<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>SQUARISM &#187; Brainstorm</title>
	<atom:link href="http://squarism.com/category/brainstorm/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://squarism.com</link>
	<description>addicted to pixels</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:12:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>When is information correct?</title>
		<link>http://squarism.com/2009/08/11/when-is-information-correct/</link>
		<comments>http://squarism.com/2009/08/11/when-is-information-correct/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dillon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Brainstorm]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://squarism.com/?p=260</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A wiki is constantly edited. Unlike a document which can have revisions and snapshots in time, a wiki may or may not ever be correct. But hold on. What is so magical about a revision stamped out? A book isn't naturally correct. Information has nothing to do with correctness. Think about a filesystem check (like [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A wiki is constantly edited.  Unlike a document which can have revisions and snapshots in time, a wiki may or may not ever be correct.  But hold on.  What is so magical about a revision stamped out?  A book isn't naturally correct.  Information has nothing to do with correctness.</p>
<p>Think about a filesystem check (like <a href="http://www.dailytech.com/Lets+be+More+Rational+on+CHKDSK+in+Windows+7/article15910.htm">Windows7 CHKDSK</a>, ha).  While fixing and committing filesystem fixes (with or without transactions I don't know), the state of the data is in flux.  When the program finishes, it declares the information to be correct.  Is this declaration any different than someone looking at 1+1=2 and saying "yep."?</p>
<p>Information is correct when an observer correctly or incorrectly says it's correct.  Any deeper discussion of what is correct or real is getting into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum">Descartes</a> territory and I'm not talking about that.  Print off a wikipedia page (version), you (observer) review it (validation) and say it's correct.  The data hasn't changed.  Rather it's a data decoration, metadata about the print-out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://squarism.com/2009/08/11/when-is-information-correct/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
