David Kirkpatrick

December 14, 2009

Thirty four gigabytes of data

Filed under: et.al., Media, Technology — Tags: , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 4:56 pm

That’s how much the average American personally consumes each day. Information in the form of data-rich video gets the lions share of blame.

From the link:

An average American digests a whopping 34 gigabytes of information outside of work every day, according to a new study from the University of California, San Diego. The UCSD researchers estimate we each ingest about 100,500 words daily from various forms of media. In all, it’s about 350 percent more data than we were swallowing down just three decades ago.

August 6, 2009

Goin’ viral

Filed under: et.al., Media, Technology — Tags: , , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 10:49 pm

This is a very interesting PhysOrg article why some memes go viral and hit millions of eyeballs in mere hours.

From the link:

“There has been a lot of research done on social networks,” Esteban Moro tells PhysOrg.com. “However, until now it has been rare to get feedback from an actual performed experiment. Most research on social media is done with data that is inferred. But we have real experimental data for the basis of our model.” Moro is a scientist at the Institute of Mathematical Sciences at Carlos III University in Madrid, Spain. Along with José Luis Iribarren at an IBM division based in Madrid, Moro devised a viral marketing experiment that provides some quantitative conclusions about how something goes viral online. Their work appears in Physical Review Letters: “Impact of Human Activity Patterns on the Dynamics of Information Diffusion.”

“Most models of information diffusion through social media are based on the idea of homogeneity in human response,” Moro explains. According to Moro, most models are based around the average time that it takes for a person to respond to a request and then to pass it on. This model, while it might be useful in predicting some aspects of online marketing campaigns, does not adequately account for the reasons that some rumors, advertisements, content and even viruses suddenly explode worldwide in what is known as “going viral.”

Time dynamics of the biggest viral cascade, from Spain. Each "snapshot" represents the process at different times. The circles represent participates and the arrows describe the propagation of the message. Colors are meant to help you keep track of different stages of the message propagation. Image credit: Esteban Moro and José Luis Iribarren.

Time dynamics of the biggest viral cascade, from Spain. Each "snapshot" represents the process at different times. The circles represent participates and the arrows describe the propagation of the message. Colors are meant to help you keep track of different stages of the message propagation. Image credit: Esteban Moro and José Luis Iribarren.

August 9, 2008

WSJ on Wikipedia

Filed under: et.al., Media, Technology — Tags: , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 3:34 pm

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal had an interesting article on Wikipedia by James Gleick.

From the link (might be behind subscriber wall):

At least they can rest assured there’s no money. Alone among the great Internet success stories, Wikipedia hasn’t made anyone rich, despite its 50 million visitors a day. In fact, it hasn’t made a dollar; it only ever loses money. It’s supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit charity established for the purpose in 2002. The entire payroll amounts to 18 people, including one in Germany, one in the Netherlands, one in Australia and one lawyer. Wikipedia is not a business; it’s a religion. “Go and spread the word of free knowledge and free speech,” exhorts a speaker from Germany, Jakob Voss. And Jimmy Wales is their prophet.

He’s another unpaid volunteer. He is also Wikipedia’s founder and self-described spiritual leader and, when he appears, a looming presence in Alexandria. Always near him are knots of young volunteers wearing jeans or hijab or both. They refer to him solemnly as “Jimbo.” He’s a trim 42-year-old who favors black shirts and a slightly Mephistophelian beard, and most Wikipedians revere him, but you wouldn’t know that from the Jimmy Wales article in the encyclopedia, which rehearses some shady-sounding accusations: padding expenses, peddling pornography, editing his own Wikipedia page. (The last charge is actually true.)

So Mr. Wales hates his own entry. “It pains me very much,” he tells me, “when I go to a conference and someone introduces me by reading from it.” Even his birthday is disputed — it’s either yesterday or today — and Wikipedians have perpetuated the dispute though thousands of words of online discussion, all archived for theoretical eternity. “That one’s just stupid,” Mr. Wales says. But if he’s not in charge, who is?