Categories
Music

My Dad’s Jazz Music, Everywhere

technicolourFor many years, the only way to hear Polyhedra outside of a performance was to attend anyway and leave with a physical album. Almost thirty years after the release of their first album, my Dad’s Jazz group can now be heard and/or purchased through your favorite online music venues!

Polyhedra’s albums are now available for purchase on CD Baby (MP3 and FLAC available), iTunes, Amazon (Iridescence and Technicolor because Amazon doesn’t do artist listings), and Google Play. If you’re a fan of streaming, you can listen to Polyhedra’s albums now on Spotify and Rdio. They’re also available at ninety other online music venues I won’t even bother to list here. If your favorite one isn’t listed here, I’m sure you can find them by searching.

We used CD Baby’s distribution service to bring Polyhedra into the modern era of digital distribution. If you’re looking to do something similar with your recorded music, I highly recommend them. The process was quick, simple, and inexpensive.

We hope you enjoy listening to Polyhedra’s albums wherever you are as much as this group of wild musical animals enjoyed recording them!

Edit: Bill Huff, my Dad, is on the saxophones.

Categories
Technology

Likes and Self-Censorship

likeA friend recently asked me about transferring Likes between platforms, which got me thinking about what Likes mean to me. Upon applying a little more thought than my typical “Yay, someone liked my post!” I came to the conclusion that they were useless to me, perhaps even detrimental to my writing.

Likes are an artificial construct we rely on as proof that an audience exists and is happy with the content we shared. I don’t need Likes to prove I have an audience, I have Stats for that, and Likes do little to prove that the audience is happy with the shared content. The simple action of pushing a button hardly qualifies as reader engagement, completely reading the post isn’t even required. The Like button is also only present on the site itself, it’s not present in subscription emails or RSS feeds. There is no proof that those who pushed the button actually liked the content or that there aren’t more out there who just didn’t bother to push the button.

Likes as an artificial construct of an audience are also seen as an artificial construct of self-worth, leading to self-censorship. I have always believed that the writer should write what the writer wants to, and let the audience grow around it. Likes are the antithesis of that. Once you begin to believe Likes are your only proof of audience satisfaction, you have lost the battle over your own creativity. Self-censorship sets in, and you begin to force yourself to adapt to please an audience which probably doesn’t exist in the form you understand it.

I have removed the Like buttons here after this little revelation of mine. I’ll continue to write what I feel like writing without being misguided by the Like button. I’m interested to see how this little experiment goes, and I’ll always have my Stats if I need proof that people read what I write. As for you kind folks, if you like what I write, please feel free to share it, Like/Favorite/+1 it on your social network of choice, or let me know in the comments. I may no longer have a Like button here, but I do appreciate a kind word from time to time.

Categories
Technology

The Revisionaries of Wikipedia

wikiquestionWikipedia has been with us for fourteen years, and I’m willing to bet that everyone has made use of it at least once. Perhaps some of you have even contributed content or editorial help to Wikipedia. It is, after all, the encyclopedia editable by everyone, right?

Over the past eleven years, a group of core editors has been working behind the scenes, choosing which edits live or die while handing out lifetime bans for edits they consider to be not factual (regardless of evidence). Recently, they choose to ban editors defending articles from vandalism, rather than ban the vandals themselves. Is this a reaction to the impossibility of policing an encyclopedia which is editable by the entire world? Of course, but then why advertise it as such?

The whole situation reminds me of The Revisionaries, a documentary detailing how a small group with clear biases has commanding control over exactly what and how history is portrayed in our textbooks. If you have not seen it yet, I recommend it, as it may also speak towards a grim future for Wikipedia, given recent events.

An encyclopedia editable by the entire world needs to be policed somehow, but when deciding the knowledge which is passed down, how do we trust the right choices are being made? After all, they even discard corrections from scholars accompanied by published evidence. Does this mean that established yet incorrect “facts” may never be corrected in the eyes of Wikipedia? Perhaps the problem is that too many people think of facts as a matter of opinion, not as a result of evidence.

Where do we go from here? I believe The Internet Archive is the answer. The Internet Archive does not strive to make history editable by the masses, nor does it make rulings on fact vs. fiction. The Internet Archive simply exists to preserve as much history as it can for as long as it can. If you see a book written by one man preserved in The Internet Archive, you can trust that it is the opinion of that one man. If the evidence in that book holds up, you known that opinion is indeed a fact. How much of a Wikipedia article is fact? We may never know. Everyone has their hands in Wikipedia, with one possibly biased group holding the power of final judgement.

I guess I see it as a choice between what’s more important for the future of history itself. Should it be the ability to preserve history forever, or the ability to edit history whenever we want to?