Comments on: World Book, the Jaguar E-Type and the Myth of the Expert http://sevenlions.org/wp/world-book-the-jaguar-e-type-and-the-myth-of-the-expert/ writing, research, art and digital media Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:29:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Elijah Meeks http://sevenlions.org/wp/world-book-the-jaguar-e-type-and-the-myth-of-the-expert/comment-page-1/#comment-38 Elijah Meeks Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:32:26 +0000 http://sevenlions.org/wp/?p=293#comment-38 I use Inkscape all the time, and numerous other open source software, and I think manipulating vector graphics in Inkscape is a damn sight better than in Flash CS4. The point of my post was that "experts" have produced products with bugs in them, whereas products created outside the traditional method (Whether it's an encyclopedia in the case of Wikipedia or a vector graphics editing package in the case of Inkscape) are as good or better than those created by "experts" or "professionals". This distinction between amateurs and experts is a ruse, but it's doubly hard to deal with open source, because there are paid developers contributing to open source products, just like there are real academics contributing to Wikipedia, and it's still held as a product of amateurs by critics. In sum, the point of my entire post was that a product like Inkscape has quality, and it should be lauded for that, as with Wikipedia, and not only should it be judged on its quality but it also shouldn't be discarded simply because it has bugs, since traditionally created products have bugs, too. I use Inkscape all the time, and numerous other open source software, and I think manipulating vector graphics in Inkscape is a damn sight better than in Flash CS4. The point of my post was that “experts” have produced products with bugs in them, whereas products created outside the traditional method (Whether it’s an encyclopedia in the case of Wikipedia or a vector graphics editing package in the case of Inkscape) are as good or better than those created by “experts” or “professionals”. This distinction between amateurs and experts is a ruse, but it’s doubly hard to deal with open source, because there are paid developers contributing to open source products, just like there are real academics contributing to Wikipedia, and it’s still held as a product of amateurs by critics.

In sum, the point of my entire post was that a product like Inkscape has quality, and it should be lauded for that, as with Wikipedia, and not only should it be judged on its quality but it also shouldn’t be discarded simply because it has bugs, since traditionally created products have bugs, too.

]]> By: Anonymous http://sevenlions.org/wp/world-book-the-jaguar-e-type-and-the-myth-of-the-expert/comment-page-1/#comment-37 Anonymous Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:08:56 +0000 http://sevenlions.org/wp/?p=293#comment-37 First of all Inkscape which is the post you linked to on ryanorser.com/wordpress/ is not an amateur software project at all. The developers have been working hard on Inkscape for a long time. There are bound to be faults in programs. Therefore there maybe some some amateurs but come on there are lots of people who work on software, write books or share their knowledge everywhere. To you they may be amateurs but people work hard to get their work known. First of all Inkscape which is the post you linked to on ryanorser.com/wordpress/ is not an amateur software project at all. The developers have been working hard on Inkscape for a long time. There are bound to be faults in programs.

Therefore there maybe some some amateurs but come on there are lots of people who work on software, write books or share their knowledge everywhere. To you they may be amateurs but people work hard to get their work known.

]]>