Newly formed solar system contains Eye of Sauron … news at 11. (Via.)

Jeff begins with what he calls “an exercise in sizing knowledge.” Enter the query “real estate,” and you come up with over 100 million results on Yahoo! search, Google, and MSN search. But what if you were seeking a more contained, possibly more valuable font of information? Say, everything Jeff’s mother has learned in the last 26 years of selling real estate in Larchmont, NY.

That is knowledge that could be available on the Internet, Jeff says, but isn’t, because of the technological barriers and the disincentives (or nonincentives) that keep it from getting there. According to Jeff, that’s what Yahoo!’s here to fix.

The Yahoo! search vision, he says, is to “Enable people to find, use, share and expand all human knowledge.”

• Find: Enable people to find what they are looking for
• Use: Search not for sake of searching, but to achieve a purpose
• Share: Sharing knowledge with people you connect with and connecting to people who you share knowledge with
• Expand: If we’re successful at doing all of the above, Jeff says, this one’s a freebie.

He points out that the first letters of each keyword in this mission statement spell FUSE, and helpfully defines the word.

He talks about finding a restaurant review on Yahoo! Local Search. Because both he and the writer of the review happened to be members of Yahoo! 360 (“happened” is probably a strong term here; he’s Vice President of Yahoo! Search and the other member also worked at Yahoo!), he was able to better evaluate her review.

Relating a moment of extraordinary serendipity at a speech he gave in eastern Asia, Jeff sounds mildly Scientological — This is the manifestation of the vision!

But then, we all have our L. Ron moments. Jeff leaves us with some helpful links:

• Yahoo! Search blog
• Yahoo! Next

Evan Williams, Mena Trott, Caterina Fake, Lili Cheng and Amy Jo Kim have gotten off to a rollicking discussion of our private selves, our public selves, and our cyber-selves. They’re extending Jonathan Schwarz’s talk on trust.

Trust structures on the Internet are complicated. Not just because it can be difficult to quantify who you trust to provide you information*, but also because it’s difficult to control who accesses your online persona. And even the implications of this are not so clear-cut. Amy Jo Kim mentions that when she blogs, she must accept having no idea which strangers are reading it or how they’ll use the information. Evan Williams points out that for some, the concern isn’t strangers, but acquaintances or coworkers. Caterina Fake paraphrases a David Weinberger anecdote — in the world around us, strangers mean danger; on the Internet, they mean connection.

So how do we create trust networks that can serve these diverse approaches? I didn’t hear any direct answers from the panel, but it’s a big question, so I forgive.

Interesting question from Amy Jo Kim: The kids who are blogging today, taking photos every day, writing their lives in public, what expectations are they creating for the future?

* I love my mother very much, but two of the last three e-mails she sent were quickly debunked in a trip to Snopes.com. Sorry, mom, you don’t get to filter my news.

supernova2005

Janice Fraser, the author of this article, is facilitating a discussion about what’s new on the Internet — what developments like Flickr, Technorati, Del.icio.us, &c. mean. Do they signify a broad advancement in the pattern of innovation?

She starts off with a slide explaining her thesis: “The new internet embraces openness, relinquishes control, and assumes an unknowable future that will be realized through collective effort.”

So where does this leave us? We’re turning away from publishers providing content and embracing people as content providers, Janice says. We’re mistrusting centralized authority in favor of collective wisdom. We’re rejecting a packaged experience for an authentic one.

Read more…

All right. I’m throwing down my official entry in the Name-the-Unofficial-Journalist sweepstakes. For those of you who have lives beyond journalism, interactive media enthusiasts like Dan Gillmor and JD Lasica have been in a bit of a muddle to find a term for the many, many folks who are now producing works of journalism, but are not employed by any media organizations. Various factions are calling this “grassroots journalism” (Gillmor’s fave*), “personal media” (Lasica’s pick), “stand-alone journalism” (Chris Nolan’s choice) and “citizen journalism” (Steve Outing’s preference).

Why is it important? I guess because naming is a first step towards celebrating, acknowledging, and organizing. Names are important.

Pragmatically, if I’m not working for a news organization, I’m daunted from the task of reporting by the prospect of the question, “Who are you with?” or “Where is this going to go?” The very first thing I usually say to interviewees and potential sources is, “Hi, my name is Matt Thompson, I’m a reporter for FresnoBee.com.” But I honestly feel as though it’s the term “reporter,” not the institution of The Fresno Bee, that lends me more of the cachet of officialdom.

I’d feel a bit sheepish if I were out telling my interviewees that I’m doing “citizen’s journalism” for The Fresno Bee.

So, first off, if we’re calling these folks journalists, it stands to reason they’re doing some reporting. So can we give ’em the word “reporter”? It sounds better, more comfortable, and it’s easier to toss off.

We could just stop there. After all, I’m pretty down with saying, “Hi, I’m Matt Thompson, I’m reporting for Snarkmarket.com.” (Not that I ever do, but stay with me here.)

But I think there’s value in creating a separate term distinct from traditional media reporting. The term should imply what all those above do: I acknowledge that my reporting carries a perspective; I’m not hiding behind a big institution, nor are the resources of such an institution standing behind me.

My nomination? Street reporter.

• Quick, casual, easy-to-say.
• Accurate, especially to describe folks like Jarah.
• Simple conjugating: “I’m doing citizen’s journalism for …” vs. “I’m street-reporting for …”
• Implies performance of actual reporting, thereby distinguishing it from “blogger.”
• Fun aural affinities with “beat reporter” and “street performer.”

How’s about it, sports fans? Any counter-offers? Open to suggestions, here.

P.S.: I understand that this may be just like that time Amy Gahran started a campaign to get everyone to call RSS feeds “web feeds.” And no comment.

Correction: Dan Gillmor says his term of choice is actually “citizen journalism” as well.

How is this even possible? Basic census data on Google Maps, down to the city block level. As you zoom, it tells you the population within the map’s viewable range. (Waxtastic.)

Of all the arguments against same-sex marriage, I always thought this one, given by Maggie Gallagher to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in March of 2004, was the most rational: The available evidence indicates that children raised by both their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage tend to fare the best, on average, in our society. Government should have the freedom to promote this most successful arrangement above any other family structure, reserving for it the prized label of marriage.

Or, to put it another way:

Society is structured on the institution of marriage. … It has more to do with the welfare and civilizations of a people than any other institutions. … The state has a natural, direct, and vital interest in maximizing the number of successful marriages which lead to stable homes and families and in minimizing those which do not.

And honestly, it’s also true that families headed by partners of the same sex “are subjected to much greater pressures and problems” than straight families are, no doubt. Of course, the principal cause for that is probably societal bigotry, but when it comes to protecting the children, we must legislate with a mind to consequences as well as causes.

While I’m on a roll, it’s worth agreeing that removing the ban on same-sex marriage really does put us on a slippery slope towards things society considers unsavory, since it stands “on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage.”

You have to admit, these are all rational arguments. Fortunately, the Supreme Court didn’t find them convincing 38 years ago yesterday, when it ruled against Virginia in the case that made interracial marriage legal in every US state.

All the quotes in this post were from the arguments made by Virginia’s counsel in that case, R. D. McIlwaine III, reproduced from the transcript of the case.

A Flickr photostream showing more pictures of Sony’s Libri

Why English majors “see developing the moral imagination as more important than securing economic self-justification,” why conversations with mass murderers are often disappointing, why the readers of Snarkmarket are all doomed, and more, in my favorite graduation speech of 2005 so far, by Mark Danner.

Thirty gigabytes on a super-cheap credit-card sized disc? Invented by a company whose English-language site hasn’t been updated since 2002? Gosh, why does this sound so familiar? (Unmediated.)