Semapedia

November 1, 2005 11:15 AM

Semapedia : The latest innovation in combining elements of wikipedia, google maps, camera phones, and 2d barcodes. I imagine this to only be useful for tech savvy tourists, but all the same, it doesn't mean someone shouldn't go about pimping metafilter.
posted by thecollegefear (20 comments total)

Huh. They're not really 'barcodes' though as they don't have variable width-lines.
posted by delmoi at 11:23 AM on November 1, 2005

Interesting. But this is the part that bugged me for some reason (in the Learn More link):

"Next up, someone else, a tourist named Michi for example, passes by the Hofburg. He has lost his tourist-guide and information-book on Vienna. Don't worry! He sees the Semapedia Tag and uses his Smartphone, to 'click' the Semapedia Tag to retrieve the URL"

So, sadly this guy doesnt have a tourist guide but ... has access to the whole Internet! where he could bring up an online tourist guide or even type 'Hofburg' into Google. Again, I cant put my finger on it but this still seems like an unrefined approach...
posted by vacapinta at 11:23 AM on November 1, 2005

del - to quote wikipedia itself, "A barcode (also bar code) is a machine-readable representation of information in a visual format on a surface." Why would it need variable width?

vaca - yes, in that sense it's quite useless but without these useless proofs-of-concept there won't have been any groundwork laid for the real applications to follow.
posted by devbrain at 11:30 AM on November 1, 2005

Yea, I read that and thought the entire concept was a bit idealistic. But their efforts are appreciated.

Also 2d barcodes explained.
posted by thecollegefear at 11:31 AM on November 1, 2005

Even more 2D barcodes. Japanese cellphones now pretty much all have QR Code 2D barcode reading functions, because it's way easier to scan a code to jump to a URL on a flier, advertisement, or the like, than to type it all in by hand.
posted by Bugbread at 11:40 AM on November 1, 2005

Almost as useful as the :CueCat.
posted by NortonDC at 11:43 AM on November 1, 2005

There's no way that these tags will end up on even a small percentage of interesting places. There's just too many to tag. Furthermore, the tags are too likely to be removed by maintenance or security staff, random people, or the weather. Finally, imagine that there is one tag on any given place; these places are generally pretty large. What's the chance that someone who needs to use it will be able to find it?

It's a nice idea, but it'd make a lot more sense to try to combine google earth, wikipedia, and GPS and use your location to find entries. Or just use wikipedia and make the user enter search strings.
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:46 AM on November 1, 2005

My (chileaan) national ID card has a 2d barcode, so thanks for the exlplanation on wtf they are.
posted by signal at 11:48 AM on November 1, 2005

AKA littering.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:50 AM on November 1, 2005

I actually found out about semapedia ealier today after walking around Times Square during my lunchbreak. I spotted a semapedia 'Hell's Kitchen' sticker attached to a lamppost and decided to peel it off and stick it in my notebook.

Why the sticker had a link to Hell's Kitchen instead of Times Square is beyond me, but I found it interesting enough to feel inclined to post about it here.
posted by thecollegefear at 11:52 AM on November 1, 2005

and decided to peel it off and stick it in my notebook.

Now you've gone and ruined it for everybody.
posted by stbalbach at 11:56 AM on November 1, 2005

"So, sadly this guy doesnt have a tourist guide but ... has access to the whole Internet! where he could bring up an online tourist guide or even type 'Hofburg' into Google. Again, I cant put my finger on it but this still seems like an unrefined approach..."

Well, what if you didn't know it was called the "hofburg". Or what if it is something with a common name, like a statue. I agree its uses aren't transparent at this point, but I think it has a lot of potential.

Or here's another idea. You know you're going on a trip that you will journal about on your website. You could get some stickers printed before you go with the semacode to your website, and then stick them on places you go. It would be kind of a real-world guestbook that lets you link to the people that sign it. Of course, I guess you could just write out the address in plain text...
posted by gus at 12:01 PM on November 1, 2005

Thanks, but my BOZZKING DLX1 tag is sufficient enough.
posted by Down10 at 12:04 PM on November 1, 2005

Looks like an application for RFID. RFID is a zillion times better than barcode scanning, though the principles are somewhat similar.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:05 PM on November 1, 2005

I think this would work best as an application for gps enabled stuff. Enter your coordinates and get a cloud of annotations, sorted by distance.
posted by mecran01 at 2:05 PM on November 1, 2005

Our goal is to connect the virtual world with the physical world by bringing the best information from the internet to the relevant place in physical space.

We do this by combining the physical annotation technology of semacode with the availability of high quality information using the free encyclopedia Wikipedia.

Um. Since when are poorly written articles and rabid editors considered the best information from the internet?

Isn't high quality information an antonym for Wikipedia?

Wikipedia (and all its -pedia offspring) already litter search engine results.

Do we really need it littering meatspace with scraps of paper in varying degrees of weather decay?
posted by stringbean at 10:31 PM on November 1, 2005

Um. Since when are poorly written articles and rabid editors considered the best information from the internet?

Since Web 2.0. Duh!
posted by Jimbob at 11:15 PM on November 1, 2005

stringbean : "Isn't high quality information an antonym for Wikipedia?"

No.
posted by Bugbread at 4:31 AM on November 2, 2005

Bugbread: "No."

Do you take issue with my grammar or do you disagree with what I wrote about Wikipedia's information quality?

If you were just correcting my grammar (and I sincerely hope that you were), thank you. Please send me your usual proofreading rates and let me know how many hours you spent proofreading my last comment. (By the way, I tend to make quite a few grammatical errors online - do you offer bulk rates for your proofreading services?)

If you disagree with my statements regarding the quality of information, here is what a variety of sources had to say about Wikipedia:

"This is garbage, an incoherent hodge-podge of dubious factoids that adds up to something far less than the sum of its parts."

"Most contributions are poorly researched, or not researched at all. Accuracy depends mostly on the one website from which the contributor copied the information."

"There is no editorial selection. Some entries just grow and grow because some enthusiast who has no sense for what's important and what's not keeps adding pointless stuff to some entries."

"Due to extensive linkage within Wikipedia itself, a growing number of badly researched, incorrect Wikipedia articles is pushing down well-researched specialist websites in Google rankings."

"Text and concepts for Wikipedia entries are often blatantly copied from other websites. To avoid instant recognition, the text is sometimes rewritten, adding inaccuracies, inconsistencies or even errors. Due to the nature of the content and the open format of Wikipedia, no copyright holder can do anything about this."

"Wikipedia generates noise, not knowledge. Previous encyclopedias were well-researched and contained precise information that could be trusted to be correct. Wikipedia, on the other hand, contains a large amount of errors, omissions and superfluous trivia."

An entertaining description of Wikipedia appeared on Kuro5hin:

Currently Wikipedia contains 363950 articles, 10032 of which are genuine, and 343 of them factually accurate. Leaving Wikipedia on an academic par with "Star Wars: Incredible Cross-sections: The Ultimate Guide to Star Wars Vehicles and Spacecraft" and "My First Book of Animals from A to Z".

Even one of the founders of Wikipedia admitted to serious quality issues.

Most people will agree that Wikipedia is low quality information.

Don't get me wrong - when Wikipedia first came out I thought it was a brilliant concept and the idea of a free, collaborative encyclopedia excited me. Unfortunately, in its current form it is a pathetic site that does more harm than good. That is why I went on the offensive when Semapedia referred to this work-in-progress as the best information that the net has to offer. Until people start admitting that Wikipedia is broken, it will continue to be free and collaborative but it will never evolve into an encyclopedia.
posted by stringbean at 10:44 AM on November 2, 2005

stringbean : "Do you take issue with my grammar or do you disagree with what I wrote about Wikipedia's information quality?"

I disagree with what you wrote about the quality, and with some of the quotes you offered (but, importantly, I do agree with (or at least not-disagree-with) most). While I certainly don't think Wikipedia is flawless (and I'm not one of those people who think "It's flawed, but it's better than the alternative", nor "It's flawed, but the beauty is that we can fix it"), I just don't think it's so flawed as to warrant being called the antonym of 'high quality information'. It's medium quality information. Not high, but saying something isn't high isn't the same as saying it's low.
posted by Bugbread at 10:51 AM on November 2, 2005