The Semantic Web, explained with Lolcats
Here is a link to the video “Semantic Web, explained with Lolcats.”
***
EDIT: Yes, I have retracted this blogpost, and I am glad I did. I also already admitted the blog post was written in a hurry, I see now that it was indeed ill-worded and gave rise to an interpretation I never had in mind.
I doesn’t make sense for me to continue this discussion if it consists of people reinterpreting my words with the intention to provide evidence that I must have wanted to say something that I, actually, never meant to say.
All I meant to say was that an approach incorporating elements of popular culture (here: Lolcats) might get new, and particularly female, audiences interested in the Semantic Web. Because many women like Lolcats.
I should not have written “female” though, as femininity is a contested issue – even though this made sense to me in that hurried moment of writing as I am clearly more interested in getting more women interested in the Semantic Web than I am interested in getting “just anyone” interested.
I am critical of a certain notion of “good” femininity underlying some comments in the previous discussion. Women doing a tech degree? Yay! Women whose technical interests go way beyond Web 2.0 and Lolcats? Yes, they’re the ones we want! Women going shopping? Not so interesting! Women reading People magazine or PerezHilton? Baaad!
Why can’t they just stop conforming to the gender mold?
Such a notion of femininity means to denigrate the experience of many, probably the majority of women out there – women, by the way, who have embraced the web (2.0) to organize their family pictures online, who write blogs about parenting or crocheting and who will also embrace the (Social) Semantic Web if it offers any benefits to them.
This is actually one of the silenced voices Bath talked about – the discourse that is marginalized here is the domain of the domestic sphere, which has been and is traditionally associated with women. When will there be an ontology for yarns, knitting or crocheting? (If you’re laughing now: laugh at the ontology for beer or whiskey first. Didn’t make you laugh, too? Now that’s food for thought, isn’t it?)
In marketing departments world wide, people think about what women might like and how this could be harnessed to advertise products, as women are typically the ones who influence what is bought in a household or not.
But as soon as one brings up the idea of using Lolcats (again: because many women like Lolcats) to get more women interested in the Semantic Web…
… people get worked up and argue that the author actually really meant to say that women are intellectually ONLY able come to grips with technology with the aid of a cute animal.
No, I did not mean to say that – because I don’t look at popular culture in such a denigrating way.
Ever tried to create a Lolcat? It’s an art form in itself – try making one yourself that’s witty!
And for the time being, try for yourself if you can use Lolcats to get someone with a yet underdeveloped knowledge of the Semantic Web interested in the topic. Not necessarily a woman – but I’d appreciate if you also tried it on women. Just to see whether it does or does not work (better) (on men/women).
Start here (I am sure you can do better than me – use the LolcatBuilder!)
moar funny pictures
moar funny pictures
moar funny pictures
moar funny pictures
While we’re at it: I really liked Bob DuCharme’s showcase “Navigating Hollywood gossip with semantic technology.”
I think we need more of that – you know why.
Sphere: Related Content
October 13th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
[...] The Semantic Web, explained with Lolcats [...]
October 14th, 2008 at 9:24 am
People interested in Popular culture / people looking down on popular culture;
People interested in the web 2.0/ people interested in the semantic web;
Techies/non-techies;
and yes, if we like it or not, these lines of division happen to coincide with gender.
So that would make Shelley 66% female and 66% male*, me 33% female and 66% male** and my wife 33% female and 33% male***.
I don’t think you’ve thought this through. At all.
*PC+ W2+ SW+ T+
**PC+ W2- SW+ T+
***PC+ W2- SW- T+
October 14th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Phil, thanks for doing the maths, but: it was not my intention to use this as a code for the representation of individuals. That would be silly.
I am going to remove the blog post, as it seems to give rise to some profound misinterpretations. I personally (me as the person Jana Herwig, not as my employer) don’t see the sexism in what I wrote – in particular because I clarified that this “doesn’t imply that all females, whether social, cultural or biological, love lolcats, nor that they are not so super-tech-savvy.” Being a non-native, it may also be that something escapes me here – in my view it clearly says “this does not mean that all women like lolcats, etc.” I do like them, I am even a fan of Lolcats, and I specifically watched the video because the thumbnail already showed it. Where is the crime in that?
So the concern of some readers must be in using the attribute “female” at all. If that is the case, then I still don’t see quite see why that would be a problem, because I don’t think that difference is best addressed by denying difference. Would you have been more satisfied if I had used the term “feminine” instead (a difference which many languages, including German, are not able to express)?
EDIT: It’s probably more interesting to have a discussion on just one blog, so I’d like to refer you to Burningbird’s Real Tech blog. I guess my comments there are going to be approved and be visible there in a while (at least I wouldn’t know why they shouldn’t).