nemild / hack-the-media Goto Github PK

This is just a FYI issue to notify that you were added to the curated awesome-humane-tech in the 'Awareness' category, and - if you like that - are now entitled to wear our badge:

By adding this to the README:

[![Awesome Humane Tech](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/humanetech-community/awesome-humane-tech/main/humane-tech-badge.svg?sanitize=true)](https://github.com/humanetech-community/awesome-humane-tech)

https://github.com/humanetech-community/awesome-humane-tech

Hi Nemil,

I would like to get in contact with you regarding your essay "How to Hack an Engineer". The analysis that you describe there is very correct. I have experience with that by my self and I would like to work on tool, which would allow to improve this state. Specially, I am interested in proposed solution in chapter "3. Build a community of respected peers and thoughtful experts". I have my self analyze this and come to conclusion, that we need tool similar to web-of-trust for information sharing, where people can publicly give or remove trust to person, website, information or group.

If you would be interested, I would like to discuss with you more. I have also sent you email to your Gmail account but I am not sure, if it will get by the spam filter.

In any case, if you would be interested, please contact my on my email: martin.klima[at]hotmail.cz

Thank you very much,
Martin K.

The link to https://twitter.com/josephfcox/status/981563571904622592 leads to a 404. I checked archive.org for a scrape, but they didn't have anything. I'm not sure if there is an alternate for twitter archives.

How about changing engineer to software developer?

Engineering is a whole other profession.

link to guidelines is broken -- https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer/blob/master/contributing.md

may want to put the important 'rules' into the body of the content itself

--

'Key questions to ask with any media:' appears to be a checklist basically

--

what is your goal? the type-kind of material/content you are making is already all over the web

i've done many versions of this basic thing you're doing when it comes to the topic of 'information' and 'the quality of info'

--

i think if you're making a full checklist

• that leads to clear answers

• and not vague question that would be incredibly inredbily hard to find the answer to:

• (example: "why they writing about this topic and how they and/or their sources personally benefit? Always need to understand personal motivation of writer and their sources")

for example nobody is going to tell you

• i am writing this msg to you cos 1) im very familiar with it, 2) i dunno how i benefit tho may be i can???, and 3) my motivate for writing is i dunno cos ppl dont actually always know what makes them do something, and im any well-educated person would already know that

• but there is lots of info to learn and know so..... but im guessing it's cos im familiar with this topic

--

so i'd imagine w/e you're making here you'd want it to be HELPFUL/USEFUL

currently as it is, i can tell you right now it is not

Wikipedia is about what the sources say, and not about the truth. The sources are generally media sources, if not secondary sources (which could equally be biased).

Can Wikipedia be trusted? Obviously the answer is no. My advice is for readers to critically examine the sources used in Wikipedia, and not blindly take the paraphrasing of the Wikipedia editors. This is especially important for political and other controversial topics on Wikipedia.

Some descriptions about how to effectively use Wikipedia would be nice in this guide. I don't have time to write, but I can offer my input in a discussion.

Later comments are preferred over early ones, not the other way around.