iquaid (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} iquaid) wrote,@ 2006-10-07 19:44:00 |
|
The Danger in the Intrinsic Meaning
Spending a lot of time these days pondering, sculpting, and playing with open content.
As a writer with a sensitive ear ... which is a good thing since I can never remember the rules of grammar to argue them, but I hear them with my inner and outer ear and know right from wrong ... I know that the subtlest of changes is the source for a whole switch in meaning.
Combine two content forms, such as audio and text, and you now have the whole range of human verbal communication. It is not just what you say, it is also how you say it.
A comedian puts this to good effect. So do critics. As do empire builders, crushers of dreams, and those intent on poison.
What you can never get around are the easy ways we can twist intrinsic meaning with the littlest of tweaks. Verbally it can be a click instead of a clock of the tongue, the raising of an eyebrow, or lowering of the lips. In written form, as in produced video and audio, there are may chances and methods to apply the wee smallest of influences ... and change the whole world. Or make something bad good, or something good bad.
This is the power of raw video and audio footage, or of the first draft style of writing. You are getting a person at their moment of least manipulation. A camera records what it sees, and allows for multiple interpretations. But be aware that the placement of the camera, its angle and subject, all influence the end result.
We need to keep this in mind when we discuss how we share open content. With just a few changed words, the meaning of a written passage is drastically changed. Heck, even the choice of capitalization. Just imagine what happens when you make the "J" in "Jack" lower case: "I helped my Uncle Jack off a horse."
For now, we must maintain constant vigilence. Most changes in intrinsic meaning are unintentional and easily corrected. But watching the changes on a Wiki can be exhauting, and it doesn't scale well. We must be careful not to respond to this rising tide of community documentation by pursuing a more restrictive license to protect our intrinsic meaning.
Somewhere in here is a lot of room for some creative new solutions. Creative Commons continues to be a shining example of thinking through this problem.
With software code, the changing of a few lines is more likely to make it not compile or be prone to crash. With other open content, the changing of a few lines could mean the difference between war and peace.
'Nuff said.
Spending a lot of time these days pondering, sculpting, and playing with open content.
As a writer with a sensitive ear ... which is a good thing since I can never remember the rules of grammar to argue them, but I hear them with my inner and outer ear and know right from wrong ... I know that the subtlest of changes is the source for a whole switch in meaning.
Combine two content forms, such as audio and text, and you now have the whole range of human verbal communication. It is not just what you say, it is also how you say it.
A comedian puts this to good effect. So do critics. As do empire builders, crushers of dreams, and those intent on poison.
What you can never get around are the easy ways we can twist intrinsic meaning with the littlest of tweaks. Verbally it can be a click instead of a clock of the tongue, the raising of an eyebrow, or lowering of the lips. In written form, as in produced video and audio, there are may chances and methods to apply the wee smallest of influences ... and change the whole world. Or make something bad good, or something good bad.
This is the power of raw video and audio footage, or of the first draft style of writing. You are getting a person at their moment of least manipulation. A camera records what it sees, and allows for multiple interpretations. But be aware that the placement of the camera, its angle and subject, all influence the end result.
We need to keep this in mind when we discuss how we share open content. With just a few changed words, the meaning of a written passage is drastically changed. Heck, even the choice of capitalization. Just imagine what happens when you make the "J" in "Jack" lower case: "I helped my Uncle Jack off a horse."
For now, we must maintain constant vigilence. Most changes in intrinsic meaning are unintentional and easily corrected. But watching the changes on a Wiki can be exhauting, and it doesn't scale well. We must be careful not to respond to this rising tide of community documentation by pursuing a more restrictive license to protect our intrinsic meaning.
Somewhere in here is a lot of room for some creative new solutions. Creative Commons continues to be a shining example of thinking through this problem.
With software code, the changing of a few lines is more likely to make it not compile or be prone to crash. With other open content, the changing of a few lines could mean the difference between war and peace.
'Nuff said.
