next to it and faint words saying "Share what's new". You can type a message, and click on the X in the green box that says "Public" to make this green box disappear, so this message will not be sent to the public. Then you can type "rasha kamel" next to that box where it says "+add more people". Then, click "Share" and the message will be sent to just her. Or, you can send it to her and John Baez and Jim Studdard - the complete set of people who constitute "Azimuth". Or, you can send it to just "Azimuth", and then we'll all see it - but only when we're logged in as "Azimuth", so this is not quite as reliable. > as I wrote above here it would make more sense to post my reasons for editing here on the Forum, because I don’t see this as a personal issue. My edits may be wrong too, and then someone else can disagree here, so I can get feedback too. That makes some sense - but I don't think Rasha reads this forum much, so to get feedback to her, and give her a chance to disagree, the method I suggest will work better. > I haven’t got infinite time, and if someone doesn’t care to provide even an introductory text to a post, I don’t care too much to spell out in detail why I decided it was irrelevant. Okay, but it's not hard to tell her _that_ you deleted it. Right now I doubt she even knows you're deleting some of her posts! So, there's no feedback going on at all... so the situation won't improve; you'll just get tired and quit eventually.
  • 33.
    edited October 2012

    Allan wrote:

    Why the pressure to post a lot? There is an information-deluge out there and most of your readership/volunteers are time-pressed.

    Did I pressure someone to post a lot? I don't see that in this thread, but maybe I did... or maybe my own behavior suggests that I consider loquaciousness admirable. As Sidney Greenstreet said in The Maltese Falcon:

    I distrust a close-mouthed man. He generally picks the wrong time to talk and says the wrong things. Talking’s something you can’t do judiciously unless you keep in practice, and I’ll tell you right out that I’m a man who likes talking to a man that likes to talk.

    I actually think there's some truth to this. But you're right: one really important and interesting post per day, or per week, would be much better than lots of not-so-good ones.

    I could suggest to Rasha that she pick her favorite $n$ articles each day to link to, where $1 \le n \le 3$ can be chosen by us here. I could also try to get her to improve her judgement, but that'll work best if I can give specific heuristics for how to do so.

    Comment Source:Allan wrote: > Why the pressure to post a lot? There is an information-deluge out there and most of your readership/volunteers are time-pressed. Did I pressure someone to post a lot? I don't see that in this thread, but maybe I did... or maybe my own behavior suggests that I consider loquaciousness admirable. As Sidney Greenstreet said in _The Maltese Falcon_: > I distrust a close-mouthed man. He generally picks the wrong time to talk and says the wrong things. Talking’s something you can’t do judiciously unless you keep in practice, and I’ll tell you right out that I’m a man who likes talking to a man that likes to talk. I actually think there's some truth to this. But you're right: one really important and interesting post per day, or per week, would be much better than lots of not-so-good ones. I could suggest to Rasha that she pick her favorite $n$ articles each day to link to, where $1 \le n \le 3$ can be chosen by us here. I could also try to get her to improve her judgement, but that'll work best if I can give specific heuristics for how to do so.
  • 34.
    edited October 2012

    You can just contact her on Google+. I tried to explain this before

    Ok, thanks, it's clear now! I'll do my best to give feedback when I do next edits.

    if I can give specific heuristics for how to do so

    I would say, if the abstract of the news article says "may/might/could" it's probably less relevant. (I'm just thinking, maybe that's why these verbs are then often omitted in the titles of news articles -- to avoid that nobody reads further...)

    I’m a man who likes talking to a man that likes to talk

    I think I understand "likes talking" (e.g. keeping in practice to open the mouth ;) ) but is the meaning of "likes to talk" so different? To me "likes to talk" sounds like "likes serious talking" but I'd like to hear how it sounds to a native speaker.

    Comment Source:> You can just contact her on Google+. I tried to explain this before Ok, thanks, it's clear now! I'll do my best to give feedback when I do next edits. > if I can give specific heuristics for how to do so I would say, if the abstract of the news article says "may/might/could" it's probably less relevant. (I'm just thinking, maybe that's why these verbs are then often omitted in the titles of news articles -- to avoid that nobody reads further...) > I’m a man who likes talking to a man that likes to talk I think I understand "likes talking" (e.g. keeping in practice to open the mouth ;) ) but is the meaning of "likes to talk" so different? To me "likes to talk" sounds like "likes serious talking" but I'd like to hear how it sounds to a native speaker.
  • 35.

    No, the meaning of "likes to talk" is (to me) indistinguishable from "likes talking". It just sounds more stupidly repetitive and less charming to say:

    I’m a man who likes talking to a man that likes talking.

    I'm happy with the conversations so far with Rasha on G+. She is certainly eager to help out.

    Comment Source:No, the meaning of "likes to talk" is (to me) indistinguishable from "likes talking". It just sounds more stupidly repetitive and less charming to say: > I’m a man who likes talking to a man that likes talking. I'm happy with the conversations so far with Rasha on G+. She is certainly eager to help out.
Sign In or Register to comment.