Comments on: Open Text on Enterprise 2.0

By: poker regeln straÃŸe

poker regeln straÃŸe — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:17:35 +0000

juegos online ruleta…

Hierist jeu de streap poker salle poker online texas holdem wahrscheinlichkeiten roulette europea scaricare casino gratis…

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:13:54 +0000

Well, how can we distinguish between an unacknowledged implication, and a straw argument? That’s the deep problem.

I”ll point out you were also a John Edwards supporter, and didn’t you have a closer association with that campaign in terms of tech policy than you do with Obama, and the campaign was much more “Web 2.0″ emphasized? (bluntly, we’re going around the point that of course he wants to point to a success instead of a failure).

For the purposes of discussion, I’m working from your blog post, which granted, is not a transcription. However, even you noted “… to explain how to take advantage of 2.0 technology in the organization while avoiding the dangers, which â€” what a shock! â€” happens to map to Open Textâ€™s software and services”. So that sentiment doesn’t seem to be my invention.

By: davidw

davidw — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:32:29 +0000

Seth, Tom in fact said parenthetically, “I’m using the Obama campaign because I know David Weinberger is in the room and he’s an Obama supporter.” It was his way of making a friendly gesture to me.

Tom does indeed think that social sw is important to corporations, but you are tying together two sentences separated by the entire length of his talk. His point really was exactly as I reported it: The fact that social sw is showing up in US presidential campaigns is evidence that “web 2.0 is here.”

You are arguing against a strawperson of your own devising.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:37:40 +0000

You mean he pointed to unimportant aspect of Obama’s campaign, one which has no contribution to his success? Well, you said it, not me! :-)
[That's a joke! It wasn't a serious assertion of what you said, it was meant as humor!]

Note two words I used in my comment: “strongly imply“. I would indeed assert there’s an implication. That can’t be proven, as a logical matter.

But he sure didn’t say “Web 2.0 is here” – pointing to the defunct John Edwards campaign. Or “Web 2.0 is here” – pointing to the RuPaul lunatic fringe. And coupled with “Politicians are breaking out of the confines of the media.” – another aspect I discuss at length in my column – I don’t think such an implication is ungrounded in the text. Plus “In the long term, youâ€™ll be at a competitive disadvantage with companies that do embrace these productivity tools”. That sure sounds in context like an IMPLICATION that Obama had a competitive advantage, even if the exact words “Obama had a competitive advantage” are nowhere to be found.

By: davidw

davidw — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 02:28:34 +0000

Seth, Tom didn’t point to Obama as a winner. He didn’t make any claim about the importance of the Web to Obama’s success so far. All he did was what I said: Used it as an example that Web 2.0 stuff is getting used in lots of places. What you claim this is a “perfect example” of is entirely your conjecture about what Tom said, and your conjecture is wrong.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:35:25 +0000

“Tom begins by pointing to the Obama campaign.”

And let me point to my column:

“Great internet campaigns don’t guarantee success in politics”

The above seems a perfect example of the technique that I was outlining – evangelists point to the one winner, talk- it up, strongly imply their snake-oil is the recipe for success – ignoring all the other people who drank the Kool-Aid and crashed and burned (e.g. John Edwards).

“everyone gets to talk and everyone gets to listen”

Like all animals are equals but some are more equal than others.