Writing ⋅ Podcast ⋅ Video

Today’s “Idea for Someone Else to Do”

So, a lot of times I have these ideas for things that I think are neat. But I lack, say, the technological skillz, the willpower, the money, or the interest to pursue them any further. Today, I have one of those ideas. And I lack all of the above plus an obvious way to make money off this idea, so I give it to you, dear readers, to take further. If you make any money off it, maybe you can send me a little. Anyway, it’s TwitterMob.

Here’s the idea. You register TwitterMob.mobi (or .net or .org, but TwitterMob.com is parked at GoDaddy, so maybe someone already has this idea). I like .mobi because it’s fundamentally a mobile effort. Anyway, you set it up as a site where people can sign up and register their cell phone numbers, and then registered users can send out mass text-messages to call for a TwitterMob, wherein everyone Twitters the exact same thing, like, “Do the YouTube debate, Romney, you tool” or “Save Darfur” or “Happy Birthday, Maria C. from Albuquerque.” Or whatever. The idea is that, for a brief moment in time, you and your mob would take over the Twitter home page with your mass message. Sometimes I try to log out real quick and go see if my message is up there like, two seconds after I twitter it, but it never is, because the twitters come so fast and furious. Plus, how cool would it look if every Twitter on the home page said the same thing? Anyway. Go forth and TwitterMob and don’t blame me if you get yourselves banned. Nobody said it was a GOOD idea.

Read more →

A Wikipedia war? Over li’l old me?

Ok, so, we got this funny email yesterday at Buzz Out Loud that noted some flattering and funny shenanigans over at my Wikipedia profile. Namely, modifications to the entry on why I rule. Which, as you can imagine, ruled. Here’s an image of the list, which is, of course, no longer available on Wikipedia:

Why Molly Rules

Anyway, we joked about it on the podcast, wherein a couple of users wrote in to tell us that there’s been a two-day edit war raging, as some users try to put back the “rules” list, and Wikipedia editors try to take it down to keep Wikipedia fact-based as ever (ahem). See, and I have to admit that ok, yes, I understand the plea of the Wikipedia editors who say I should implore the community to stop “defacing” my profile, and that if I don’t extend such a plea I open up my profile to any future defacement, much of which would probably be far less flattering. But on the other hand … Wikipedia is broken!

I know some of you will argue that Wikipedia still works, thanks to the community of involved editors who are the reason this patently not-factual post about me has been removed in the first place. But, in fact, a decent amount of what’s presented as fact in that profile is itself inaccurate! For example, I did NOT take my husband’s name, but I’m not inclined to correct his name on Wikipedia because I want to protect his privacy. The reason such inaccuracies exist is that most of the profile is compiled by people who are piecing together information about me that they get from snippets I drop in the podcast, Google searches (old resumes and such), and who knows where else. But either way, there’s pretty much no chance it’s going to be correct without some verification with me or some independent sourcing that just doesn’t exist. So, while you might be able to trust Wikipedia for general information about, say, the history or chewing gum, you shouldn’t trust it at all on the subject of the famous or even very, very, very slightly famous (like me). (Actually, especially the very, very, very slightly famous, since there are probably multiple points of reference for, say, Angelina Jolie.) And that raises the serious question of whether the chewing gum article is also culled from legitimate sources or whether it just comes from Google and currently contains some bit of trouble-making promulgated by Stephen Colbert.

However, in summary and in conclusion, I think it’s still only fair to mention: I rule. (j/k)

Read more →