Some criticism is important in order to understand how people will view us, and some criticism should just be ignored. Sorting this out is quite a task, but necessary and important. We agreed that learning from your critics helps you fix sloppy thoughts as well as prevent mistakes in the future.
On the other hand, what's a pioneer without critics? One chairman of a large company I know said, "I don't trust ANYONE who doesn't have some enemies." I don't know who to credit this to, but "You can identify the pioneers because they are the ones with the arrows in their backs." Stan Ovshinsky says this often.
So, my conclusion? Give credit to those who influence you or are doing important work. Listen to the critics, be thick-skinned and keep on truckin'.
more...
http://joi.ito.com/
{first of all I admire all these people. I'm linking to Ms. Ito because I like her stuff. I never link to people whose stuff I don't like. and I never intend to have anyone's stuff mistaken for mine. I'm not creating a magazine out of uncredited material.
I am getting closer to understanding what it is that doesn't work for me about this idea of the sanctity of link recognition, the near plagiarism of unascribed linkage, whatever. part of it is the refusal to engage the moment, the idea that if we close our eyes and pretend really really hard, we can still have a chance to make millions in the field of information technology. the refusal to confront the impending trouble. which would seem to give an immediacy to intellectual work that should transcend things like copyright and name recognition. which is not to say 'fie' on credit where credit is due, more that we may need to focus more on providing ammo to the front lines than worrying about whether someone's name is spelled right.
part of it is the tech people, the first wave, the old guard, the pioneers, are all about the career enhancing aspect of being recognized for the link. it's not that stark but it is of that nature. and the almost there quality the not quite got it yet quality is coming from something around the idea that content itself isn't quite as important as the fact of its presentation and the identity of the presenter. the novelty hits, the meme thing, the bonding over intellectual small talk, but there's a control, a reluctance to surrender what's been created to the world without trademark and license, or credit. why is credit as important as what's presented? career. status. some form of reward. that trumps content. what I'm seeing or hearing or sensing is a possibility for pure neurological explosion, the information and the process and the images and the noise all imploding and exploding. we could make that. this could make that. or something bigger and more wonderful even. if it doesn't get bottlenecked by self-interest, enlightened or dark.}
{{yes yes the network created by the link and acknowledgement, but ultimately all of that is a focus more on technique technology architecture structure call it what you will. I feel the pain of unrecognized heroes slipping back into the crowd unheralded, believe me I do. but it's about what gets put there way over and above how or by whom.}}
