We were discussing future fame and press coverage at the London meetup on Sunday (because a Fast Company journalist was present, no less—and participating in discussion very productively, I might add). I noted from Wikipedia’s experience that the tech press are best treated with gunfire—do not talk to them under any circumstances. (There are individuals who are worth talking to, but they’re very rare.) In retrospect, Wikipedia should really have gone headlong for the academic-interest press then the mainstream, bypassing the tech press entirely, from the beginning. An important place to apply the rule “taking someone seriously just because they pay you attention may not be a good idea.”
What you do is philosophical engineering. Hit the philosophy journals and the tech press may find something more interesting to troll about.
We were discussing future fame and press coverage at the London meetup on Sunday (because a Fast Company journalist was present, no less—and participating in discussion very productively, I might add). I noted from Wikipedia’s experience that the tech press are best treated with gunfire—do not talk to them under any circumstances. (There are individuals who are worth talking to, but they’re very rare.) In retrospect, Wikipedia should really have gone headlong for the academic-interest press then the mainstream, bypassing the tech press entirely, from the beginning. An important place to apply the rule “taking someone seriously just because they pay you attention may not be a good idea.”
What you do is philosophical engineering. Hit the philosophy journals and the tech press may find something more interesting to troll about.
(This ties into this thread.)