Some related posts from Technorati and Google.

  Say Anything: North Dakota's Most Popular Political Blog: Because he’s black, and according to media double standards and liberal orthodoxy minorities can’t be racist. Can you imagine what the reaction would be if Joe Buck said “Gee, Mike Vick sure is a good quarterback, his great grandmother must have slept with a white guy.” (via Cosmos)

Articles and Texticles: Gigantic Field Worker 1995 He then had his Satori moment. Meridian Winery Striking out from his large mural paintings like the winery above, John Cerney began to abandon the traditional grounds for his paintings and focussed his art onto large cutout billboards that (via Cosmos)

FifteenNineteen: The name for the blog comes from the Fifteenth and Nineteenth amendments to the Constitution, giving all races and both sexes the right to vote. Yes, there are other amendments that expand the right to vote to even more Americans, but adding more numbers to the site name would have made it way too long and harder to remember. (via Cosmos)

The Vanity Press: . I am as certain of that as I am of the fact that I may very well be unable to persuade others, no less educated or credentialed than I, of the truth so perspicuous to me. And here is a point that is often missed, the independence from each other, and therefore the compatibility, of two assertions thought to be contradictory when made by the same person: (1) I believe X to be true and (2) I believe that there is no mechanism, procedure, calculus, test, by which the truth of X can be necessarily demonstrated to any sane person who has come to a different conclusion (not that such a demonstration can never be successful, only that its success is contingent and not necessary). In order to assert something and mean it without qualification, I of course have to believe that it is true, but I don't have to believe that I could demonstrate its truth to all rational persons. The claim that something is universal and the acknowledgment that I couldn't necessarily prove it are logically independent of each other. The second does not undermine the first.The point I want to make here is that assertions about moral relativism and moral absolutism are often made, in American politics, by people who are not clear about (via Cosmos)

Freedom To Differ: Thomas Chesney, a Lecturer in Information Systems at the Nottingham University Business School, published the results of his own Wikipedia study in the most recent edition of First Monday, and he came up with a surprising conclusion: experts rate the articles more highly than do non-experts. This is the article's abstract: (via Cosmos)

  Beasiswa Indonesia Scholarship: The scholarships aim to provide opportunities for independent postgraduate study in the United Kingdom for students who are engaged in or intending to pursue postgraduate work in their own country and who have demonstrated both academic excellence and the potential to become leaders, decision-makers and opinion formers in their own country. Subject to satisfactory progress, the scholarships lead to the award of a Masters. (via Cosmos)

  Governance Focus: EUROCHAMBRES, the Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry, participated in the conference on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Brussels today, reiterating the Chambers’ engagement to move the debate on CSR forward. EUROCHAMBRES congratulated the Finnish Presidency for bringing CSR stakeholders together at today’s conference before concluding its Presidency and particularly welcomed the choice of the central theme of the conference: the link between responsible innovation and competitiveness, i.e. (via Cosmos)

  Basement Tapes: An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility (via Cosmos)

  IFTF's Future Now: Those in the expert group ranked their articles as generally credible, higher than those evaluated by the non-experts. Chesney admits that this is unexpected, but has a possible explanation: "It may be the case that non-experts are more cynical about information outside of their field and the difference comes from a natural reaction to rate unfamiliar articles as being less credible." (via Cosmos)

  Smart Mobs: Those in the expert group ranked their articles as generally credible, higher than those evaluated by the non-experts. Chesney admits that this is unexpected, but has a possible explanation: "It may be the case that non-experts are more cynical about information outside of their field and the difference comes from a natural reaction to rate unfamiliar articles as being less credible." (via Cosmos)

Andrew Dillon’s Blog on the Architecture of Information | InfoMatters: s clear that gaining attention is becoming a major concern for business, politicians, charities and even academics. You can find an interesting review of Richard Lanham’s book “The Economy of Attention” at: www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/goldhaber/index.html (via Cosmos)

  Zeropaid.com - File Sharing Programs, Downloads, Information and P2P News: When Gnutella and other file-sharing communities are compared to that of BitTorrent, the authors make an interesting, though obvious, conclusion that "Since the applications and demographics in these communities are similar, the low level of freeriding suggests the design of the BitTorrent protocol is successful in attracting higher overall user contribution levels." (via Cosmos)

  slight paranoia: We need to figure out, as a nation where the majority of people do not support a national ID, if we want a no-fly list in the first place and if we are willing to be forced to present our papers when we want to fly/ride a train/get on a greyhound bus. How many 4-year old children, and countless John Smiths and Robert Johnsons are we willing to let the government search and inconvenience in the name of "security". (via Cosmos)

  Jeff McNeill: An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility (via Cosmos)

Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, Wikis, Openpedia.org