DISQUS

craigburton · 3 months ago

For me there are two questions that the release of sidewiki brings up in the context of the purpose-based web.

1. Are we moving towards where augmenting a persons web experience is going to happen based on that person's real or implied purpose?

The answer is yes.

2. Can we stop it from happening?

The answer is no.

In conclusion.

Q. Is sidewiki good or bad?

A. Try it. If you like it, continue to use it. If you don't, stop using it.

dave · 3 months ago

Who said “I own this site and you’re defacing it” -- you didn't provide a link.

Anyway, the web is all an illusion created out of 1s and 0s traveling over wires and air waves. You can reduce it down to any level you like, and at some level anything will seem unobjectionable. Yet we do have rules that allow us to get along with each other.

Phil, how would you feel if my router, through which your words pass, changed your words to something I liked better? Or added a message for one of your competitors? Or pictures of horrible things being done to innocent people? It's my router. Don't tread on me.

You might say -- well then I won't pass my words through your router. And then you would understand how I feel about what Google is doing. I wouldn't mind it at all if it were opt-in for the author.

RebelChicken · 3 months ago

Like it or not, the document author does not control the user's entire screen- just what falls between the html tags. It is the user's right to use tools that facilitate discussion of whatever content they are viewing. Seems pretty clear cut to me. There is no document altering going on here.

marc · 3 months ago

Thank you for keeping things so simple and correct.

cshotton · 3 months ago

It's a grey area for sure. Suppose I have agents that crawl the web, looking for new content and returning relevant URLs and headlines/summaries from a site? It's certainly not in the format the original web designer intended, but the result is that I'll probably click the link and see the unadulterated site.

The line is crossed at some point when some client-side technology intentionally edits or otherwise misrepresents the "intent" of my site to a user. But a paper based analogy of that has existed literally for centuries, with people extracting excerpts (often out of context) from printed works and redistributing/reprinting them to an audience (of one or more).

At the end of the day, I guess if you don't want someone messing with your content, you need to distribute it in an immutable form. The web is mutable by its current implementation if nothing else.

Phil Windley · 3 months ago

Hi Dave.

Actually Arrington used "defacing" and I've provided a link in the article now. I didn't mean to imply you'd said it. Apologies.

I think if you want to have a router that modified my words then more power to you. I don't need to opt-out. If you're going to redistribute it, then we should talk, but if it's for your consumption and you want them modified in a certain way then have at it. No objections from me. I think its your right.

I don't believe I misquoted you. The only time I quote you, I link to the words you said.

As for calling your thinking silly, I didn't say your thinking was silly, only that thinking of Web sites the same way we do land was silly. If that's what you think, then it's silly. :-)

Peace Dave.

dave · 3 months ago

Well Phil I don't want your words to pass through that crazy router. Do I get a say in it? What if I want to read your words without interpretation, as you said them, so I can know what you actually think?

Nathan · 3 months ago

Dave, what about translation tools on the web? Are you opposed to Google/Babel Fish, etc. turning the content of a site into another language to be read by someone who does not speak English? As a site owner, if you don't do it yourself, you obviously have no control over the accuracy of the translations. In every sense it truly is 'changing the words' of the website into something the reader likes (understands) better. Curious what you think.

AA · 3 months ago

I agree with Dave, my analogy has been this: Google is like a city government who is allowing or even encouraging the passer by to come over and write graffiti over my home walls (website). The city government is doing all this without even checking with the home owners association (the website host and myself). They may consider this as a common good for all but I don't want to participate and I should be able to opt out. I understand that there are tons of such similar services out there in open but when Google adopts something, it becomes huge and people flock to it (how the service fares in a long run is another matter but companies like Google have biggest mouth piece to advertise their products).

dave · 3 months ago

AA -- my guess is that Google will quietly withdraw the service eventually because it will be the cesspool that all these things quickly become. The Internet is even more predictable now than it was when ThirdVoice was tried. And people have accepted that moderation is the only way to have an adult conversation that isn't dominated by angry 14-year-olds.

Phil Windley · 3 months ago

As an aside Dave, I agree that this particular service might be a bad idea and Google could very well end up abandoning it. I'm not making an argument for SideWiki per se, just the right of users to do it if they want.

jottos · 3 months ago

I agree with your observation, Dave, that much of the created content will be of little value or even harmful, but I think goolgle will try to use aggressive filtering based on your own social networks and use preferences to remove the content you do not want to see

Kevin Marks · 3 months ago

Not true Dave, another way is to have the kind of semi-overlapping conversations we have on Twitter, we we all only see the people we follow. That's much more resilient against angry 14-year-olds, as only the people who follow them see their interjections.

Phil Windley · 3 months ago

I think your analogy is flawed because it's equating Web sites to land and they're not. No one is writing graffiti on your site. They're writing about your page somewhere else on the Web. The browser just happens to be displaying them together.

AA · 3 months ago

I understand that and that's the reason I brought up home owner's association and hosting services because Google is not trashing my home but the outskirts of it. Just because browser allows something to do done around your website doesn't mean it should be done. I think all I am asking is Google allow site owners to choose whether they want their services anywhere near their property on the web. I don't think Sidewiki may be bad but Google appears to be controlling all the switches and it's just wrong.

Phil Windley · 3 months ago

I vehemently disagree. First off--it's not property in the land sense and so that analogy doesn't work. It's not at ALL like the home owners' association. Your site ISN'T a place. Second, if every service that wants to let users modify content to better suit their purpose had to agree, no such services would ever be developed and that's not good for anyone. You're thinking like the RIAA or MPAA here.

Nathan · 3 months ago

I think the better analogy is that Google is allowing people to write comments on the back side of your glasses - and that changes depending on what you are looking at. You can wander around Google city and everything is at it is, but your experience is different for you than for another because you choose to look at the city through *.*-colored glasses.

mterenzio · 3 months ago

It really doesn't matter whether you think it's okay or not to modify content on the client side. Like the VHS, filesharing and the RIAA and everything else, if people want to do it, there is no stopping them.

What gets into grey area is third party software that is not running locally dynamically making changes to the way content is displayed.

That can be construed as a form of redistribution and copyright infringement.

I think there is a huge difference between a centralized networked enabled service here and a completely client side one or even one that operates in a peer to peer mode.

It's not your rights that we want to keep in check Phil, it's the rights of a public company and what they can do with our data.

Phil Windley · 3 months ago

But they're not doing ANYTHING with your data.

And why would the specific architecture of how it works matter to your right to see content rendered the way you want and next to what ever other content you want?

mterenzio · 3 months ago

Sorry, I don't have Google Toolbar. I was under the impression that they were rendering or modifying content inside the browser window.
I think there is a difference between you letting a third party service modify my data and you installing local software to modify my data. They are different things.
Technicalities, but different enough to get a service like Napster shut down while similar peer services can continue to operate.

mterenzio · 3 months ago

In other words, my point is that no matter where the change occurs, if it is done by a third party, it sounds like redistribution. If it is done by the end user, it sounds like fair use (or whatever the legal term for modifying a personal copy for personal use is)

jottos · 3 months ago

I think that this service has a shot, commentary on blogs can and do provide additional value and this idea seems to have at least that much going for it. BUT, there are holes it can fall into.
1. I would not want to all of a sudden start seeing ads pop up in the commentary
2. the content might drift towards the inane or worse (just look at the comments on any Youtube video of a Fox news broadcast), while this might be considered entertaining by some, it would seriously damage the value of the commentary to many

What I am hoping to see is that this has a flavor of the Wave ideas folded in over time, so that I would have control over the commentary I see, in fact I would be able to see what pages people I know have commented on, etc.

I'm optimistic

AA · 3 months ago

The spamming has already started. Take a look at this example: http://digitalinspiration.com/tools/google/side...

What a nightmare this is going to be!

BB · 3 months ago

The API doesn't seem to indicate that the comments are considered "less useful".

I used the toolbar to look at that page and I don't see any comments. You need to click a link at the bottom of the page to view comments "in the gutter", where you see the comments and this message:

"These entries may be less useful. Click an entry to tell us what you think. Learn more"

jeremy · 3 months ago

I claim the right to mash-up, remix, annotate, augment, and otherwise modify Web content for my purposes in my browser using any tool I choose and I extend to everyone else that same privilege.

Bring it on, Phil! I love it! Fight the good fight. But a couple of points:

(Point 1) If this is the right that you are claiming, then the opt-in vs. opt-out issue is orthogonal to that right. Correct? It doesn't if something is on or off by default, as long as you yourself have the right to change it to suit your own purpose. So the fact that the Google toolbar is opt-in doesn't make it any better. It doesn't make it worse, but it doesn't make it better. Am I correct?

(Point 2) How far are you going to extend this fight? Does it apply equally to everyone?

For example, Google is giving you the tools to modify others' websites. But when it comes to its own website, here is what it has to say:

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

"5.3 You agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services by any means other than through the interface that is provided by Google, unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a separate agreement with Google."

So if you claim your right to mash-up, remix, annotate, augment, and otherwise modify Google's content (e.g. search results) for your purposes in your browser, Google strongly disagrees with you.

D'ya see the irony? Google provides you with a tool so that you can do what you want with other websites, but won't allow you to do what you want to their own website.

So does your fight include an attempt to remove this Google threat to your right to remix?

Phil Windley · 3 months ago

Point 1: I view opt-in as crucial, although that word may not be the best one. Better idea is user controlled. User control and freedom of choice for the individual is what legitimizes this.

Point 2: I'm not sure I read Google TOS as disallowing this. The user is accessing the site (be it Google or anything else) in exactly the way Google intends. The browser is merely modifying the returned content in a way that better suits the user's needs (see Point 1).

Note that I'm not claiming the right to access the site in ways the site owner does not allow or hacking the site. I'm merely a proponent of my right to render the returned content--legally and lawfully accessed--in a way that's useful to me.

jeremy · 3 months ago

Point 1: I don't fully understand the distinction that you're making between opt-in or -out in terms of user control. Something can be opt-out (or opt-in) and still be user-controlled, can it not? It's not like opt-in = user controlled and opt-out = user non-controlled. As long as there is a button to turn something on or off, isn't it still user controlled?

But.. it's a minor point, and it may not be worth it to go into a deeper argument right now.

Point 2: Are you sure this is not disallowed? The example that I tweeted to you yesterday was that of ad overlay. What if I create a toolbar that hides Google ads, and replaces them with MS ads? As long as that toolbar is "user controlled", Google would have no problem with that?

Actually, what I really want to do is mash up Google results with Bing results with Yahoo results. So I want to augment and refactor what I'm getting back from Google, and display the content that they're giving me in my own way. In the mashup, I might not put the top Google result at the top of my results list.

Furthermore, because I have a really wide screen, I might put all 10 results in 2-3 columns, above the fold, and then all the ads (if I choose to show them at all) below the fold.

Rendering the returned results in this manner would be extremely useful to me. You really think that Google would allow it?

And what if MS integrated this functionality into IE, in a "user controlled" way? Google wouldn't care?

I wish it were true. I'm not against it. But I don't share your confidence that it is.

Phil Windley · 3 months ago

Yeah, point 1 is probably something that is better dealt with elsewhere. I'm not trying to distinguish between user controlled and opt-in, just saying user controlled might be a better, more flexible phrase. Not important to this discussion.

On point 2: No, I don't think the TOS disallows it. Would Google care? Maybe. I think they'd have a tough time suing given their current stance.

I think your idea about combining search results is a great example and one that could easily be done with Kynetx, for example. Google can't "disallow" it. That train has left the station. Might they try and sue? Sure, but I think they'd lose and be badly hurt by the effort.

As for "what if MS did this?" that's taking the example to an extreme edge case where of course there would be a battle.

jeremy · 3 months ago

Yeah, maybe the MS example is taking it to an extreme case. But not to an edge case. MS and Google, and how they mitigate our experiences of the net, are "extremely core" cases right now. Not edge at all.

But if item 5.3 of the TOS doesn't disallow it, what about item 8.2?

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

8.2 You should be aware that Content presented to you as part of the Services, including but not limited to advertisements in the Services and sponsored Content within the Services may be protected by intellectual property rights which are owned by the sponsors or advertisers who provide that Content to Google (or by other persons or companies on their behalf). You may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this Content (either in whole or in part) unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google or by the owners of that Content, in a separate agreement.

The list of search results is the content in the Google search service. And in item 8.2 they explicitly say that you may not modify or create derivative works from that content. My G/Y/B mashup is a modification/derivative work, is it not? My tool for hiding the ads from a Google search, or replacing them with MS ads, is a modification, is it not?

Whether or not they sue, they are in principle against it. And principles matter.

Phil Windley · 3 months ago

Whether 8.2 applies or not depends on whether rending content in your browser is creating a derivative work, I suppose. As far as I know, Google hasn't tried to stop ad blocking browser extensions.

jeremy · 2 months ago

True. But that's because no browser extension yet has the large distribution of a MS-backed push. (And also only because ads are simply being removed, rather than supplanted :-)

But on the same point: Things like Sidewiki have existed for years. It's only when it finally acquired the large distribution of a Google-backed push that the blogosphere is erupting.

So does that mean MS can now push their stuff with a lot more ease? After all, they already tried this in 2001 and got smacked down for it. Is Google opening the door for them now?

http://news.cnet.com/Googles-linking-toolbar-ra...

Wade · 3 months ago

Let's say I go to the art store and find a lithograph on the "give away" table. I then bring that lithograph home with me and change it, making it look more pleasing to me, while not altering the original "intent" of the piece. A bit of paint here, some pencil art over there... just enough to make it something that *I* like.

Is the producer of that lithograph going to cry "defacement"? First, how will they know? Second, do they care? Three, isn't it my prerogative to do with it what I want because it is in my house and will only be seen by me and those I share it with?

I for one LOVE the idea of being able to markup, repaint and rework what is presented to me on the web because how is the producer of content going to *know* what *I* want to see? Simple, there is no way for them to divine that unless I am able to tell them. I also love the thought of being able to show my changes to others, and have them show me their changes.

My .02 ..

VHF · 2 months ago

... And these are not even changes, really. They are accompanying commentary.

Could the author of a widely-distributed picture reasonably complain if the picture's prints were accompanied in every store with a chalkboard to its side, one on which visitors could write what they thought of the picture?

Phil Windley · 2 months ago

Now that's a good analogy.

cgerrish · 2 months ago

No one controls their own content. Every sentence you write is filled with the language that preceded it. It's not the web that's an illusion, it's language -- a stream created out of phonemes. The reader rewrites your content in the act of reading it. The objection seems to be to sharing the transcription publicly. There's no such thing as a content endpoint -- it always connects to something else. The only way to prevent connection in a public network is to be completely uninteresting.

Phil Windley · 2 months ago

Nice thought Cliff. We're all rewriting something else all the time.

jeremy · 2 months ago

But isn't that like saying that all the notes in the western tonality scale (C, C#/Db, D, D#/Eb, E, F, etc.) already exist, therefore there is no such thing as an original composed tune? Any "new" tune is just reusing notes that other people have already used?

I don't buy it.

cgerrish · 2 months ago

A well-tempered scale would be the equivalent of phonemes, or 1s and 0s in Dave's example. Any "tune" picks up on previous tunes - inverts them, varies them within a theme. The question about control of content becomes one of control of meaning-- as in Alice in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty says: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." Words (content) always mean more than we intend.

Phil Rees · 2 months ago

I'm kind of surprised that mine is the only Sidewiki comment on this page. Those of you who don't have the plug-in installed are welcome to read the post at:

http://www.google.com/sidewiki/entry/phrees/id/...

BTW Great article. I love the phrase "Purpose-Centric Web", though I think it's going to take a while for people to move from the idea of "publishing" to that of "processing". Content should be used, not venerated.

gyardley · 2 months ago

Of course publishers can and do control how their content is used. If you wanted, you could easily arrange it so this site wouldn't display on IE6, required Flash to view, couldn't work with a particular Firefox plugin (to use a Google-specific example, you can't watch a YouTube video while blocking AdSense), and so on. Blocking scrapers and robots is a fairly common thing, both through robots.txt and through simple detection of robot-like behaviors. Sites also generally come with a contract attached - some implicit (the view-through), some explicit (the click-through) - and these contracts, done correctly, are generally enforceable.

This whole post mystifies me, because you don't have the the right to mash-up, remix, annotate, augment, and otherwise modify Web content - it's not your content. The publisher might choose to give you that right, but it's the publisher's choice.

Phil Rees · 2 months ago

Actually we do have those rights.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html